Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Bad Writer]

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.

Code for: "Shit! What the fuck did I just read?!"

Well done, Jacob.