Supposed Contradictions

Scarlett, :thumbs:
(Did you see my new "baby" in my avitar? I know you love cats.)

I would be really interested in how this "former minister" became an unbeliever. Maybe you could start another thread on that.

 

I believe that there was more than one robe, when you look at the four accounts concordantly and synopically. A friend of mine did a sermon on this that I will forward to you if I can find it. (I can't remember if that was the focus of the sermon or simply mentioned, so I don't know if I'll be able to cross-reference it.)

 

Some (note I don't say "much") of the Bible is ""stories" for us to learn from." They are either "parables or illustrations, and Jesus used them fairly frequently to make a point or convey a truth. However, only about a fourth of the Bible is either direct doctrinal teaching(s) or these sorts of illustrations.

That still leaves about three fourths, of "either history or prophecy.

Some one fourth of the Bible is "prophecy" and half of it is history, which history, in all instances, purports to be 'literally' true.

I agree with this part. The prophecies may be somewhat subject to 'interpretation' by us. The 'history' is not. Either it is true, or it is not, in each instance. And, as did the late Dr. W. A. Criswell, I believe and 'preach' it to be 'literally' true, in every instance.

As someone once said, "From Genesis to Maps." :thumbsup:

Ed

 

I will give this a jab. Question of why did I end up in three hospital? Because, I hurt and bruised my body up upon a high impact accident. The results were enormious. But it was very clear what all humans have identical insides. The inner parts of all of us are the same. Now about the issue of Color of the robe or the cloth put upon Jesus body that WAS Observed by each of the writers of scripture describing listed in board posting number one. When the hospital staff gave me blood, what color was it? Purple! Why? Because no oxygen got to it. Also what was the color of my blood at the accident, that every one was reporting to the police reports? Purple. Why? Because it was large Veins--not the arteries cut or severed. IF the Arteries had been cut on me, the blood would pump out bright red scarlet blood because of oxygen and come out in tremendous force as well as causing death sooner on any human. Jesus was God man to show us that HE to bleeds blood. The cloth Jesus was wearing was changing color because of his bleeding upon the material by His body either by the VEINS or the Arterues. So, ask that minister why He does not experiment on his own born body from his mother womb and test the results to see if this is not true. That humans have two colors of blood--purple and scarlet. Simple! He definitely does not have blue antifreeze coming out of him yet? Been there and done it. By the grace of God and his love for me, am I now able to share this with you. By the way, at the hospital they said that on a windy day the purple blood coming out of a human changes to a brighter red. Why? The red blood cells have not died yet and are able to recieve the oxygen nesscary to live longer by the wind velocity until it dries out and then changes color to purple to creat a scab. Now the blood is dead.

 

This is not a direct answer, but I thought might help you in the approach. This is from the book "Four Faces OF Jesus" by Leslie B. Flynn.

"Here is the thesis of this book. As a building may be viewed from four different sides, so the Holy Spirit photographed the Lord Jesus from four varying viewpoints. Though He is the glorious subject of all four Gospels, each writer stressed a specific side of His personality, and so under inspiration selected materials that develop that particular trait. Later chapters will show why each writer included details and omitted others.

Many differences in the Gospels can be explained by the varying purposes of the writers. Authors often viewed Jesus from diverse angles, like two knights who fatally wounded each other in a fight over whether a shield was bronze or gold. Both were right, for one side was bronze, and the other gold. But approaching from opposite sides, each saw a different metal. Close examination of many Gospel accounts show them not contradictory, but complimentary. Experts in jurisprudence remind us that if witnesses use precisely the same words on the witness stand, we suspect coaching and collusion. Differing but reconcilable accounts in the Gospels raise our confidence in the author's credibility. "
- Leslie B. Flynn

 

I'm not sure why you made this comment, since this could very well be a significant part, or whole, of the solution. I am a graphic artist and deal with color perception and variation regularly.

First, about 8% of the male population is 'color blind' (this is a difference in the eye). Second, it is a scientific fact that every person sees color somewhat differently (this is a difference in the brain). Color perception in humans is subjective (color can now be objectively measured by modern instruments).

Third, color surfaces can appear extremely different under various lighting conditions (say, outdoor natural sunlight versus indoor light cast by tortch flame); the perception of color is affected by the spectrum of the light source and reflection off of other colored surfaces. Fourth, the description of color can be influenced in contrast of surrounding enviroment (bright, dark, or vivid backgrounds).

A contradiction might be if the same viewer, under precisely equivalent conditions, stated different results.

 

Although there seems to be agreement between Mark and John in the English translation ("purple"), they actually use different words in Greek (both also different from Matthew).

 

It is not "incorrect" for an individual to report accurately what their senses perceive.

If these folks on the other forum do not accept the natural complexity and diversity of rational science, then perhaps they are unreachable.

 

I have in front of me the book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W. Haley (Published by Baker Book House). Unfortunately, though, I cannot find any reference in it to the colour of the robe that was placed on Christ.

As to who placed it, could the same kind of mockery have taken place both at Herod's court and at Pilate's?

 

While bleeding onto the cloth may have changed the appearance, I do not find this a convincing solution. Notice Matthew 27:28 (KJV) --

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.​

This narrative seems to describe the robe as being "scarlet" even before it is place upon His bloodied back, in contrast to Mark's account that describes the cloth as "purple" (15:17, KJV) --

And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his [head],​

These descriptions seem to be of the robe's original color at the time of its initial placing.

Whether red or purple to begin with, I am unconvinced that the robe would appear as the other color due to bleeding. My experience with blood is that while a small amount is red at first, larger amounts are deep red, and begins to turn brownish. Bleeding might make a white garment redish, but I don't think a purple robe would become red-looking (of course, a red cloth would practically unaffected by the addition of blood, perhaps appearing darker from being wet).