(March 11, 2014 at 7:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So tell us, if there were a billion people that were trying to force their 'gnome and leprechaun' morality on you, were trying to get 'gnome and leprechaun' based pseudoscience taught to your kids in public schools, trying to get 'gnome and leprechaun' prayers mandated in schools, persecuted minorities based on 'gnome and leprechaun' scripture, etc, you wouldn't be a bit vocal about it?

(March 11, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I do not think you read what I wrote.

I don't give a flying fuck what you wrote. Jake made the point that these were different colors.

I regard that as minor when compared to the nativity fuck-ups or the passover/day before passover crucifixion fuck-ups but what Jake said was accurate and you are trying oh-so-desperately to salvage your gospels.

Who gives a shit?

(March 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 7:03 pm)discipulus Wrote: I believe the Words of God are true and that they endure forever.

And you still didn't answer the question. Are you capable of giving a straight answer to this question?

(March 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: No one has ever talked to me like this. So, why are you here?

I am here for anyone who is willing to hear the truth. I am here because there was a time in my life when I did not care about anyone, even myself. But there were people who loved me even when I was unlovable and they showed me who God was, not by clever arguments or lofty knowledge, but by encouraging me, helping me, listening to my problems, comforting me when I was suffering from depression and a host of other ills. They showed me by their actions what love was. They met me where I was and did not demand anything from me. When I laughed in their faces and cursed their name and their God, they still loved me.

I used to rail against Christians more than anyone here. At one point in time I could make someone like Minimalist look like a saint. I cursed and railed and reviled the name of Christ and anyone who spoke His name.

But despite all of this waywardness, when I needed Jesus the most, He was right there waiting for me.

I did not come to know Him through a philosophical argument or a logical empirical proof. I came to know Him when I took what I knew and said: "God, if you are real, help me."

And Deidre, He did!

(March 11, 2014 at 7:23 pm)discipulus Wrote: Spare me the whole "I am a persecuted atheist and I am fighting for my rights that is why I am here on an atheist internet forum" line.

It is so ridiculous.

Quote:And anyway, what is it about the moral views of Christians that is so bad?

Do not murder, oh wow! That is such a horrible thing to say!

Do not steal, oh wow! I would never want my child to hear that!

Do not hate people or think evil of others because they happen to have different religious views, my goodness, what a horrible thing to teach a child!

(March 11, 2014 at 7:26 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 7:14 pm)discipulus Wrote: I am here for anyone who is willing to hear the truth. I am here because there was a time in my life when I did not care about anyone, even myself. But there were people who loved me even when I was unlovable and they showed me who God was, not by clever arguments or lofty knowledge, but by encouraging me, helping me, listening to my problems, comforting me when I was suffering from depression and a host of other ills. They showed me by their actions what love was. They met me where I was and did not demand anything from me. When I laughed in their faces and cursed their name and their God, they still loved me.

I used to rail against Christians more than anyone here. At one point in time I could make someone like Minimalist look like a saint. I cursed and railed and reviled the name of Christ and anyone who spoke His name.

But despite all of this waywardness, when I needed Jesus the most, He was right there waiting for me.

I did not come to know Him through a philosophical argument or a logical empirical proof. I came to know Him when I took what I knew and said: "God, if you are real, help me."

And Deidre, He did!

I appreciate you sharing that. I do. I'm not an atheist. I'm Agnostic, and the path for me anyways, led naturally there. I reject all forms of religion, and I don't believe there is proof of God. The Bible is not proof, but if a god exists, I'm open to the possibility. Mankind has been trying to solve the 'mysteries of life' equations for centuries. Long before Christianity, even. Long before civilizations, mankind has been trying to find answers to what he doesn't know. Christianity is one but many religions, discipulus. To think that it's real, and valuable, and relevant...and that it could mirror an actual God, is just...in my eyes, not genuine.

