The Story of the "certain" Witnesses?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 166
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So Matthew should not consider them false witnesses. They only repeated what Jesus said.

So they were not "false" witnesses then?  I have already covered that aspect.  Here> #19 < Please read it properly before you start repeating me and yourself.

#32
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
A side note -- the discussion of "blasphemy" seems stilted as there is a very specific concept of blasphemy in Judaism which does not seem to be present in the accounts of Jesus' behavior so i have no idea what people think the Sanhedrin would be judging in that regard.
#33
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Stephen
Still, I am trying to discover the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that the gospels writers seem desperate to hide, regardless of the charges.
Good luck with that. Perhaps check the Apocrypha?
Topic's author
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@K_Michael
 Perhaps check the Apocrypha?

I certainly will thank you. But I believe the answer may actually be in the scriptures. It just needs the surface scratching and a keen eye.
#35
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So Matthew should not consider them false witnesses. They only repeated what Jesus said.

So they were not "false" witnesses then?  I have already covered that aspect.  Here> #19 < Please read it properly before you start repeating me and yourself.
You accept my conclusion the two false witnesses were not false witnesses because they repeated what Jesus claimed. Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

Yet you continue to maintain they are anonymous false witnesses.

Accept my conclusion and move on. Besides they  did not factor in the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was not charged with blasphemy.
Topic's author
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So Matthew should not consider them false witnesses. They only repeated what Jesus said.

So they were not "false" witnesses then?  I have already covered that aspect.  Here> #19 < Please read it properly before you start repeating me and yourself.
You accept my conclusion the two false witnesses were not false witnesses because they repeated what Jesus claimed.

  That was a question I asked you . See the question mark. It looks like one of these >?< . And do you see the underlined? So please read carefully and answer my question if you can or you will be wasting your own time and mine. Did you read what I wrote at #19 


Yet you continue to maintain they are anonymous false witnesses.
That is because the bible says so. It is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the gospel writers.



 Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

And if you had read my post at #19   you would have read : "So there was certainly indeed some truth to their testimony. The only part that can be in dispute is the beginning of John which omits _ “ I am able to”.


Accept my conclusion and move on.

I will move on when I think I can move on. If you would stop repeating what has already been covered, I may not have to keep pausing to bring you up to speed.



#37
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So Matthew should not consider them false witnesses. They only repeated what Jesus said.

So they were not "false" witnesses then?  I have already covered that aspect.  Here> #19 < Please read it properly before you start repeating me and yourself.

You accept my conclusion the two false witnesses were not false witnesses because they repeated what Jesus claimed.

  That was a question I asked you . See the question mark. It looks like one of these >?< . And do you see the underlined? So please read carefully and answer my question if you can or you will be wasting your own time and mine. Did you read what I wrote at #19 
The Gospel of Matthew does not post it as a question.
Matthew 26:Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
Yet you continue to maintain they are anonymous false witnesses.
That is because the bible says so. It is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the gospel writers.
 Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

And if you had read my post at #19   you would have read : "So there was certainly indeed some truthto their testimony. The only part that can be in dispute is the beginning of John which omits _ “ I am able to”.
Accept my conclusion and move on.
Now you are contesting what John omits. You are still stuck on Matthews 26.
I will move on when I think I can move on. If you would stop repeating what has already been covered, I may not have to keep pausing to bring you up to speed.
Speed is not your asset. You still haven’t filled your membership profile after 4 years. Get real!!
Topic's author
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila


You accept my conclusion the two false witnesses were not false witnesses because they repeated what Jesus claimed. 

That was a question I asked you . See the question mark. It looks like one of these >?< . And do you see the underlined? So please read carefully and answer my question if you can or you will be wasting your own time and mine. Did you read what I wrote at #19 


The Gospel of Matthew does not post it as a question.
I know. It was my question to you.

So I will rephrase my question one last time and as simple as I can. Do you believe that these so called "false witnesses" were not false witnesses after all.
Yes they were false  OR  No they wasn't false?



#39
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
You accept my conclusion the two false witnesses were not false witnesses because they repeated what Jesus claimed. 

That was a question I asked you . See the question mark. It looks like one of these >?< . And do you see the underlined? So please read carefully and answer my question if you can or you will be wasting your own time and mine. Did you read what I wrote at #19 
The Gospel of Matthew does not post it as a question.

I know. It was my question to you. 

