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?

[Athetotheist]

[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.

The witnesses in Mark 14 being false isn't the author's "point'; it's the author's *claim*. We're not told all of what they said, so we have no demonstration of their witness being false or "disproved". And if their details were inconsistent, why couldn't the same kind of excuse be made for them that you make for the gospel writers? "If their witness had been exactly the same, we would become suspicious!"

It's not enough for the "main points" to agree. As I pointed out earlier, that's just their agreement on the story they want to promote. I used the example of one person saying that John Doe traveled from Denver to Las Vegas in a pickup truck and another saying that he made the same trip on a motorcycle. They can't both be right just because they both say that John Doe traveled from Denver to Las Vegas.

Think of Theophilus. He's reading Luke's account of the resurrection in a book addressed to him by an author who claims to have researched everything diligently (Lk. 1:3). Theophilus reads that on the evening after the resurrection, after some women come and tell the disciples what has happened, Jesus himself appears to them as they are gathered there in Jerusalem. But suppose that Theophilus was familiar with the earlier account attributed to Matthew, in which the disciples were told to go to Galilee and that Jesus would meet them there? Not only does Luke's account not have them have to go to Galilee to see him, it doesn't even have them being given that instruction! Wouldn't that have left Theophilus scratching his head? What does it say about the author's claim to diligent research, and the assumption that the account was written under divine inspiration?

Let's suppose that Matthew just wrote about one angel "speaking" to the women outside the tomb and Mark just wrote of an angel "speaking" to them inside. Matthew's "outside" angel would still have been seen by Mary Magdalene if she had gotten anywhere near the tomb (Matthew says his angel rolled back the stone and sat on it, and Mary would have had no reason to leave the other women before the tomb was opened). Why, then, does John have Mary spend the greater part of the ensuing episode simply believing that Jesus was still dead and that his body had been moved?

These are the kinds of things we have to look at in determining if someone's witness agrees.

[FWI]

The witnesses in Mark 14 being false isn't the author's "point'; it's the author's *claim*. We're not told all of what they said, so we have no demonstration of their witness being false or "disproved". And if their details were inconsistent, why couldn't the same kind of excuse be made for them that you make for the gospel writers? "If their witness had been exactly the same, we would become suspicious!"

Well, a point is a single observation, which is based on a conclusion. So, to prove a point, the use of evidence and reasoning is applied. The author points out that the witnesses are false witnesses, as related to the sin of blasphemy. Since, there was no law presented (then and now) that claims the Christ was guilty of blasphemy, the author uses evidence (or the lack of it) and reasoning to prove his point…Hence, it was not the details, which caused the witnesses to be false witnesses, it was their failure in supporting the charge of blasphemy. Which, is the point of Mark 14:55-59. Yet, a claim is an assertion, which is open to challenge and the author can't address a claim that is not given. Therefore, it seems clear that the author of Mark is not making a claim, but introducing a valid point. Pilate also affirms that there was no guilt or law breaking associated with the Christ, yet he approved of having him killed anyway!

It's not enough for the "main points" to agree.

This is against logical reasoning! It seems to make no sense to elevate the details of a matter above the main points and the hypothetical given proves this point.

Where, the reasoning that a detail, such as how someone traveled to Las Vegas is more important than the reality or truth that the individual did arrive in Las Vegas is not logical. The main point is that a person left point A and arrived at point B some time later. So, the detail of the type of transportation used doesn't affect the main point, in any way! Hence, taking out the mode of transportation doesn't change the fact of arrival in Las Vegas. Now, someone may want to know how the individual traveled to Las Vegas, but this is a different point and this understanding does not alter the main point.

