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]

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…

My apologies for the misunderstanding, but since you refer to Jesus as "the Christ", I hardly know how else to refer to you.

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.

Even if we assume that the "O.T." was divinely inspired, which is debatable, the Jews----whose Bible the Tanakh actually is----do not conclude from it that it refers to Jesus in any way. Why should your interpretation of their scripture be taken over theirs?

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.

The reference to Jeremiah 31:31-33 is particularly problematic, since verse 34
goes on to state that under the new covenant, "no more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord." If Jesus had been the Jewish Messiah and established the new covenant through his death, every member of the house of Israel and the house of Judah would have accepted him as Messiah ever since. Since most Jews still do not believe that Jesus was their Messiah, and some Jews don't believe in God at all, it's clear that Jesus didn't establish the new covenant which is described in Jeremiah.

[FWI]

Since you refer to Jesus as "the Christ", I hardly know how else to refer to you.

The most appropriate way to address me is by using my username and maybe the pronoun you.

Even if we assume that the "O.T." was divinely inspired, which is debatable, the Jews----whose Bible the Tanakh actually is----do not conclude from it that it refers to Jesus in any way. Why should your interpretation of their scripture be taken over theirs?

The Torah and certain other God inspired writings did not originate from the Israelites (Jews), they came to be through God's will! So, the inspiration is of God…The Israelites' responsibility was to record them as directed. However, this covenant was broken by some of the Israelites (Jer. 31:32). Hence, most Israelites cannot be trusted with the understandings of God's will, related to the Messiah (the Christ) of God. So, it isn't a private interpretation given by an individual or group, but a God inspired understanding, which is explained in Jer. 31:31-33…

It is also unusual for someone to critique an individual who claims that the gospels "are not" Godly inspired, because Christianity, as a whole accepts that they are. And then, to also suggest that the O.T. writings, which clearly records hundreds of references, which shows that God spoke to and instructed the Israelites (in varies ways) on what they should and shouldn't do. As well as, given prophesies, which most Jews (today and back then) accept as Godly inspired. Then, to state that these recording are debatable, as being inspired by God…This seems to suggest that wanting it both ways is part of the equation and is becoming an issue for me.

The reference to Jeremiah 31:31-33 is particularly problematic, since verse 34
goes on to state that under the new covenant, "no more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord." If Jesus had been the Jewish Messiah and established the new covenant through his death, every member of the house of Israel and the house of Judah would have accepted him as Messiah ever since. Since most Jews still do not believe that Jesus was their Messiah, and some Jews don't believe in God at all, it's clear that Jesus didn't establish the new covenant which is described in Jeremiah.

Firstly, the fact that Jesus didn't establish the New Covenant is no secret, because Jesus didn't exist during the time that God inspired Jeremiah to write his prophecy! Jesus is not God, nor a created angel. He was begotten…However, there is no other being who has more power and authority (today) than the Son of God (excluding the Father).

Jeremiah 31:34 is referring to those who God or His Son has decided to write the proper laws and ways into their minds and is pointing to those who are chosen and does not include everybody who thinks otherwise. The opportunity for these, thus the masses, will not occur until the end times.

Therefore, yes it is true that most Israelites (from about the first century A.D) hasn't accepted God's appointed Messiah and they have paid a terrible price for this rejection…But, this rejection was more political, than biblical. Yet, the trend today is that about 20% of the Jewish millennials, believe that the historical Jesus is the Son of God and this is encouraging. Yet, the writings are clear that the intervention of the Christ (Messiah), in the affairs of Israel and the world will not occur until the end times. Where, Jeremiah 8 gives us a sobering glimpse at the affairs of state that Israel was facing, especially verses 8-12. So, to suggest that the first century Israelite (religious) leaders and those who followed, should be consulted on who God has chosen as their Messiah is in error. This decision is Gods' and only Gods'!

So, to get back to the main topic and avoid digressing into a different subject matter: The most prevalent proof that the Christ was resurrected is that the tomb stone was removed and the tomb was empty…This is irrefutable, except for opinions, speculations and unprovable theories.

[Athetotheist]

So, to get back to the main topic and avoid digressing into a different subject matter: The most prevalent proof that the Christ was resurrected is that the tomb stone was removed and the tomb was empty…This is irrefutable, except for opinions, speculations and unprovable theories.

How do you know he was resurrected if those who wrote of it weren't divinely inspired to inerrancy? How does having four members of the same sect write that someone had risen from the dead years before constitute irrefutable proof? Have you any idea how many tombs have been found empty over the centuries? Were their former occupants resurrected from the dead if four people decide to write that they were? The burden of proof is still on the one making an unusual claim and not on the one questioning it.

[Tart]

"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?

Interesting question, because truly the Resurrection accounts within the 4 different gospels are different.. period.. Some apologists claim they are all objective and consistent together, though i put question in their metaphysical values... Can they all 4 be true somehow? Surely if a God exists, all powerful, parallel universes can exist as well (as an example)... In fact, leave God out, science hypothesizes about parallel universes. Some say it was the big bang, when universes hit each other... An interesting question, none the less... I suppose, if they were objectively false you could reject them... Though if i were you, I would question your ability to come to such conclusions.