I did give my heart to God when I followed Christianity. I did believe. I wasn't going through the motions. I prayed often and fervently. You know don't me, but I know that I might come across as angry, but we're debating. lol In my offline life, I no longer struggle internally anymore. As much as I 'liked' being a Christian, and I did...I really did...I didn't like the angst that I felt, inside...because there came a point where I couldn't ignore truth. Real truth. This is what indoctrination does to people. You follow something long enough, you really think you believe it.

The Nazis were indoctrinated, and brainwashed for years, before they actually formed their group.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, and if you have found a life in worshipping a god, that is your choice. But, don't assume that I'm thristing for what you are. I didn't have any crisis of faith, I'm not jaded. I'm angry at times, because I see what religion does to people, to countries. It has done more harm than good, and no matter what you say, you can't deny that. It has caused wars. It has hurt minorities, and gay people. It divides and it conquers.

That's what it does. You coming to a site like this in hopes of getting people to convert...is also your choice. But religion assumes that people need something more than this life. That hope is somewhere 'out there.'

Happiness and hope exist in us all...if we just tap into it.

But, anyway. I appreciate your sharing. I don't think you're an asshole, discipulus, for whatever that's worth.

(March 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 7:26 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I appreciate you sharing that. I do. I'm not an atheist. I'm Agnostic, and the path for me anyways, led naturally there. I reject all forms of religion, and I don't believe there is proof of God. The Bible is not proof, but if a god exists, I'm open to the possibility. Mankind has been trying to solve the 'mysteries of life' equations for centuries. Long before Christianity, even. Long before civilizations, mankind has been trying to find answers to what he doesn't know. Christianity is one but many religions, discipulus. To think that it's real, and valuable, and relevant...and that it could mirror an actual God, is just...in my eyes, not genuine.

I did give my heart to God when I followed Christianity. I did believe. I wasn't going through the motions. I prayed often and fervently. You know don't me, but I know that I might come across as angry, but we're debating. lol In my offline life, I no longer struggle internally anymore. As much as I 'liked' being a Christian, and I did...I really did...I didn't like the angst that I felt, inside...because there came a point where I couldn't ignore truth. Real truth. This is what indoctrination does to people. You follow something long enough, you really think you believe it.

The Nazis were indoctrinated, and brainwashed for years, before they actually formed their group.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying, and if you have found a life in worshipping a god, that is your choice. But, don't assume that I'm thristing for what you are. I didn't have any crisis of faith, I'm not jaded. I'm angry at times, because I see what religion does to people, to countries. It has done more harm than good, and no matter what you say, you can't deny that. It has caused wars. It has hurt minorities, and gay people. It divides and it conquers.

That's what it does. You coming to a site like this in hopes of getting people to convert...is also your choice. But religion assumes that people need something more than this life. That hope is somewhere 'out there.'

Happiness and hope exist in us all...if we just tap into it.

But, anyway. I appreciate your sharing. I don't think you're an asshole, discipulus, for whatever that's worth.

I will be here for you in whatever way I can. I know you do not believe these words are from God, but they have encouraged me. I hope they encourage you too.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

(March 11, 2014 at 5:52 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

---

[hide]
As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

[hide]
I am happy my friend that you have shared with me this matter. It appears that it has caused you to have some doubts about the reliability of the gospels.

I do not think what you have told me is an insurmountable problem. If the gospels writers were indeed inspired by God to write what they did, I believe their accounts must not contradict one another.

So let us look at the passages in question.

The only time Matthew uses the world "scarlet" in his gospel is in the 28th verse of chapter 27. In fact, no other gospel writer uses the term "scarlet" when referring to Jesus' robe, which actually was not His robe, but a robe put on Him by Roman soldiers. Keep this in mind as we work through this study.

Matthew 27:28 reads: καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν χλαμύδα κοκκίνην περιέθηκαν αὐτῷ.

The bolded word is the one in question. It is in the accusative feminine singular because the word "robe" in Greek is a feminine noun. According to strong's concordance it is defined as: crimson, scarlet, dyed with Kermes (coccum), the female coccus of the Kermes oak.

The word scarlet appears five more times in the New Testament. Once in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and four times in the Book of Revelation. Out of the four instances which this word is used in the Book of Revelation, two times it is used in conjunction with the word "purple".