Thus, the idea that all the details of several connected renditions or interpretive translations must agree (100%) to make the main points valid, is not factual and this is common knowledge! As well as, illustrated above…

Think of Theophilus. He's reading Luke's account of the resurrection in a book addressed to him by an author who claims to have researched everything diligently (Lk. 1:3). Theophilus reads that on the evening after the resurrection, after some women come and tell the disciples what has happened, Jesus himself appears to them as they are gathered there in Jerusalem. But suppose that Theophilus was familiar with the earlier account attributed to Matthew, in which the disciples were told to go to Galilee and that Jesus would meet them there? Not only does Luke's account not have them have to go to Galilee to see him, it doesn't even have them being given that instruction! Wouldn't that have left Theophilus scratching his head? What does it say about the author's claim to diligent research, and the assumption that the account was written under divine inspiration?

When, we review Luke 1:3 the term "orderly" is used, not diligently. Thus, a possible presumption that words, with different meanings, can be inputted into a historical record is invalid and probably why there are assumed inconsistencies (in the bible). This has been a problem for millenniums! So, it seems clear that the books of Luke and Acts were addressed to someone named Theophilus. Luke uses the term: "most excellent" to address Theophilus, which seems to imply that he was someone of importance. Maybe, a governor or an ex-governor of a regional province.

However, Theophilus is not addressed as a disciple of the Christ! Thus, the only logical reason that Luke would write this book to Theophilus (who may have been a close friend or relative) is because Theophilus was interested in the movement that was engulfing the region…Hence, there is no valid expectation or reason to include the instruction about going to Galilee, which is given in Matthew, Mark and implied in John…

Therefore, Theophilus wouldn't be scratching his head about an instruction that didn't relate to himself. Which, would also refute the suggestion that Luke's writings were not inspired. Because, inspiration can be used in two different ways, in this subject matter…One, to add something and another, not to add something.

Let's suppose that Matthew just wrote about one angel "speaking" to the women outside the tomb and Mark just wrote of an angel "speaking" to them inside. Matthew's "outside" angel would still have been seen by Mary Magdalene if she had gotten anywhere near the tomb (Matthew says his angel rolled back the stone and sat on it, and Mary would have had no reason to leave the other women before the tomb was opened). Why, then, does John have Mary spend the greater part of the ensuing episode simply believing that Jesus was still dead and that his body had been moved?

John 20:9 is a very telling verse and one that explains the situation. The idea that several individuals can be instructed in a prophecy, yet not fully comprehend or have the lights turned on (in the mind) is quite telling. This is what happened to Mary of Magdala in the fourth gospel. However, this lack of understanding was taken away in verse 16…So, it seems clear that emotions played a large part in the event. This also points to a sobering fact: Many are called, but few are chosen.

[Athetotheist]

The witnesses in Mark 14 being false isn't the author's "point'; it's the author's *claim*. We're not told all of what they said, so we have no demonstration of their witness being false or "disproved". And if their details were inconsistent, why couldn't the same kind of excuse be made for them that you make for the gospel writers? "If their witness had been exactly the same, we would become suspicious!"

Well, a point is a single observation, which is based on a conclusion. So, to prove a point, the use of evidence and reasoning is applied. The author points out that the witnesses are false witnesses, as related to the sin of blasphemy. Since, there was no law presented (then and now) that claims the Christ was guilty of blasphemy, the author uses evidence (or the lack of it) and reasoning to prove his point…Hence, it was not the details, which caused the witnesses to be false witnesses, it was their failure in supporting the charge of blasphemy. Which, is the point of Mark 14:55-59. Yet, a claim is an assertion, which is open to challenge and the author can't address a claim that is not given. Therefore, it seems clear that the author of Mark is not making a claim, but introducing a valid point. Pilate also affirms that there was no guilt or law breaking associated with the Christ, yet he approved of having him killed anyway!

It's not enough for the "main points" to agree.

This is against logical reasoning! It seems to make no sense to elevate the details of a matter above the main points and the hypothetical given proves this point.

Where, the reasoning that a detail, such as how someone traveled to Las Vegas is more important than the reality or truth that the individual did arrive in Las Vegas is not logical. The main point is that a person left point A and arrived at point B some time later. So, the detail of the type of transportation used doesn't affect the main point, in any way! Hence, taking out the mode of transportation doesn't change the fact of arrival in Las Vegas. Now, someone may want to know how the individual traveled to Las Vegas, but this is a different point and this understanding does not alter the main point.

