angelo

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5503447]


If you cannot see any contradictions in the gospels, please remove you blinkers, you may see a little better. :grin:

Amaleq13

No, you are wrong though I suspect it is more a question of being willfully obtuse rather than genuine confusion. First, you need an "only" in front of the former for any additions to contradict it (same as for the planes). Second, you are ignoring the quotes placed around the identification of an additional involved individual as well as the difference between a count of the number of planes that attacked the towers and a count of the total number of hijacked planes.

The authors of the later statements are not contradicting each other but they are also not telling the same story. The author of the later statements are quite clearly adding to the first.

Analogies are a usually complete waste of time in such "discussions", folks. They explain nothing and generally serve only to create lengthy tangents.

Doug Shaver

You say so.

The failure to date of any Christian to successfully meet Barker's challenge says otherwise.

ChristMyth

Agreed.

I just wish aChristian would stop using that smiley face after each post as if it means something. Its almost as annoying as his/her willful ignorance.

Christmyth

aa5874

Fantastic. aChristian has self-destructed.

sschlichter

Your post was an ambiguous and contrived version of my original post - like a copy of a copy. I did not need to put my finger in my ear to ignore.

My orignal post were actual lines of actual articles that appeared to contradict. However, they do not contradict because we are privy to the context or the surrounding details of each statement. It was a point made in the context of a discussion that is a month old. This occurs in the gospels because they are also phenomenal records, not technical. Ie. they are recorded in the context of the eyewitness and his context, language, and culture is what is needed to fully understand what he is saying.

the recent posters seem to understand this point quite well since they are arguing it now on behalf of your post. I am interested to know why everyone was so obtuse when applying the same argument to the gospels.

Amaleq13

The same argument does not apply to the Gospel description of who met the women at the tomb since the accounts do not agree about the nature of who met the women. A young man is not an angel and there is nothing analogous to this in your "analogy".

You need a report of something like the additional involvement of a helicopter.

thentian

[/QUOTE]

Christmyth's post was an analysis of your post, showing that your analogy was a bad one.

The gospels all explain the context of the crucifixion and resurrection in several preceding chapters. Everybody perfectly understands what is meant by angels, young men, earthquakes and what have you.

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not eyewitnesses. (Even if we allow that one or two of them were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, none of them were eyewitnesses at the grave.)

The problems remain if we read the gospels in greek, and we are well acquainted with the culture from the preceding chapters (if not it is grounds for another charge of bad authorship on the part of the holy spirit).

Nothing is needed to fully understand what e.g. Mark means when he writes: "On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side..."

Because the same argument does not apply to the 9/11 events. I am sure thousands of american schoolchildren have written assignments about the 9/11 events. Noone has yet met the Easter Challenge.

ChristMyth

I would also like it to be noted that, while the example might have been a month old, aChristian was still hailing it and the Lincoln example as undefeated examples of how the gospel accounts did not contradict any more than modern newspapers might. This is the only reason that I analyzed it in the first place, to show that the examples do not fit in the same category as the Resurrection narratives.

Christmyth

aChristian

I know exactly what I am saying. I don't know if any of you really don't see it, but in case there is any one of you making an honest mistake I will explain it. I have already said that the 911 stories are all correct even though they can be read as a contradiction if you ignore the information that is commonly known by most people who read newspapers or watch tv. It is only because you know this information that you can easily put the different 911 stories together and see no contradiction. The only difference between the 911 story and the gospels is you don't know all the unwritten details about it because you are 2000 years away. I was actually mock imitating your identical arguements on the gospels, applying them to 911. To add to the mock imitation, I would say that it is obvious that the 20th hijacker story was obviously added by a later redacter, probably an American redacter because we all know of the common American tendency to round numbers. It has been established in many scholarly studies. I could get rid of the happy face if it really bugs you. I just put it there to express a friendly response even if I am disagreeing with you. I also like the smiley.