Keep this also in mind as we work through this.

Also bear in mind that while the two terms were used primarily to denote colors, they were also frequently used during this time period to denote "fine" linen, and were representative of royalty, power, and other similar concepts.

Moving on......

Turning to the word "purple".

Mark uses the word twice in his gospel both instances in reference to the robe the Roman soldiers put on Jesus.

Mark 15:17 reads: καὶ ἐνδιδύσκουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ πλέξαντες

The word is used again by Mark in the 20th verse.

John uses the word twice also referring to the same robe in the 2nd and 5th verses of the 19th chapter of his gospel. The same exact word is used a total of four times by Mark and John, each instance it is used is in reference to Jesus' robe put on Him by the Romans.

According to Strong's concordance the term is used to denote a purple (reddish-purple) cloth or dye. See 4209 (porphýra).

The Greek language even contained a specific name for a garment that was purple. The word is "porphýra" – purple, symbolic of "royal status" (L & N, 1, 79.38). There were three familiar shades of purple in the ancient world: deep violet, deep scarlet (or crimson), and deep blue (WP, 2, 220).

So to recap, Matthew describes Jesus' robe as a "scarlet" robe and only speaks of the robe specifically using this term one time in his gospel while both Mark and John use the word "purple" a total of four times. Also, do not forget, the author of the Book of Revelation uses both words in conjunction two times to denote power and honor. Also bear in mind that in the ancient world, there were several shades of purple. A deep violet which would be considered the purest and most valuable dye used in the process of coloring clothing and would be reserved for those elite of Roman society, you then had a deep scarlet shade of purple which was usually reserved for Military commanders and officers. The robe in question was no doubt one such robe and had probably been worn and faded due to exposure to the sun. Hence the Romans did not mind wrapping it around the body of a bloody Jewish man. This robe when new would rightly have been referred to as a "scarlet" robe even though after use and exposure to the sun the robe would fade and appear purplish in color especially when under certain lighting conditions not unlike clothes we see today that were once a very rich and vibrant color appearing after much use to be faded and "lighter".

Bearing in mind also that the process of dyeing clothes in the ancient world and the process of dyeing clothes today differed. The dye in clothes made today lasts much longer than the dye used in the ancient world due to the simple fact that we have at our disposal advanced technology and an assortment of various methods and means to dye clothes. Back then they used what nature supplied them with so it is in no way unreasonable to think that a reddish purplish robe would after some time fade in such a way as to be perceived by some as being purple.

In addition we must remember that Matthew was writing with a specific audience in mind. He was writing to Jews and his gospel was a biography which focused on Jesus as being the long awaited Messiah of Israel i.e the one of whom the many symbols and types and shadows found in the Old Testament was referring to. The use of the phrase "scarlet robe" which is unique to Matthew is no doubt an allusion to the symbols found in the Old Testament described by the same word. Scarlet articles were a part of various rituals that were to be undertaken by the people of God and even the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to this fact. So Matthew, when speaking of Jesus to his fellow Jews, utilizes phrases and words that his audience would have no doubt understood and portrays Him as The One in whom all of the types and shadows of the Old Testament find their fulfillment.

In light of the above Jacob(smooth) the fact that Matthew uses a different word to describe Jesus' robe than Mark and John do is no contradiction at all. It is not even what many would call a "difficulty". Matthew, rightly calling the robe a "scarlet" robe does so in order that his audience might see Jesus as the King of the Jews and The One in whom all of the types and shadows of the Old Testament find their fruition, and Mark and John also rightly call the robe a "purple" robe, no doubt because of its color, but even more so because it was symbolic of Kingship.

There is no need to go to the lengths of saying well, maybe there were two robes, or one robe made of two different colors of cloth. No no no. The robe was more than likely a robe of one color, used and worn and faded, and the soldiers who thought they were mocking Jesus, unbeknownst to them were inadvertently acknowledging His true Kingship.

So these accounts instead of discouraging you, should give you all the more reason to believe that even when evil men believe that they are mocking and spurning God, they are actually only making themselves look like fools.

---