Thus, the idea that all the details of several connected renditions or interpretive translations must agree (100%) to make the main points valid, is not factual and this is common knowledge! As well as, illustrated above…

Think of Theophilus. He's reading Luke's account of the resurrection in a book addressed to him by an author who claims to have researched everything diligently (Lk. 1:3). Theophilus reads that on the evening after the resurrection, after some women come and tell the disciples what has happened, Jesus himself appears to them as they are gathered there in Jerusalem. But suppose that Theophilus was familiar with the earlier account attributed to Matthew, in which the disciples were told to go to Galilee and that Jesus would meet them there? Not only does Luke's account not have them have to go to Galilee to see him, it doesn't even have them being given that instruction! Wouldn't that have left Theophilus scratching his head? What does it say about the author's claim to diligent research, and the assumption that the account was written under divine inspiration?

When, we review Luke 1:3 the term "orderly" is used, not diligently. Thus, a possible presumption that words, with different meanings, can be inputted into a historical record is invalid and probably why there are assumed inconsistencies (in the bible). This has been a problem for millenniums! So, it seems clear that the books of Luke and Acts were addressed to someone named Theophilus. Luke uses the term: "most excellent" to address Theophilus, which seems to imply that he was someone of importance. Maybe, a governor or an ex-governor of a regional province.

However, Theophilus is not addressed as a disciple of the Christ! Thus, the only logical reason that Luke would write this book to Theophilus (who may have been a close friend or relative) is because Theophilus was interested in the movement that was engulfing the region…Hence, there is no valid expectation or reason to include the instruction about going to Galilee, which is given in Matthew, Mark and implied in John…

Therefore, Theophilus wouldn't be scratching his head about an instruction that didn't relate to himself. Which, would also refute the suggestion that Luke's writings were not inspired. Because, inspiration can be used in two different ways, in this subject matter…One, to add something and another, not to add something.

Let's suppose that Matthew just wrote about one angel "speaking" to the women outside the tomb and Mark just wrote of an angel "speaking" to them inside. Matthew's "outside" angel would still have been seen by Mary Magdalene if she had gotten anywhere near the tomb (Matthew says his angel rolled back the stone and sat on it, and Mary would have had no reason to leave the other women before the tomb was opened). Why, then, does John have Mary spend the greater part of the ensuing episode simply believing that Jesus was still dead and that his body had been moved?

John 20:9 is a very telling verse and one that explains the situation. The idea that several individuals can be instructed in a prophecy, yet not fully comprehend or have the lights turned on (in the mind) is quite telling. This is what happened to Mary of Magdala in the fourth gospel. However, this lack of understanding was taken away in verse 16…So, it seems clear that emotions played a large part in the event. This also points to a sobering fact: Many are called, but few are chosen.

"...a point is a single observation, which is based on a conclusion." This itself is illogical reasoning. Conclusions are supposed to be based on observations, not the other way around.

Again, the author doesn't "point out" that the witnesses were false; he *claims* that they were false. We're not told all of what they said, so we don't know that no "law" was presented. The text doesn't say that the witnesses "could not prove their charge"; the text says that "their witness did not agree".

You try to dimiss the differences in detail in someone traveling from Denver to Las Vegas, but what if both people making the statement claimed to be making it under divine inspiration? If one says that the traveller used a pickup truck and another says that he used a motorcycle, they CANNOT both be divinely inspired in their statements. Now apply that to someone making an extraordinary claim, like the claim that someone rose from the dead. Details have a direct bearing on the integrity of a witness, especially a witness claiming something extraordinary. The author of Luke himself has Jesus say in 16:10: "....he who is unjust in the least things will be unjust also in much."

"....it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account...." (Luke 1:3) I'm not referring to the word "orderly" [kathexes]; I'm referring to the word translated as "perfect"". That word is "akribos", which Strong's concordance renders as "exactly, accurately, diligently". A writer whose account isn't exact, accurate or diligent cannot be divinely inspired to begin the account by saying that it is.

