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 JehovahsWitness]

Reasoning deductively, Mary would have gotten to the disciples first if she left the tomb before the others did. .

And how, pray tell can you deduce that? Do you know how long the women interacted with Jesus? Do you know which discipes the women first spoke to? Do you know where those particular disciples where at the time the women spoke to them? Do know if the women gathered somewhere to decided who to contact? Do you know if that was east, west, north or south of the tomb? Do know where John and Peter were when Mary got to them? Do you know if there was only one route in or out of the tombsite? Do you know which route Mary took to find Peter and John?

You cannot possibly have enough information to make such a deduction.


JW

[1213]

That doesn't answer the question. The question doesn't address what you believe, but rather what is true concerning the Bible.

And I believe Bible is true. But, it is impossible for me to prove any historical thing, at least for now. That is why I try to avoid making claims about what happened.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Do you know exactly what each and every witness against Jesus in Mark 14 said? Do you know exactly how many there were? Do you know if they all knew each other and, if so, for how long? Do you know all of their names? Do you know exactly what each of them was offered for his cooperation? Do you know the names of those who coaxed them into coming forward? Do you know.....

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Do you know exactly what each and every witness against Jesus in Mark 14 said? Do you know exactly how many there were? Do you know if they all knew each other and, if so, for how long? Do you know all of their names? Do you know exactly what each of them was offered for his cooperation? Do you know the names of those who coaxed them into coming forward? Do you know.....

I havent claimed to have made deductions based on any of the above. You on the otherhand claim ...

Reasoning deductively, Mary would have gotten to the disciples first if she left the tomb before the others did. .

There are too many unknown variants to make such a deduction.

• other disciples (location route ? distance? time?)
• Exit from garden (number? location)
• Peter and John (location? route? distance? time? )
• Delays (location? duration?)
• womens (earliest) report (time? location? audience?)

In other words since we dont have a POINT B (location of Peter & John) and we do not have a POINT C (location and audience of womens initial report) and we do not know where or for how long the women met with Jesus, we cannot possible conclude who would have gotten where first.

A ==============(distance? direction?) ================= B? [location unknow]

A =============(distance? direction? delay) ============= C? [location unknow]

All we can reasonably deduce is that Mary was unaware of the angelic message given to the women when she made her initial report and that she located Peter and Jonn and reported the empty tomb to them (where ever they happened to be at the time). We can reasonably assume they took the fastest route back to inspect the tomb and that they arrived at the tomb without encountering the women WHY they didnt encounter the women before reaching the tomb could be due to any of the unknown variants (see box above).


JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Despite not knowing the answers to the questions above, you presume to "know" that the witnesses were false.

Logically deducing again, all of the women would have taken the shortest possible route to the disciples given the urgency of their messages.

The group would not have interacted long with Jesus because he sends them on their way (Matthew 28:10). The angel at the tomb, presumably being a good servant, had told them to go "quickly" to tell the disciples (Mt. 28:7), so Jesus would not likely have countermanded that direction.

Luke and John both tell of disciples going to the tomb, John specifying Peter and the beloved disciple and having Mary go back with them. This would most likely have to be the same event recorded in Luke. Where Peter was, the rest of the disciples would presumably have been also since Peter was now their leader. This is supported by the two disciples on the road knowing of what the women had said (Luke 24:22-24), indicating that they had been with Peter. So the compass direction to the disciples from the tomb would be of no consequence since, in all likelihood, the women would go to the same place to find all the disciples.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Despite not knowing the answers to the questions above, you presume to "know" that the witnesses were false.

Im sorry, you've lost me on this statement, can you clarify why you say the above?

[JehovahsWitness]

Logically deducing again, all of the women would have taken the shortest possible route to the disciples given the urgency of their messages.

That's a fair deduction, but we dont know WHO they initially sought out or WHERE they eventually located them (POINT C).

Did they first go to their own husbands or sons if they were believes? Were Peter and John staying together at the same house, if not did they first seek Peter and then John? What route did they take? If Mary did indeed locate John and Peter first and they had already left, how could the women who may have found the house empty , know where Peter and John were? Did they decide to sit tight and await their return? Did they rush to find another Apostle or another disciple? If so where? How long woild that have taken them?

Again, we are not given these kind of details and without them we cannot make a deduction about time, exact sequence and location. All we can say for sure is that eventually however they achieved it, Luke gives us the conclusion of events, all the Apostles and disciple were informed by the women of their experiences.




JW



ANGELS

Could the angels have possibly moved from one spot to another in the course of their interaction with the women?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 266#987266

Can we say who reached wich disciples first on resurrection morning?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 457#987457

[JehovahsWitness]

... the compass direction to the disciples from the tomb would be of no consequence since, in all likelihood, the women would go to the same place to find all the disciples.

WERE PETER AND THE BELOVED DISCIPLE WITH ALL THE OTHERS WHEN MARY REACHED THEM?

We know all the other disciples were not together because Thomas missed the festivities. Further, given the information we have its unlikely they were all initially present at one time and in the same locaation...