So I will rephrase my question one last time and as simple as I can. Do you believe that these so called "false witnesses" were not false witnesses after all.
Yes they were false  OR  No they wasn't false?
Read Matthew 26
Matthew 26:Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

Even Matthew does not call the two who came forward “false witnesses”. 
All Matthew wrote: Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

You wasted over a dozen posts labelling them false witnesses and distorting what Matthew said.
Tradesecret suspected you  never finished high school. But it is clear you struggle to read scriptures.

Topic's author
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You wasted over a dozen posts labelling them false witnesses

Ok. I won't be wasting anymore posts on this particular point.
#41
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
You wasted over a dozen posts labelling them false witnesses

Ok. I won't be wasting anymore posts on this particular point.
Maybe you can help BrotherD. not to waste anymore posts on gender dysphoria. He is not a medical expert and like you only finished high school. 
Let us improve ourselves and DebateArt in that process

#42
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
While being a "disciple" might have a particular value, your word was "servant" which is a very different concept in the talmud
I cited it to show historical proof of meticulous records about the disciples and such of the Rabbis. I don't endorse the theology in it entirely. It just shows how there were meticulous records of who followed and served the Rabbis.

I perceive you are an Orthodox Jewish person, am I correct in my assumption?

If so, can I pick your brain sometime? I have questions on the nitty gritty of Orthodox Judaism, such as whether the Jerusalem Talmud is preferred to the Babylonian Talmud. Why one over the other? And what happens when the Torah disagrees with the Talmud (like in Genesis, where God refers to Himself in plural form)?

Would you be up to answering a few questions sometime? I don't have any Orthodox Jewish friends so I can't really ask them lol. And a lot on the internet has serious contradictions on what Orthodox really means.

Oh, and which Talmudic translations do you consider the best for us English speakers? I already know the JPS Tanakh is the one Jewish people recommend for the Tanakh and Torah. I just don't know for the Talmud and Mishnah and such.
#43
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
I cited it to show historical proof of meticulous records about the disciples and such of the Rabbis. I don't endorse the theology in it entirely. It just shows how there were meticulous records of who followed and served the Rabbis.
There were some records of which scholars learned from which other scholars. There is actually very little about who served (the names of actual servants are talmudically few and far between. But to use that site which is mired in error to show any sort of accurate record keeping is questionable.


I perceive you are an Orthodox Jewish person, am I correct in my assumption?
yup

If so, can I pick your brain sometime? I have questions on the nitty gritty of Orthodox Judaism, such as whether the Jerusalem Talmud is preferred to the Babylonian Talmud. Why one over the other? And what happens when the Torah disagrees with the Talmud (like in Genesis, where God refers to Himself in plural form)?
The Babylonian Talmud is USUALLY given deference to but that is because it is more complete. More is missing from the Jerusalem talmud so we rely on the B"T. Their rhetorical methodologies are also different -- see here for more discussion


I think you would have a hard time convincing any Orthodox Jew that the Torah disagrees with the Talmud. The talmud cites the use of the plural in 1:26 (if that's to what you refer) and doesn't try to hide it -- it just understands the phrase differently from how you do.


Would you be up to answering a few questions sometime? I don't have any Orthodox Jewish friends so I can't really ask them lol. And a lot on the internet has serious contradictions on what Orthodox really means.
feel free to ask, always.


Oh, and which Talmudic translations do you consider the best for us English speakers? I already know the JPS Tanakh is the one Jewish people recommend for the Tanakh and Torah. I just don't know for the Talmud and Mishnah and such.
A translation of the Talmud is difficult. For years, people relied on the Soncino version but it was very difficult to understand. But there's a reason -- in the talmud, every phrase is actually a shorthand for a larger thought so any "translation" needs all sorts of explication and fleshing out to understand what is going on. The Soncino was mostly just a direct translation with a few notes. If you look at the version available on sefaria.org, that helps a bunch. When I was in high school (and this mirrors the way most students learn), we didn't use a translation but instead, read it in the Hebrew/Aramaic and worked on translating/explaining as we moved through.

Generally now, we also use the Artscroll series version which translates and provides a lot of explanation.
#44
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
Thanks for all the info.

May I ask, which interprets the other? Does the Talmud interpret the Torah or does the Torah interpret the Talmud? It sounds like you are saying the Talmud interprets the Torah (and also the rest of the Scriptures). Is this the case?

If so, what if the Talmud has a contradiction? What happens then?
#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So I will rephrase my question one last time and as simple as I can. Do you believe that these so called "false witnesses" were not false witnesses after all.
Yes they were false  OR  No they wasn't false?
Do you realise that there are different kinds of false witnesses?