What Mary Magdalene has in John's account isn't a lack of "understanding"; what she has is a lack of *contact* with *angels* who are said by other authors to have appeared in her presence. Those appearances are not part of John's witness, and they can't just be stuck into it to try to make his witness agree with others.

[FWI]

...a point is a single observation, which is based on a conclusion." This itself is illogical reasoning. Conclusions are supposed to be based on observations, not the other way around.

Sorry, but this is not the case in Mark 14:55-61, which is what is being debated. The conclusion or a reasoned judgment comes first (verses 55-56), then comes the explanation of why there were false witnesses! Hence, the evidence, which resulted in the witnesses being judged false isn't introduced until verses 58 and 61…

You try to dimiss the differences in detail in someone traveling from Denver to Las Vegas, but what if both people making the statement claimed to be making it under divine inspiration? If one says that the traveller used a pickup truck and another says that he used a motorcycle, they CANNOT both be divinely inspired in their statements. Now apply that to someone making an extraordinary claim, like the claim that someone rose from the dead. Details have a direct bearing on the integrity of a witness, especially a witness claiming something extraordinary. The author of Luke himself has Jesus say in 16:10: "....he who is unjust in the least things will be unjust also in much."

Yes, I do dismiss unreasonable hypotheticals. They, have no actual "positive purpose to them" and is the reason why they can be defined as a guess or a way to assume them to be real for the sake of an argument or explanation! Yet, please supply where the author of Mark (or any of the other gospel writers) claims that their records are divinely inspired. Because, between the two of us; it seems that you are the one who is suggesting this, not me or the gospel writers…

As far as, details are concerned; some can have a direct bearing on the integrity of the contents of a subject matter, such as the fact that all four gospels record: the Christ was crucified, he was buried, the stone (covering the tomb) was rolled away; he lived again or was resurrected and that some witnessed this! However, you dismiss these clear agreements for unreliable ones. The minor confusion about certain details, which have been introduced as being important, are not…Where, some have been shown to be weak examples or clearly in error and are considered to be unreliable. Hence, they can't be used in questioning the integrity of the subject matter.

Also, the usage of Luke 16:10 in this debate is surely out of context. Where, the term "unjust" is defined as unrighteous or sinful. This verse is not referring to details in writings! But, how to use earthly possessions (unrighteous mammon) properly. Because, if we fail in this area: "How could we be trusted with righteous possessions?" A review of verses 11-13 is required to have a basic understanding of Luke 16:10.

"....it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account...." (Luke 1:3) I'm not referring to the word "orderly" [kathexes]; I'm referring to the word translated as "perfect"". That word is "akribos", which Strong's concordance renders as "exactly, accurately, diligently". A writer whose account isn't exact, accurate or diligent cannot be divinely inspired to begin the account by saying that it is.

When, a translator "attempts" to use the proper word for one from a different language; he/she seeks out the best one for usage. In this case it wasn't exactly, accurately or diligently! It was perfect. Where, Luke, Matthew, Mark and the fourth gospel (the whole books) don't include the words: exactly, accurately or diligently…The reason that these words weren't used is because they didn't properly relay the author's intent. But, the English word "perfect" did and was used! So, in gathering a few definitions of perfect (in the English language) we can include these: satisfying all requirements, legally valid, lacking in no essential detail and to bring to final form or finalized (completeness). The Greek word used for "perfect" should be Strong's G5046 (Teleios) or completeness, not "akribos" or exactly. So, it is clear that the translator errored and others followed suit. Thus, it should be understood that the author of Luke was referring to: "Complete (perfect) understanding of things from the very first (the birth of the Christ), to write an orderly account. Yet, this didn't mean that his writings were exactly or even 100% accurate, they were given in an orderly account to the best of his understanding!" Hence, context is very important here. Therefore, the term "exactly" is not found in the N.T. at all! The word accurately is only found in Acts 18:25-26 and is used in an interesting way…Firstly, Apollos is recorded as teaching accurately (verse25), but in verse 26; Aquila and Priscilla take him aside to explain to him the way of God more accurately. So, using the word accurately doesn't mean that all the information is known! The word diligently doesn't fit at all. Since, there is no understanding, related to the definition of "perfect" (in either Greek or English) that requires a writer to agree with all the details of the other writers…There is no conflict between these records.

