Their witness does not agree

[Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 50 by Athetotheist]

If you have another perceived inconsistency that I haven't already delt with feel free to provide the specific scriptural reference along with a clear question or objection. I'm uninterested in wading through nebulous streams of consciousness regardless of how interesting I find the general topic.

Have a most excellent holiday weekend,


JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 50 by Athetotheist]

If you have another perceived inconsistency that I haven't already delt with feel free to provide the specific scriptural reference along with a clear question or objection. I'm uninterested in wading through nebulous streams of consciousness regardless of how interesting I find the general topic.

Have a most excellent holiday weekend,


JW

I was trying to point out that you really haven't dealt with any inconsistency, because if there weren't any inconsistencies, no "explanations" would be needed.

What it all comes down to is that if you can speculate however you want to in order to make disagreements agree, then no case can be made against the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14. We're not told all of what they said, so it isn't demonstrated to us that their witness didn't agree.

You have a good weekend too.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56) If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

The usage of Mark 14:55-56 (as support) is somewhat unusual and unrelated to the resurrection story. This is clear by the reality that the witnesses were false witnesses! Which, implies that they were involved in some type of conspiracy and appeared foolish, because they didn't agree. However, the most glaring point of this analogy is that it didn't matter that there weren't any reliable witnesses. The Christ was still crucified! Why?

The Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree that the resurrection occurred…Where, the individual writings "support the event" in a clear and concise way! They each declare that the Christ was crucified, buried, the stone was rolled and he was resurrected. This is the only direct evidence, which is relevant…The adding of "color" or information that doesn't affect the main topic (the resurrection of the Christ) is not that essential and is only an option and not a requirement.

The law in Deut. 19:15-21 clearly details what God requires, related to witnesses. Where, by the mouth or in this case: a writing, a matter shall be established by 2-3 witnesses. Matthew, introduces two of the available witnesses, which he would have had direct contact with. He records that the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and he had risen. Thus, the recordings in Matthew can be established as reliable…Mark, introduces three witnesses. Yet, he doesn't go into the type of details that Matthew does. Which, would imply that he already knew that such information was available in other writings. But, he does supply the main or most important facts, such as: the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and the Christ rose from the dead! Hence, Mark's records become the second to establish the reliability of the resurrection. Luke, builds his records on the platform of historical evidence. He records that there were actually more than three women present at the tomb and introduces new information, not included in Matthew and Mark. This just shows that Luke searched diligently for the full story, not being among the inner circle or a witness. Thus, he found additional information. Yet, he also records the most important facts: the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and that the Christ had risen…Therefore, there are three similar recordings that support the resurrection of the Christ and would be considered reliable, under the laws of God!

So, what about the fourth gospel (John)? Well, the fourth gospel has its issues and is not considered to have a common view, related to subject matter and the Synoptic gospels. Since, John doesn't record the witnesses required in Deut. 19:15-21, where this book only acknowledges Mary of Magdala from among the several women who would have witnessed the burial of the Christ and the empty tomb…Thus, it cannot be recognized as support or refutation for the resurrection. The main issue, with the fourth gospel is that it "probably" didn’t come to be until the late second or through the early fourth century, because of its strong Trinitarian influence. Which, was not part of the early church teachings. Also, there is biblical evidence that the Apostle John was not the writer of the fourth gospel.

So, by using the Synoptic gospels, there are no valid reasons for anyone to reject the reality of the Christ's resurrection…Thus, when we have writings, where individual writers "add" additional information, which others did not, this is known as clarification, not inconsistencies!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 1 by Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56) If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

The usage of Mark 14:55-56 (as support) is somewhat unusual and unrelated to the resurrection story. This is clear by the reality that the witnesses were false witnesses! Which, implies that they were involved in some type of conspiracy and appeared foolish, because they didn't agree. However, the most glaring point of this analogy is that it didn't matter that there weren't any reliable witnesses. The Christ was still crucified! Why?

The Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree that the resurrection occurred…Where, the individual writings "support the event" in a clear and concise way! They each declare that the Christ was crucified, buried, the stone was rolled and he was resurrected. This is the only direct evidence, which is relevant…The adding of "color" or information that doesn't affect the main topic (the resurrection of the Christ) is not that essential and is only an option and not a requirement.