[Avoice]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Christianity hangs on the truth of the resurrection. You say all four accounts testify that Jesus died and was resurrected. You added that "on that there is no disagreement" I disagree with you and will offer evidence to support it

Before I go on I am reminding you that you refused to defend the supposed fulfilled prophecies after entering the debate. I repeatedly reminded you that I was waiting to hear your defense. You simply ignored me and after two months of asking I squashed it. I hooe you don't dodge me again. Both of us are here to debate do let's debate.

As you know there are four accounts of his death and resurrection. And there are inconsistencies in these accounts. Christians explain inconsistencies in the gospels by saying they are from different perspectives. It is a weak argument but Christians have nothing else to explain them away. Now I am set to debate the death and resurrection. Everything hangs on the truth of this event. And you as a Christian must be able to defend these accounts. Again, everything hangs on these four men telling you the truth. The "different perspectives" answer won't work this time. I can prove to you without a shadow of a doubt that no one can say that all accounts are true. And based on the evidence provided by the gospel writers themselves I can show that neither you nor anyone else can say if any are the truth. I will not resort to metaphors that I design. I will not misrepresent the gospel testimonies. I will not add to the gospel accounts. I will not take from the gospel accounts. My evidence will not be based on assumptions. My evidence will not be based on my desires or feelings. The evidence will be drawn from their very words. I expect you to do the same.

In my next post I will state my position. And my position is that I cant trust these testimonies. I look forward to your rebuttal.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 101 by Athetotheist]

Your prevalent proof is that a rock was rolled away and the body was gone? really? That just proves a rock moved and a body was gone. Soooo?

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 101 by Athetotheist]

Exactly! If the new covenant was in effect then there woukdnt be missionaries out preaching jesus

Exactly! Why do Christians think they can read the TeNaK better than us? I dobt even know one that can read Hebrew. Yet they tell US what our scrolls say? No, they tell us what they want it to say
Christians can believe jesus is the Messiah. Or anyone else.is the Messiah But no one is the Messiah until the Jews say it is.

Christians didn't invent the Messiah. They learned of him from us. Then they took the concept of the Messiah and molded him into sone personal savior. Its like stealing the Mona Lisa and painting in your own background. Changing her hair color and giving her new clothes. Then hang it in a gallery and saying its the original Mona Lisa by Da Vinci. It isn't. And neither is Jesus the Messiah.

Christians: We will let you know when he gets here. He has work to do. Why you give someone the title who hasn't earned it is unthinkable. Why are you in such a hurry to hanf the title in someone . Be patient. Don't call us. We'll call you .

[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?

Interesting question, because truly the Resurrection accounts within the 4 different gospels are different.. period.. Some apologists claim they are all objective and consistent together, though i put question in their metaphysical values... Can they all 4 be true somehow? Surely if a God exists, all powerful, parallel universes can exist as well (as an example)... In fact, leave God out, science hypothesizes about parallel universes. Some say it was the big bang, when universes hit each other... An interesting question, none the less... I suppose, if they were objectively false you could reject them... Though if i were you, I would question your ability to come to such conclusions.

I'm wide open to the idea of parallel universes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to invoke them to try to harmonize four inconsistent accounts in the same universe.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your prevalent proof is that a rock was rolled away and the body was gone? really? That just proves a rock moved and a body was gone. Soooo?

Exactly.

If a rock is placed in front of a tomb, was that done by humans? Could, then, humans also remove said rock?

Could humans also remove a body from a tomb? Aren't humans known to have removed bodies from tombs? Or are empty tombs an indication of supernatural events?

Nothing supernatural is required for either -- BUT is required for religious tales. Tales told by humans are not assured to be true or accurate.

[Tart]

"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?

Interesting question, because truly the Resurrection accounts within the 4 different gospels are different.. period.. Some apologists claim they are all objective and consistent together, though i put question in their metaphysical values... Can they all 4 be true somehow? Surely if a God exists, all powerful, parallel universes can exist as well (as an example)... In fact, leave God out, science hypothesizes about parallel universes. Some say it was the big bang, when universes hit each other... An interesting question, none the less... I suppose, if they were objectively false you could reject them... Though if i were you, I would question your ability to come to such conclusions.

I'm wide open to the idea of parallel universes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to invoke them to try to harmonize four inconsistent accounts in the same universe.

Well you assume this is the same universe. You assume the past wasnt created yesterday as an explanation of the present. You assume that the metaphysical value of such stories should add up to some kind of idea you have for their objective value. You assume that the witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) arent universes in themselves. And i suppose you assume an all powerful God couldnt have done all 4 at the same time, becuase your limited knowledge cant comprehended how such a thing could have happened.. And i suppose you assume your brain is not in the matrix, and everything you touch and feel isnt a false reality already.