What Mary Magdalene has in John's account isn't a lack of "understanding"; what she has is a lack of *contact* with *angels* who are said by other authors to have appeared in her presence. Those appearances are not part of John's witness, and they can't just be stuck into it to try to make his witness agree with others.

Again, this is irrelevant! There are no writing rules, as related to the topic, which requires a writer to add or copy from a similar writing…Thus, it is each writer's choice to record what they deem important. As long as, there is a "theme" or a main subject that is being discussed or described in each piece of the particular record in question. Which, can be woven together to give us the "big picture" (the resurrection) related to what the writers are describing. All the rest is known as: color. Where, it is obvious that a different degree of color is used in each of the gospels, in one way or another…Yet, in no way, does this invalidate each writer's position, as to the big picture…

[Athetotheist]

Sorry, but this is not the case in Mark 14:55-61, which is what is being debated. The conclusion or a reasoned judgment comes first (verses 55-56), then comes the explanation of why there were false witnesses! Hence, the evidence, which resulted in the witnesses being judged false isn't introduced until verses 58 and 61…

Verse 58 is the only place where a specific accusation is made. Without providing any others for contrast, the author doesn't establish that their witness didn't agree.

Yet, please supply where the author of Mark (or any of the other gospel writers) claims that their records are divinely inspired. Because, between the two of us; it seems that you are the one who is suggesting this, not me or the gospel writers…

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)

Doesn't "all scripture" include that of the gospel writers?

When, a translator "attempts" to use the proper word for one from a different language; he/she seeks out the best one for usage. In this case it wasn't exactly, accurately or diligently! It was perfect.

This isn't about the word the translator used; it's about the word the *author* used, and the word the author used was "akribos" which, according to Strong, means "exactly", "accurately" or "diligently".

There are no writing rules, as related to the topic, which requires a writer to add or copy from a similar writing…Thus, it is each writer's choice to record what they deem important.

The apostles were told that they were to go and meet Jesus in Galilee, and Luke didn't deem that important (along with not having it happen in his account)? Mary Magdalene saw angels roll back the stone and deliver the message of the resurrection to her and the other women, and John didn't deem that important (along with having Mary act like none of it had happened)? If those things happened, what adding or copying would be necessary?

[FWI]

Verse 58 is the only place where a specific accusation is made. Without providing any others for contrast, the author doesn't establish that their witness didn't agree.

Interesting that you see it in this way, it is quite telling…The chief priests and the council wanted the Christ dead! How could they accomplish this? It surely was not because the witnesses heard the Christ say that he would destroy the temple made with hands in 3 days and build another one without hands. These comments would not be a cause for the death penalty. But, the question: Are you the Christ, the Son of God, seems to be the one they could use. Why? This also shows that the witnesses didn't agree among themselves and to what type of evidence could be used to have the Christ killed. So, verse 61 is very important in this matter. The answer (the Christ gave) was the one they were looking for…However, this also was futile! Because, Pilate determined that there was no crime committed, which was worthy of death. Yet, to appease the religious leaders and uphold a yearly custom, Pilate allowed the Christ to be killed.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Doesn't "all scripture" include that of the gospel writers?

No, it doesn't! The gospels are written "historical records" that introduce events, which were recorded by four authors from different perspectives (at least the originals were): Matthew presents the Christ as a King, Mark presents the Christ as a servant, Luke introduces the Christ as the Son of Man and the fourth gospel introduces the Christ as the Son of God.