The law in Deut. 19:15-21 clearly details what God requires, related to witnesses. Where, by the mouth or in this case: a writing, a matter shall be established by 2-3 witnesses. Matthew, introduces two of the available witnesses, which he would have had direct contact with. He records that the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and he had risen. Thus, the recordings in Matthew can be established as reliable…Mark, introduces three witnesses. Yet, he doesn't go into the type of details that Matthew does. Which, would imply that he already knew that such information was available in other writings. But, he does supply the main or most important facts, such as: the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and the Christ rose from the dead! Hence, Mark's records become the second to establish the reliability of the resurrection. Luke, builds his records on the platform of historical evidence. He records that there were actually more than three women present at the tomb and introduces new information, not included in Matthew and Mark. This just shows that Luke searched diligently for the full story, not being among the inner circle or a witness. Thus, he found additional information. Yet, he also records the most important facts: the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone was rolled away and that the Christ had risen…Therefore, there are three similar recordings that support the resurrection of the Christ and would be considered reliable, under the laws of God!

So, what about the fourth gospel (John)? Well, the fourth gospel has its issues and is not considered to have a common view, related to subject matter and the Synoptic gospels. Since, John doesn't record the witnesses required in Deut. 19:15-21, where this book only acknowledges Mary of Magdala from among the several women who would have witnessed the burial of the Christ and the empty tomb…Thus, it cannot be recognized as support or refutation for the resurrection. The main issue, with the fourth gospel is that it "probably" didn’t come to be until the late second or through the early fourth century, because of its strong Trinitarian influence. Which, was not part of the early church teachings. Also, there is biblical evidence that the Apostle John was not the writer of the fourth gospel.

So, by using the Synoptic gospels, there are no valid reasons for anyone to reject the reality of the Christ's resurrection…Thus, when we have writings, where individual writers "add" additional information, which others did not, this is known as clarification, not inconsistencies!

Mark 14:55-56 is directly related to the resurrection, because it's directly related to the issue of a story's veracity. The gospel writers' "main topic" is just their common goal: the promotion of the gospel story. The details they use to promote that goal do not agree.

We're told that many witnesses came forth to accuse Jesus, but we have only the word of gospel writers [whose own details disagree] that they were false. If they all agreed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, satisfying the law's requirement for witnesses, what is it then if they differed in their details? We're not told all of what they said, so how are we to know that their witness couldn't be "harmonized" by someone with as much ingenuity as is used to "harmonize" the inconsistent details of the gospel accounts?

Even if there are technically enough witnesses to establish something, if those witnesses are disqualified by their witness not agreeing then they are disqualified----regardless of whether they're accusing someone of blasphemy or claiming that he rose from the dead.

[FWI]

Mark 14:55-56 is directly related to the resurrection, because it's directly related to the issue of a story's veracity.

It should be obvious that I disagree. When, continuing to read verses 57-64 it is clear that the point of the issue was not about the resurrection, but about the claim that Jesus was: "the Messiah and the Son of God." The high priest announces that there is no further need of witnesses, because Jesus readily claimed the issue as being valid! Thus, Jesus was charged with blasphemy. However, there is no such reference, which relates to blasphemy that addresses claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God as a crime or a sin…So, it is clear that this is an entirely different subject matter and the records clearly state the reality of this…

If they all agreed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, satisfying the law's requirement for witnesses, what is it then if they differed in their details? We're not told all of what they said, so how are we to know that their witness couldn't be "harmonized" by someone with as much ingenuity as is used to "harmonize" the inconsistent details of the gospel accounts?

Well, this is precisely the weakness in the false witnesses augment! They didn't produce any such evidence, because there isn't any to produce. However, by combining or harmonizing the witnesses, in the Synoptic gospels, we are given all the details needed to support the resurrection. There is no need for these writings to be exact copies of each other, which seems to be the position being pushed. If, this was the case, we would only have "one gospel" copied by four or more individuals…This would make no sense at all. So, each writer has inputted his own piece or pieces of the puzzle and this is where the harmonizing falls into place. Yet, the harmonizing isn't related to details, but to only the belief…

Even if there are technically enough witnesses to establish something, if those witnesses are disqualified by their witness not agreeing then they are disqualified----regardless of whether they're accusing someone of blasphemy or claiming that he rose from the dead.

This analogy also seems to be in error. Claiming blasphemy, is limited to certain rules. Where, claiming that the Christ rose from the dead is not what's being argued, nor is it blasphemy…Because, all four gospels claim the resurrection occurred. The details are what seems to be the issue, yet certain details are irrelevant. Such as: how many angels are involved or was one sitting on the stone or not. These type details do not change the recorded facts about the resurrection or who witnessed the resurrected Christ. The differences are complementary, not contradictory. New information is added, but it does not take away from the veracity of the old information.

Hence, it's just not good enough to suggest that the witnesses are disqualified, because all the available details weren't introduced into all four gospels…That would truly is beyond reasonable.

[1213]

... that Jesus performed and encouraged or was a part of many blasphemies.

Paying taxes to pagan Gods.
Using graven images of those Gods.
The adultery scenario is almost transcendentally blaspheming.
...