There are false witnesses who come into a court room and lie about the evidence that they give.  They are considered false once it is deduced that the evidence they gave is really a lie. It goes to the substance of what they are saying.  To the evidence that they are giving. 

Another type of false witness is the witness who comes into court and gives "true evidence" in the substance of what was said but is false testifying that they themselves saw it or was a direct witness of it.  They are considered false not because the substance of the evidence is true - but because they were not direct evidence witnesses. If they had indicated that someone else had told them - they they could be classified as hearsay witnesses. 

In this case which you have brought to our attention from Mark 14 although your original OP put it as Mark 15 . 

Moreover - you lied.  You said and I quote "Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/353707.  I underlined where you lied.  Both Mark 14:56 and Mark 14:59 both say that the testimonies did not agree.  
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
 The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mk 14:56–59.
Then in post number 19 you make an assertion without any evidence: I have underlined the assertion without evidence. 

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the bible says that “many witnesses” had already came forward and seemingly were found to be unreliable or as the bible states “false”. Matthew 26:60, This suggests some sort of vetting process as I suggested here> #10

But then in the same verse the bible states that they eventually did find two “certain” witnesses that, for reasons known only to themselves, decided that their testimony was acceptable. This is more than suspicious and not just the obvious reason the bible states.
Why had they rejected all of those other many “false witnesses” and then suddenly decide that the testimonies of the two particular “certain” false witnesses was somewhat valid?https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/354047
I think the issue was not validity - but rather frustration and desperation.  The Sanhedrin had their man - but they couldn't lawfully hold him since there was no valid witnesses.  So like some our modern cops they just look for anything to try and keep their man in prison or before the court. And in any event V. 59 confirms it was not valid testimony.  Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.

Their testimony at its height might have pointed to rebellion if it was talking about destroying Herod's temple. Rebellion and vandalism or destruction of property were in the same vein. The point in these short few verses were that the Sanhedrin was looking for a criminal offence to put Jesus to death.  They needed something to take to Pilate.  They didn't get anything criminal against the Roman Code. 

And then you go and say this. I just had to stop reading because I laughed so hard.  

The greatest miscarriage in the history of all Christendom and you believe that the testimonies or the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that led to the death of an innocent godman are not important. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/354094
Didn't you even read what the passage said?  The witnesses testimony was inconsistent.   The Sanhedrin had nothing.  Jesus said nothing. 

So there was no need to record their names. They brought nothing and added nothing.  Their only purpose was to give the Sanhedrin a reason to question Jesus in a lawful manner.   Their testimony as far as I can tell was thrown out.  It certainly did not lead to the death of Jesus. 

The High Priest presumably out of more frustration and desperation wanted Jesus to say something. Just like all frustrated prosecutors get annoyed with defendants who exercise their rights to silence. Say something - go on put yourself into it Jesus. 

Jesus remains silent to the court.  There was no need to answer - for lots of reasons - but one that sticks out is because the testimony was so weak it did not need answering. 

The High Priest continues his rant.  And then changes tack - probably because his real concerns were theological and he was more worried about Jesus' spiritual influence than any so called criminal activity. It's amazing how often in the middle of real pressure and frustration that one's real motives come out. I suspect that the High Priest felt his conscious pricking. He knew that they had nothing against Jesus really. But he wanted him out of the way and he wasn't sure of Jesus' motives.  He wouldn't be the first good person in power to do something corrupt in order to bring about what he thought was good thing.  This was utilitarianism at its worst. The ends justifies the means. It was dropping a bomb on Hiroshima to stop a greater bad happening. 

The two certain witnesses were nobodies. They were convenient pawns in a much bigger chess game.   Their names were irrelevant. Pawns are called Pawns. We could call them bob and Mary and Peter and Cassie. But they are not the bishops nor the knights nor the queen. Sometimes to be pawn is all that is necessary. 

There was no deeper conspiracy going on here.   As I said awhile ago to someone on this site - some people live in la la land.  Fantasy world. 


#46
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
May I ask, which interprets the other? Does the Talmud interpret the Torah or does the Torah interpret the Talmud? It sounds like you are saying the Talmud interprets the Torah (and also the rest of the Scriptures). Is this the case?
The Oral Law does a variety of things (as there are different parts of it). It complements, supplements, explicates and applies. So in some sections, it provides material that isn't in the written Torah while in other sections, it provides anecdotes about the lives of the sages, or recipes which they used to heal. And other stuff.