As far as, the term: "all scripture" in 2Tim. 3:16 is concerned, they only related to the writings of the Old Testament, not the N.T.! This can be verified in two ways: Firstly, when the word "scripture" pops-up in the gospels they only reference the O.T scriptures. Secondly, when the events in the gospels were happening, there were no gospels available to reference…Thus, the writings that were used in the synagogues and discussed while the Christ was alive, were the O.T. writings. So, I would expect that you can supply at least one bible reference, which has convinced you that the usage of the term "scripture" in the gospels are related to the N.T. writings…If so, please supply them.

This isn't about the word the translator used; it's about the word the *author* used, and the word the author used was "akribos" which, according to Strong, means "exactly", "accurately" or "diligently".

Yet, none of these three words were used in Luke…Why not? The facts are clear, there are no original records available since the first century (A.D) of the gospels. This leaves the door wide open for problems, not only in the English words, but also the Greek ones. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is impossible for any of the Greek words to be incorrectly used…But, it wasn't unusual for a translator, who believes that the N.T. was inspired by God, to change a Greek word to fit in-line with his beliefs. We can review the English language and notice the changes in word meaning and usage clearly. Where, this is only suggested for a few centuries (backwards). But, the N.T. has around for almost two millenniums…

The apostles were told that they were to go and meet Jesus in Galilee, and Luke didn't deem that important (along with not having it happen in his account)? Mary Magdalene saw angels roll back the stone and deliver the message of the resurrection to her and the other women, and John didn't deem that important (along with having Mary act like none of it had happened)? If those things happened, what adding or copying would be necessary?

Yes, it is correct that Luke didn't deem the instructions to go to Galilee important enough to be included in his records. This is because he was aware that these instructions were already recorded elsewhere. Yet, the idea that "all" the gospels must record the same thing is considered in error, because you have produced no proof of records, which make such a claim. So, three out of the four gospels, which reference that the Christ would meet the disciples (in Galilee) is good enough…

Mary of Magdala didn't see the angel roll away the tomb stone! She, just noticed that it was. Also, John mentions that Mary saw that the stone "was" rolled away, in John 20:1 and it would seem reasonable to accept that seeing the Christ "alive" would support his resurrection…Just like the other three gospels imply.

[Athetotheist]

Verse 58 is the only place where a specific accusation is made. Without providing any others for contrast, the author doesn't establish that their witness didn't agree.

Interesting that you see it in this way, it is quite telling…The chief priests and the council wanted the Christ dead! How could they accomplish this? It surely was not because the witnesses heard the Christ say that he would destroy the temple made with hands in 3 days and build another one without hands. These comments would not be a cause for the death penalty. But, the question: Are you the Christ, the Son of God, seems to be the one they could use. Why? This also shows that the witnesses didn't agree among themselves and to what type of evidence could be used to have the Christ killed. So, verse 61 is very important in this matter. The answer (the Christ gave) was the one they were looking for…However, this also was futile! Because, Pilate determined that there was no crime committed, which was worthy of death. Yet, to appease the religious leaders and uphold a yearly custom, Pilate allowed the Christ to be killed.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Doesn't "all scripture" include that of the gospel writers?

No, it doesn't! The gospels are written "historical records" that introduce events, which were recorded by four authors from different perspectives (at least the originals were): Matthew presents the Christ as a King, Mark presents the Christ as a servant, Luke introduces the Christ as the Son of Man and the fourth gospel introduces the Christ as the Son of God.

As far as, the term: "all scripture" in 2Tim. 3:16 is concerned, they only related to the writings of the Old Testament, not the N.T.! This can be verified in two ways: Firstly, when the word "scripture" pops-up in the gospels they only reference the O.T scriptures. Secondly, when the events in the gospels were happening, there were no gospels available to reference…Thus, the writings that were used in the synagogues and discussed while the Christ was alive, were the O.T. writings. So, I would expect that you can supply at least one bible reference, which has convinced you that the usage of the term "scripture" in the gospels are related to the N.T. writings…If so, please supply them.

This isn't about the word the translator used; it's about the word the *author* used, and the word the author used was "akribos" which, according to Strong, means "exactly", "accurately" or "diligently".

