A: "Hey Dan, John came over for dinner yesterday. It was fun."

B: "Oh, it's a shame Mandy couldn't come."

A: "No, she came too."

B: "BUT YOU JUST SAID IT WAS JOHN THAT CAME OVER CONTRADICTION CONTRADICTION ERROR ERROR"

This post was edited by Voyaging on Aug 9 2012 05:30pm

A: "Dan is wearing a green hat"
B: "Dan is wearing a blue hat"
C: "Dan is wearing a yellow hat"

Conclusions: Dan is wearing 3 hats

why was Dan not invited? A is a terrible person

See my post. Nobody wants to invite a 3-hatted person.

Well, that's a possibility, but it's far less likely than for there to have been multiple people but only specify one.

Y'all like to stretch.

Well yeah. I mean if I went to a cave and there was a guy and two angels in there, I'd only mention that there was the guy. And an angel rolling away some stone for me? Screw that, I'm writing "some stone rolled away while two dudes stood nearby". Much more likely than a guy wearing 3 funny hats.

edit: angel wasn't in big enough font

second edit:
I mean for real....
B: "Hey A, have you ever seen anything amazing or really interesting?"

A: "Yeah, we had TWO FUCKING ANGELS at that dinner that John and Mandy came for. I just didn't mention them last time."

This post was edited by russian on Aug 9 2012 05:50pm

Apparently the writers didn't feel like nitpicking minor details when a much larger event was at hand.

Here we see an example of rationalizing. Take pictures, a more perfect example is hard to find.

So somebody mentions two hobos loafing around, but forgets to mention the angel rolling away the stone and the two angels sitting inside? And THESE are the people you are relying on for historical information?

The only rationalizing going on is that of the anti-Christians here trying to act as if they have found actual contradictions rather than slight nuances in detail among the Gospels.

The same could be said for hundreds of historical documents.