If Bible is really wrong, you shouldn’t need to make false accusations.

[1213]

...
Yes, the problem is that all four accounts, are fiction.
....

The problem with that claim is that you don’t have anything to prove it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 57 by 1213]

The problem with that claim is that you don’t have anything to prove it.

I do not need to prove 'Star Trek,' is fiction. Nor should I have to prove the fairy-tales you believe in are fiction.

You believe in those stories, YOU prove they aren't fairy-tales. Most people DON'T believe the hydrogen and oxygen in water can be transformed into the sophisticated compounds of nitrogen, sulfur and carbon in wine. Nor would any reasonable person believe that even an all powerful creature would enact nuclear reactions to do so, What is your deity? an all-powerful idiot?
Until then I will go one believing the world is round, not flat, evolution describes this wonderous Earth, not a spontaneous abiogenesis, and that the Bible supports horror, not weal.

If only you could contradict any of those. But no, fairy-tales have the advantage of not being disprovable.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to FWI]

I wasn't talking about the subject of the witnesses' testimony; I was talking about the author's rationale for including it.

Again, we're not told all of what the witnesses in Mark 14 supposedly said, so the author doesn't demonstrate that their witness was inconsistent. When we read the gospel accounts of the resurrection, however, the inconsistencies there are self-evident.

I'm not an atheist, but one atheist (I think it was Dan Barker) proposed what he called "the Easter Challenge". The challenge is to take the details from all the gospel accounts and assemble them into a single cohesive narrative. The one requirement, as I remember, was that nothing be left out. I think it's fair to include the requirement that nothing be put in either. To my knowledge, that has not been done.

What would such an attempt look like? Let's consider it:

A group of women goes to the tomb at some time in the early morning, and when they get there they find it open and empty. The tomb was opened by a shining angel who sits on the stone and tells the women of the resurrection, but the woman named Mary Magdalene doesn't see him or hear anything he says and when they run back in fear and great joy to tell the disciples about the resurrection [even though they're too afraid to say anything to anyone], Mary tells them that their dead master's body has been removed (she tells them this despite also being one of the women who tell of seeing two brightly-clad men inside the tomb [not outside] who tell them of the resurrection AND despite being met by the risen Jesus himself on the way back to the disciples). Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary following and the men see nothing and leave. Mary remains there weeping because she either still believes Jesus to be dead OR has gone back to believing he's dead after seeing an angel [or angels] and Jesus himself. She sees two angels in the tomb [the first ones she's seen so far, even though a dazzling one opened the tomb in the first place], then sees Jesus himself and thinks that he's the gardener. She asks him for his body, even though he appeared to her group as they went back to the disciples, and then sees that it is him.

Here I have joined the various accounts together. I admit that I haven't included all of the details but, as I think is important, I didn't put anything IN which isn't in the narratives.

If all the resurrection accounts are true, it should be possible to reconcile them completely without adding or omitting anything. If that can't be done, then the resurrection story hardly has any practical advantage over any other.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 59 by Athetotheist]

All the points in the so called "Easter challenges" ( claimed "vontradictions" in the gospel narratives), have been thoroughly debunked. See LINKS below.


Is it possible to harmonize the four different gospel accounts of the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#926583


EXECUTION

WHEN did Jesus die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 932#893932

THE WOMEN

When (what time) did the women visit the tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 933#926933

Why did the women visit the tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 941#926941

Who were the women that visited Jesus tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 331#908331

How many women visted Jesus' tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 331#908331

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 335#908335

Did the women tell anyone what happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 395#908395

Did the women remain silent FOREVER about their experience?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 713#986713

Who was at the tomb when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 336#908336

THE ANGELS

Where were these messengers (angels) situated when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#926581

WHERE were the angels when the women first arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 523#986523

What did the messenger(s) say?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 557#926557

MARY

Why did Mary and the others not see the angel sitting on the stone?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 388#986388

Why can we suppose Mary Magdalene have left the group of women before their angelic encounter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 635#986635

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 568#926568

When did Mary first see Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 569#926569

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 706#908706

Why is Mary's name included in Luke's summary of events if she wasn't with the women when they met the angels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6390#98639

THE MEN

After the women, to whom did Jesus "first" appear?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 574#926574

Where and when did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#926576

Did the disciples doubt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 240#927240

Did the disciples believe the two men (Cleopus & his companion)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 571#926571

What happened at the appearance?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 577#926577

Did the Apostles travel to Galilee on the first Sunday?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 277#927277

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 579#926579

Where did the ascension take place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 561#926561

Synopsis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#926583

Sequencing & Related Posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 585#926585[/quote]

Go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY * and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

* Easter Challenges