Yet, none of these three words were used in Luke…Why not? The facts are clear, there are no original records available since the first century (A.D) of the gospels. This leaves the door wide open for problems, not only in the English words, but also the Greek ones. However, you seem to be suggesting that it is impossible for any of the Greek words to be incorrectly used…But, it wasn't unusual for a translator, who believes that the N.T. was inspired by God, to change a Greek word to fit in-line with his beliefs. We can review the English language and notice the changes in word meaning and usage clearly. Where, this is only suggested for a few centuries (backwards). But, the N.T. has around for almost two millenniums…

The apostles were told that they were to go and meet Jesus in Galilee, and Luke didn't deem that important (along with not having it happen in his account)? Mary Magdalene saw angels roll back the stone and deliver the message of the resurrection to her and the other women, and John didn't deem that important (along with having Mary act like none of it had happened)? If those things happened, what adding or copying would be necessary?

Yes, it is correct that Luke didn't deem the instructions to go to Galilee important enough to be included in his records. This is because he was aware that these instructions were already recorded elsewhere. Yet, the idea that "all" the gospels must record the same thing is considered in error, because you have produced no proof of records, which make such a claim. So, three out of the four gospels, which reference that the Christ would meet the disciples (in Galilee) is good enough…

Mary of Magdala didn't see the angel roll away the tomb stone! She, just noticed that it was. Also, John mentions that Mary saw that the stone "was" rolled away, in John 20:1 and it would seem reasonable to accept that seeing the Christ "alive" would support his resurrection…Just like the other three gospels imply.

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted when I read this. I had no idea that there were Christians who don't believe that the gospels were divinely inspired. If they're not, why should you take them any more seriously than you supposedly take the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

You correctly point out that we don't have the originals, but that works as well against you as it does for you; if the door is wide open for problems with the Greek words, how do you know that Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life? How do you know he said that no one comes to the Father except by him? How do you know that Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ, or that Jesus himself declared so? How do you know that the witnesses against Jesus didn't agree? How do you know he rose from the dead? Without the originals to show otherwise, any or all of that "history" may have been invented by translators. You criticize me for not producing any "proof of records", but what are the gospels themselves worth as records if translators have had their way with them?

[Zzyzx]

.

how do you know that Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life? How do you know he said that no one comes to the Father except by him? How do you know that Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ, or that Jesus himself declared so? How do you know that the witnesses against Jesus didn't agree? How do you know he rose from the dead? Without the originals to show otherwise, any or all of that "history" may have been invented by translators.

None of those things can legitimately be considered 'known'. They are part of unverified stories in ancient texts. There is no assurance that writers (whoever they may have been) were truthful and accurate, that copies of copies of copies were faithful reproductions, that translations were accurate, that editors did not change wording or add sections.

It is not uncommon for 'believe' to be confused with 'known'.

[FWI]

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted when I read this. I had no idea that there were Christians who don't believe that the gospels were divinely inspired. If they're not, why should you take them any more seriously than you supposedly take the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

Well, the most obvious problem with this comment is assuming that I'm a Christian (as you may understand one), because I am not! So, you shouldn't be surprised or flabbergasted that I don't think or reply like one…

Also, I made it clear in my rebuttal that I believe the gospels to be "historical writings," this means that they are reliable, unless proven otherwise. Thus, to suggest that historical writings are divinely inspired is truly stretching it. I may accept that God inspired the writers to produce the books, but not the content, which was each writer's doing. As far as, the Book of Mormon or the Koran are concerned: they both have positives and negatives, which implies that they can be profitable for doctrine (something taught), for reproof (an act of expression or reproving), for correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2Tim. 3:16-17)…It makes no sense to reject writings, as a whole and miss-out on the good that may be included in them.

You correctly point out that we don't have the originals, but that works as well against you as it does for you; if the door is wide open for problems with the Greek words, how do you know that Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life? How do you know he said that no one comes to the Father except by him? How do you know that Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ, or that Jesus himself declared so? How do you know that the witnesses against Jesus didn't agree? How do you know he rose from the dead? Without the originals to show otherwise, any or all of that "history" may have been invented by translators.