• its likely that if Peter and John were in the company of the other disciples when Mary made her initial report, they too would have accompanied her back to inspect the empty tomb.
• As for being their "leader", even when Jesus, their real leader, was alive the disciples were not constantly in his company, at the very least having times when they had tasks and responsibilities to fulfill.
• While there is no denying Peters prominence as an Apostle, he evidently was alone at some point during the course of the day since Jesus is said to have appeared to him (Peter) privately ie while not in the company of others.
• Finally, no matter how they viewed Peter, the women decided to visit the tomb without him, Cleopas and his companion where miles away at Emmaus and Thomas was nowhere to be seen ; evidently they were not all constantly in Peters company!
  
  Based on the above it seems reasonable to conclude that while the others could have been with Peter it is just as likely that they were not.

Even if the MEN were all together, we dont know if Mary had to go to several locations until she found them, we dont know where exactly that was, by which route they returned or to whom and in what order the other women sought to give their own testimony. As I said earlier...

Did the other WOMEN first go to their own husbands or sons if they were believers? Were Peter and John staying together at the same house, if not did the women first seek Peter and then John? What route did they take? Did they go to the cloest Apostle first rather than seek Peter or another disciple? If so where? How long would that have taken them?

We don't know the answers to all these questins and to say the the two groups MUST have encountered each other as the initial events unrolled is imposing a precision the text does not provide.

Reconstruction of 1st century Jersusalem streets




JW

[Athetotheist]

... the compass direction to the disciples from the tomb would be of no consequence since, in all likelihood, the women would go to the same place to find all the disciples.

WERE PETER AND THE BELOVED DISCIPLE WITH ALL THE OTHERS WHEN MARY REACHED THEM?

We know all the other disciples were not together because Thomas missed the festivities. Further, given the information we have its unlikely they were all initially present at one time and in the same locaation...

• its likely that if Peter and John were in the company of the other disciples when Mary made her initial report, they too would have accompanied her back to inspect the empty tomb.
• As for being their "leader", even when Jesus, their real leader, was alive the disciples were not constantly in his company, at the very least having times when they had tasks and responsibilities to fulfill.
• While there is no denying Peters prominence as an Apostle, he evidently was alone at some point during the course of the day since Jesus is said to have appeared to him (Peter) privately ie while not in the company of others.
• Finally, no matter how they viewed Peter, the women decided to visit the tomb without him, Cleopas and his companion where miles away at Emmaus and Thomas was nowhere to be seen ; evidently they were not all constantly in Peters company!
  
  Based on the above it seems reasonable to conclude that while the others could have been with Peter it is just as likely that they were not.

Even if the MEN were all together, we dont know if Mary had to go to several locations until she found them, we dont know where exactly that was, by which route they returned or to whom and in what order the other women sought to give their own testimony. As I said earlier...

Did the other WOMEN first go to their own husbands or sons if they were believers? Were Peter and John staying together at the same house, if not did the women first seek Peter and then John? What route did they take? Did they go to the cloest Apostle first rather than seek Peter or another disciple? If so where? How long would that have taken them?

We don't know the answers to all these questins and to say the the two groups MUST have encountered each other as the initial events unrolled is imposing a precision the text does not provide.

Reconstruction of 1st century Jersusalem streets




JW

What "could" have happened isn't part of anyone's *witness*. Their witness is only what they tell.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 59 by Athetotheist]

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 disagree…It is clear that the testimony of the Pharisees' witnesses are the main support used in the OP and that the suggested inconsistencies are not self-evident or important.

If the testimony of those witnesses (Mark 14:55-56) 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 (post 1)?

So, as far as, the "witnesses agreeing" this isn't the point of the author. The point is that the witnesses were false witnesses, because their statements could be "disproved," thus they were found to be liars and would not be able to be put before the people as proof or eyewitnesses. However, this is not the case with the gospels…All four gospels agree that the Christ was resurrected, as well as, the apostles, James (step-brother to the Christ), Paul, the women and others! There is no doubt to this. Hence, there are no inconsistencies to this point and this is what the debate is about (according to the OP or post 1). Thus, what we have are four accounts, but only one reality: the Christ was resurrected…This is the point of the records and what's most important.

Yet, when it comes to piecing together the information (given in the gospels), we can get a clearer picture. Somewhat, to the way you have recorded (even, though some details have been left out). Therefore, if there were differences related to the main points, then there would be justification for doubt! But, that isn't the case, where the prominent points are recorded within the four gospels. Hence, the insignificant differences add to the human aspect of the story, rather than subtract from it. But, it should be noted that none of the questioned details "flatly" contradicts the other accounts, but actually correlate together to supply the larger picture of the event.

Thus, as I implied in an earlier post: If all four gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious. Where, the adversaries of the event would wonder why and for what purpose did the writers do this! The old: damned if you do and damned if you don't would seem to be in play…

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.

No, this is not the case. Where, the idea that an exact word for word account is required, is unrealistic and faulted! This isn't how history is produced…Where, truth is determined by what each gospel records, not if they completely agree with each other on all details! There is a reason why there are four gospels and not only one, two or three.

For example: Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. There seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel. While, Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not record that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that only one angel spoke to the women at-a-time. It seems that one angel spoke to the women outside the tomb and another angel spoke to them inside the tomb. The fact that Matthew records outside the tomb and Mark records inside the tomb is not an inconsistency, but a choice! Which, was their right to do so and/or the circumstances dictated what each writer determined was relevant to them.