The Daily Paul has been archived.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: you have no idea

(See in situ)

you have no idea

You have no idea what I am talking about. When I say there is only one concept of contradiction, I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about the fact that a contradiction is a contradiction. a Contradiction is when two points are mutually exclusive, one point has direct conflict with another, to the point that no harmonization is possible. Again, I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about Logic.

And now to talk about the bible; contradiction does not appear in the Bible, if it did, it would be demonstrable by showing mutual exclusivity between two points. you have not done that.

please please please take a logic class. you don't know what you are talking about. if you did take a logic class, believe me, you would understand what I am saying even if you didn't agree with me about the truth of the Bible, but right now you don't know what I'm talking about. you would learn the difference between 'if' and 'if and only if' .. logic is more important than arithmetic, so I am concerned about your other choices and thoughts in life as well.

"An account DID say there were two. It's asinine to expect it to say there were ONLY two. Who tells a story in such a way?
"Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were three of us."
"ONLY Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were NO MORE THAN three of us."
You'd seriously expect any storyteller to be this explicit? Please."

I don't expect a story teller to be explicit about every detail, but apparently you do. you are saying there is a contradiction because one account didn't mention the other angel who was in the tomb. To say there were three of us at the movies is a true statement even if there were four of us. if there are four people, and you start counting, can you get to three? yes, it is possible to count to three when you have the option to count to four. But the Gospel account was not a test question response as to how many were in the tomb. but really what difference does it make how many angels were in the tomb aside from atheists looking for something to complain about? Do you think it really mattered to that Gospel writer how many angels were there? Do you know what the point of that account was? did that point have anything to do with the number of angels in the tomb? you are majoring in the minors, focusing on a peripheral piece of information as if it was the focus of the communication and then faulting them for not being more specific. You still have not shown mutual exclusivity, and you never will be able to in this instance, you've pretty much admitted that by acknowledging that it doesn't say there were only a specific amount there.

""account X decided not to mention others present in the room", as you are doing, is absolutely, undeniably inserting new information into an existing work. By combining these accounts you're creating assumptions regarding who chose to include or neglect what detail."

Nonsense. I'm not inserting new information, Both accounts already existed, I'm merely showing that they are compatible. The only new stuff in one account is from the other account, and that is what you do when you compare accounts, you see if they fit together. If one witness says there was only one burglar and he had white shoes, and another witness says the burglar had a red hat, you don't assume they saw different people, you look for a burglar with a red hat and white shoes. Why is it that you say the different accounts were never meant to go together, but then you put them together to erroneously claim there is a contradiction which there isn't? you fail your own criteria of analysis, and your criteria is not used by anyone, not even you. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even serious.

Again.. take a logic class.. you need it. but understand, I don't mean logic in the street sense of basic understanding, I don't suggest the class as an insult. I mean it in the formal sense of a philosophical course on logic, which is sort of like a math class dealing with logic. you would benefit from understanding the terminology and how things work.