The answers to your several questions is that God's divine inspiration, within the O.T. has declared so! The prophet Ezekiel, clearly declares the coming of a new David (the Christ) in Ezek. 34:20-24. These verses are related to the way, the truth and the life. They also proclaim that the flock, which points to the servants of God will be shepherded by God's servant David (beloved) a prince or Jesus, the Christ. So, without the true shepherd, no one can find the Father or be enlightened…Psalm 16:8-11 shows that God's Holy One will not see corruption (wasting of the body), thus be resurrected! Also, if the witnesses had agreed, there would be no need to press the issue and ask the Christ if he was the Son of God…Hence, it should seem pretty obvious that they didn't expect this type of response from the Christ.

So, since we do have copies of the O.T. dating back to about 200 B.C., they can be used to support the resurrection and the instances related to it, with certain N.T. historical records. So this, along with "faith" and the "New Covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-33) there is no excuse to deny the raising of the Christ from the dead…Therefore, it is the O.T. that validates the N.T. and an understanding of both is needed.

[Clownboat]

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted when I read this. I had no idea that there were Christians who don't believe that the gospels were divinely inspired. If they're not, why should you take them any more seriously than you supposedly take the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

Well, the most obvious problem with this comment is assuming that I'm a Christian (as you may understand one), because I am not! So, you shouldn't be surprised or flabbergasted that I don't think or reply like one…

Also, I made it clear in my rebuttal that I believe the gospels to be "historical writings," this means that they are reliable, unless proven otherwise. Thus, to suggest that historical writings are divinely inspired is truly stretching it. I may accept that God inspired the writers to produce the books, but not the content, which was each writer's doing. As far as, the Book of Mormon or the Koran are concerned: they both have positives and negatives, which implies that they can be profitable for doctrine (something taught), for reproof (an act of expression or reproving), for correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2Tim. 3:16-17)…It makes no sense to reject writings, as a whole and miss-out on the good that may be included in them.

You correctly point out that we don't have the originals, but that works as well against you as it does for you; if the door is wide open for problems with the Greek words, how do you know that Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life? How do you know he said that no one comes to the Father except by him? How do you know that Peter declared Jesus to be the Christ, or that Jesus himself declared so? How do you know that the witnesses against Jesus didn't agree? How do you know he rose from the dead? Without the originals to show otherwise, any or all of that "history" may have been invented by translators.

The answers to your several questions is that God's divine inspiration, within the O.T. has declared so! The prophet Ezekiel, clearly declares the coming of a new David (the Christ) in Ezek. 34:20-24. These verses are related to the way, the truth and the life. They also proclaim that the flock, which points to the servants of God will be shepherded by God's servant David (beloved) a prince or Jesus, the Christ. So, without the true shepherd, no one can find the Father or be enlightened…Psalm 16:8-11 shows that God's Holy One will not see corruption (wasting of the body), thus be resurrected! Also, if the witnesses had agreed, there would be no need to press the issue and ask the Christ if he was the Son of God…Hence, it should seem pretty obvious that they didn't expect this type of response from the Christ.

So, since we do have copies of the O.T. dating back to about 200 B.C., they can be used to support the resurrection and the instances related to it, with certain N.T. historical records. So this, along with "faith" and the "New Covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31-33) there is no excuse to deny the raising of the Christ from the dead…Therefore, it is the O.T. that validates the N.T. and an understanding of both is needed.

I don't see any logic with the conclusion in bold.
Books written roughly 200 years before some event is 'claimed' to have taken place are not evidence that the claim did take place 200 years after the writing of the book.

If a god acted on this planet and affected our history... I submit our history books would show it. For example, if 100's of dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets, that would be news/history worthy and would be found in more than just religious promotional material. Heck, even one body coming back to life would be a huge deal.

If it is only religious promotional material that makes a claim, the claim is probably safe to ignore. I would imagine you likely take this stance in regards to competing god concepts and their holy books.

This just cant be what you meant to imply, therefore, what did you mean?