Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Jacob(smooth)]

---

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.

---

Jacob when I was in kindergarten, we were out of Blue paint - and I asked the teacher "how do you mix blue paint?" She said "you can't mix it from other colours, it's a primary colour". I believed this lie until I was in the 10th or 11th grade. You in fact make blue by mixing equal parts cyan and magenta. You make Red by mixing equal parts magenta and yellow. And you make Green by mixing equal parts cyan and yellow.

So the teacher should have said to me "I don't know how to make blue paint", instead of making the wrong assumption that it couldn't be done or the assumption that it is somehow a "primary colour".

There is evidence that the Romans of the era called certain purple shades "red". But ultimately, the colour is in the eye of the witness. No object in the universe truly possess a colour property, I suspect you may actually know this.

Jesus stands trial before dawn - when it's still dark. We, like all mammals, can't see colour at night since our rods are active and not our cones. Or more precisely, depending on the lighting conditions we can perceive some colour but can't discern it very well. In these conditions a BLUE robe could be easily mistaken to be Red, let alone a Purple Robe.

Right. Exactly the conclusion I reached. You've described, better than me, why this passage is such a big deal.

What you are saying is that the bible recorded what the witnesses saw, rather than what was actually there (colour in the eye of the witnesses) . And if that's the case the whole account becomes subject to the credulity of the witnesses!

Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

[DarkHorse]

Well put Jacob!

[discipulus]

Jacob when I was in kindergarten, we were out of Blue paint - and I asked the teacher "how do you mix blue paint?" She said "you can't mix it from other colours, it's a primary colour". I believed this lie until I was in the 10th or 11th grade. You in fact make blue by mixing equal parts cyan and magenta. You make Red by mixing equal parts magenta and yellow. And you make Green by mixing equal parts cyan and yellow.

So the teacher should have said to me "I don't know how to make blue paint", instead of making the wrong assumption that it couldn't be done or the assumption that it is somehow a "primary colour".

There is evidence that the Romans of the era called certain purple shades "red". But ultimately, the colour is in the eye of the witness. No object in the universe truly possess a colour property, I suspect you may actually know this.

Jesus stands trial before dawn - when it's still dark. We, like all mammals, can't see colour at night since our rods are active and not our cones. Or more precisely, depending on the lighting conditions we can perceive some colour but can't discern it very well. In these conditions a BLUE robe could be easily mistaken to be Red, let alone a Purple Robe.

Right. Exactly the conclusion I reached. You've described, better than me, why this passage is such a big deal.

What you are saying is that the bible recorded what the witnesses saw, rather than what was actually there (colour in the eye of the witnesses) . And if that's the case the whole account becomes subject to the credulity of the witnesses!

Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

Not a very good argument Jacob. Not good at all.

But some think it is good. So I feel compelled to address it and will do so when time permits me.

[Mudhammam]

Right. Exactly the conclusion I reached. You've described, better than me, why this passage is such a big deal.

What you are saying is that the bible recorded what the witnesses saw, rather than what was actually there (colour in the eye of the witnesses) . And if that's the case the whole account becomes subject to the credulity of the witnesses!

Look at it this way. I go to see a magic show. I see a woman sawn in half. I write an account of that show and say "and Marvo sawed velula in half and everyone was amazed.". 2000 years later when the gospel of Jacob is being critiqued as part of the critique of marvoanity, someone says "can't have been a trick, everyone in the auditorium was amazed!"

But he didn't! That's just my perception. And if I Then claim my account is the inspired word of God and you read it, thinking it's inerrant then you'd believe that on that day Marvo really DID saw a woman in half!

If a purple robe could be mistaken for a red one, an affair could be mistaken for an immaculate conception, or a chat for healing. If we accept that the authors made mistakes, it opens the door to all kinds of unhappy possibilities. Not least the whole thing being essentially made up!

Not a very good argument Jacob. Not good at all.

But some think it is good. So I feel compelled to address it and will do so when time permits me.

I think it was less of an argument and more an observation about how human brains actually function.

[pocaracas]

Some christians seem to think that human brains work as flawlessly as their alleged creator...
Even when they themselves suffer from such flaws and are aware of them...
Go figure!

[*Deidre*]

Outstanding post, Jacob!

Also, just as a side note...back during that time period, prior to Christianity being "born," it wasn't uncommon for stories of "the gods" impregnating mortals to be a typical tale. I have to wonder why the level of gullibility (ignorance?) was so high back then, but whatever.

If you look into the history of that mythology, you will see that the idea had taken shape before Jesus came on the scene.

[Mudhammam]

I should clarify, we all agree the Gospel writers were human beings, right Disc?

[discipulus]

I should clarify, we all agree the Gospel writers were human beings, right Disc?

Yes.

[Esquilax]

That's good, because otherwise this discussion could've gotten weird.

[*Deidre*]

...lol