What Color was Jesus' Robe?

Jesus was given fermented wine which was also called vinegar. According to the Greek words, in all of the gospels, this is consistent. Mark mentions myrrh and Matthew mentions gall being mixed with this fermented wine. These are synonymous because both came from a tree and were used for the same purposes.

Simply because John didn't mention it being mixed, this isn't a contradiction. It is an omission and expected from a different person's perspective.

Mark 15:25 says the third hour.

John 19:14 clearly says it was "about the sixth hour." In this verse, there are even distinct Greek words used for "about," "sixth" and "hour." John forgot his watch, so he had to estimate.

All of these accounts mention an inscription that was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Mark and Luke record it saying "The King of the Jews." Matthew records, "Jesus the King of the Jews." John records, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." These differences are negligible and are not contradicting. A disagreement or contradiction would be one saying, "Jesus of Lebanon, King of the Greeks." All of the gospels record similar and congruent statements.

Citation: these answers were taken from my full rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible; which is an exhaustive atheist commentary on the Bible. See here for more answers: http://skepticsannotatedbible.org (e.g. free sample, examples, etc.).

God bless,
Jason

 

JohnV: "You're sidestepping the issue. Again kindly explain the differing accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb. They contradict.

There are NO contradictions in the differing account. The fact that one account mentions 1 woman and another mentions 2 is NOT a contradiction. It is only a contradition if one account said ONLY 1 woman, and the other said EXACTLY 2 women. But as it stands, if you've got 2 women, then you also have 1 woman---no contradiction! The same argumnet applies to your other "contradictions". AS such you have shown no true contradictions, only differing accounts that give different, but complementary accounts. Keep looking...

 

I'm colorblind and couldn't see the difference in any account. My only concern is in the meanings of the words. If they are incompatable and mutually exclusive then the author isn't God. If the author isn't God THEN and only then will my answer be, "Who cares?".

 

I'm so glad you addressed this because I already have here: http://www.colonialview.com/KJV/robe/robe.htm

But let me cut to the quick:

Murex is a "purple" shellfish, although the dye can come out from a bright blue to a scarlet.

So "Purple" meant it came from the "purple" dye, but it's color was scarlet.

That same "purple" fish also made bright (near cobalt blue) color for the phylacteries of that age.


Remember
Roses are red,
but violet's aren't violet - they're BLUE.

It's not a Biblical Error at all, it's a translation issue, but also a problem with us: we live in a society where dye's are made in laboratories and we don't use cyanide to make cyan or arsenic to make yellow.

I believe it's the quantity of Boron (?) in the dye that varies the color. You might also want to check out this book:

The Red Dyes: Cochineal, Madder And Murex Purple: A World Tour of Textile Dying by Gosta Sandberg

Yes, "purple" is "scarlet".

God Bless, and I hope this helps.

 

Nope, not for me!