If so, what if the Talmud has a contradiction? What happens then?
The talmud doesn't have a contradiction because the talmud is a collection of conversations so the question is what happens when sage A seems to contradict another instance of sage A. Those are challenged and discussed and reconciled.
#47
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
Interesting. So the view of the Talmud is vastly different than how Catholics would view tradition, that it is one unbroken line of proper oral tradition passed down in perfection and disagreeing with it means you are wrong. Am I correct in this?

The Talmud, it sounds like, is more like consulting a vast library of commentaries and seeing what they all agreed upon, and when there is disagreement, to choose the viewpoint that makes the most sense. Am I understanding what you're saying?

So it isn't like the Talmud is a "THIS IS IT! BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" book. It is more like consulting commentaries and seeing what they say. They can disagree with each other but it doesn't mean there is no truth in it. 
#48
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Interesting. So the view of the Talmud is vastly different than how Catholics would view tradition, that it is one unbroken line of proper oral tradition passed down in perfection and disagreeing with it means you are wrong. Am I correct in this?
The oral law starts with the Mishna which is a set of statements which are sourced at Sinai, contemporaneous with the written text. The transmission was required to be oral but when there was a fear of the text's being lost because of persecution, it was written down. But there are discussions about the precise application and meaning of certain ideas and those get discussed and argued in the gemara (together, those 2, plus the braita and tosefta make up the talmud). These all were passed down but there is an understanding that in the process, before they were written, there might be some changes and, yes, even errors. The talmudic text will occasionally say "he learned it wrong" or "that was written down incompletely."


The Talmud, it sounds like, is more like consulting a vast library of commentaries and seeing what they all agreed upon, and when there is disagreement, to choose the viewpoint that makes the most sense. Am I understanding what you're saying?
There are rules about "when two sages argue, according to whom do we rule" but there are also many commentaries who explain and explore, plus codes of law which don't always accord with each other, and different communities might develop slightly different rules about things. One cannot arbitrarily choose (there are rules about this as well), but people end up not having precisely identical takes on things.

So it isn't like the Talmud is a "THIS IS IT! BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" book. It is more like consulting commentaries and seeing what they say. They can disagree with each other but it doesn't mean there is no truth in it. 
If sage A says _____ but sage B says ------- we have a method for determining our normative practice. One who then follows the other understanding is outside of the accepted norm. This is a bad thing.

I apologize if I am grossly oversimplifying. There are libraries of books on each of the issues you mention and I'm trying to hit a tiny percentage of the ideas.
#49
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
You're fine. I am just trying to understand it is all.

So there are certain rules for which sage to agree with? So, for instance, if Hillel and Gamaliel were to have a disagreement (yes I am aware Gamaliel is not really in the Talmud), which side would be ruled on?

I know this isn't a great hypothetical. But I know both Gamaliel and Hillel are reputable.

So is it based off a generality or is it more specific to what the topic is? Are some Rabbis only an expert on some things and not others? Or is there an order of prominence that settles it?
#50
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
In brief, "sometimes." The Talmud records statements that establish decision making as it relates to certain sages, about certain kinds of discussions, in certain contexts. I will try, tomorrow to find some sort of list so you can see what kinds of complex variables are at play. One quick example is that in almost all cases when the opinion of Hillel and of Shammai disagree, we hold like Hillel. That doesn't speak to when Hillel disagreed with anyone else.

The Talmud also has a generational hierarchy. Hillel wax Rabban Gamliel's grandfather so odds are, the text would not record a conflict in position between the two. And I can't figure out why Christians refer to him with the extra A (Gamaliel). 
Topic's author
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret




Their testimony at its height might have pointed to rebellion if it was talking about destroying Herod's temple. Rebellion and vandalism or destruction of property were in the same vein.



“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death”. Matthew 26:56-66.KJV

Mark14:16 tell us the same but adds at 15:3 that “the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing”. Luke 23:2 has it, “and they began to accuse him, saying, we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding giving tribute [Tax] to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King”. And finally John 18:30 tells us “If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee”.

So we have accusations  ranging from lying, blasphemy, many things, sedition against Rome and just being a criminal. And also according to Mark 15:10 we can add pure envy if envy too was a crime, “For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy”.

 So of the all accusation and or charges is appears that when Jesus did appear before Pilate it appears that these accusations had been whittled down to what 
John 18:30 says; "“If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee [Pilate]”.  Which for me,raises more questions.

Still. We digress.

So back to the point of this thread.

 Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=2&post_number=45

We know of a least two disciples that the bible says entered the court yard where the trial was taking taking place. We also know that Nicodemus was not only a secret disciple of Jesus but also a member of Sanhedrin as was Joseph of Arimathea. 


