The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: 8 -0 thats my expression sideways

(See in situ)

8 -0 thats my expression sideways

wow, you really don't get it.

It doesn't say what temperature it was that day so are all of the gospels lying by omission? you didn't tell me if you ate anything while typing, so are you lying by omission? No account anywhere is completely exhaustive about every bit of information like the alignment of electrons at a given moment during a certain event being reported. A lie would have to be deception, and there is no reason to believe that there was a deception about how many angels were in the tomb. Normal human language leaves out details all of the time, you probably do it too, you might tell someone that you went to the store, but didn't see a point in telling them that you went to the gas station on the way back, does that make you a liar? Remember to use the principle of charity to avoid unfounded and unnecessary accusations. I'm amazed that you really don't know what a contradiction is. There are no mutually exclusive claims in any of the gospels, that means there are no contradictions. A vastly different account isn't a contradiction if there is no mutual exclusivity. I'll say it again to you.. you can call a man fat, and you can call the same man tall, but there is no contradiction because tall and fat do not negate each other; they are compatible concepts. If there is any possibility of harmonizing two accounts, even if that harmonization wasn't the true state of affairs, there is still no contradiction. The mere possibility of harmonization demonstrates the lack of mutual exclusivity, so it really doesn't matter how it is harmonized if all you are trying to demonstrate is that there is no contradiction. You need to take a logic class and learn the basics.

"The truth is, these accounts were never meant to be combined--their authors had no idea the others existed, "

That only adds to the reliability of the testimonies and rules out collusion. Check out Simon Greenleafs legal examination of the testimonies of the evangelists according to the rules of legal evidence of which he wrote the books used in courts.. He wasn't christian but was asked to study it under his rules and he became a christian in the process.