#52
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
I can't figure out why Christians refer to him with the extra A (Gamaliel).
It is a transliteration thing, like how Yeshua is Iesous in Greek. Gmlyel is Gamaliel in Greek and that is how the name stuck.

The New Testament was written entirely in Greek and even quoted from the Greek Septuagint, because the recipients did not know Hebrew as their first language in the gross majority of cases.
#53
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6

#54
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It would of been way cooler if the bible was written in a language that not even the writers knew. 
On like a flash drive.

Hey remember at school playing ummmm.  chineese whispers   ?  

#55
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It would of been way cooler if the bible was written in a language that not even the writers knew. 
On like a flash drive.

Hey remember at school playing ummmm.  chineese whispers   ?  

Actually we have  passed that milestone.
Jesus spoke Aramaic but the New Testament is written in Greek. So the Bible was written in Greek a language that not even the writers knew because they all spoke Aramaic. Except maybe for Paul who was a citizen of Rome.
#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Mark14:16 tell us the same but adds at 15:3 that “the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing”. Luke 23:2 has it, “and they began to accuse him, saying, we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding giving tribute [Tax] to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King”. And finally John 18:30 tells us “If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee”.

So we have accusations  ranging from lying, blasphemy, many things, sedition against Rome and just being a criminal. And also according to Mark 15:10 we can add pure envy if envy too was a crime, “For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy”.

 So of the all accusation and or charges is appears that when Jesus did appear before Pilate it appears that these accusations had been whittled down to what 
John 18:30 says; "“If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee [Pilate]”.  Which for me,raises more questions.
Well that is a positive.  It's good to ask questions of the text.   In my view - presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And witness testimony must be corroborated with other evidence.  Each witness needs to be cross examined.  

Still. We digress.

So back to the point of this thread.
Yes, but it was your digression. 


 Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=2&post_number=45

We know of a least two disciples that the bible says entered the court yard where the trial was taking taking place. We also know that Nicodemus was not only a secret disciple of Jesus but also a member of Sanhedrin as was Joseph of Arimathea. 
And ????? I am not sure that Nicodemus was a secret disciple.  He wasn't invited along to the kangaroo court because his views were probably well known to the other members of the Sanhedrin.  If not, why wasn't he there?  The same applies to Joseph of Arimathea.  Two well known advocates of Jesus and both part of the council and yet both conveniently left of the invite list to the party.   It could be they were hiding. It could be the Sanhedrin didn't want any opposition. Very often corrupt councils gather together in a forum to get what they want. It is not unusual as pathetic as it is. 

Neither of these gentlemen were there. otherwise there would have been or might have been a different result. 

but then again - I suspect that you are suggesting that they were there. Is that what you are speculating about? And that these two were the ones who were the false witnesses - but were unnamed because of who they were?  Well that would be a nasty little conspiracy wouldn't it? 

Not a shred of evidence to support it of course. but that has never stopped you before.  
Topic's author
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

 Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=2&post_number=45

We know of a least two disciples that the bible says entered the court yard where the trial was taking taking place. We also know that Nicodemus was not only a secret disciple of Jesus but also a member of Sanhedrin as was Joseph of Arimathea. 
And ?????
"AND" It raises my curiosity as to why - after all the other disciples had "fled" these two disciples decided it would have been a good idea to place themselves inside the courtyard where the trial was taking place.  Were they  the "certain"accusers, waiting to give evidence?
It is odd to me that after all of the "many witnesses" were dismissed we then have two "certain witnesses" that the bible sets apart from the "many witnesses".?



I am not sure that Nicodemus was a secret disciple.  

Visiting Jesus under in secret under the cover of darkness  tells me he was a secret disciple. He also took instruction  from Jesus "after dark". This is all made very clear in the bible. <<<, didn't you know that?


He wasn't invited along to the kangaroo court because his views were probably well known to the other members of the Sanhedrin.

That can only be a very poor assertion on your part. It is my contention that Nicodemus  had to be there and for two good reasons. (1) Nicodemus was a Pharisee and said to be  "ruler of the Jews". (2) The bible places him there. << didn't you know that either?


 If not, why wasn't he [Nicodemus] there?

  He was there. Unless you are going to argue the bible is wrong and none of this ever took place?




 The same applies to Joseph of Arimathea.

Again, Joseph of Arimathea is also said to been a secret disciple, And he also had to have  been there. He held high office on the council. This was a capitol offence. All members of the Sanhedrin had to have been there as a member of the council of judges. 



 Two well known advocates of Jesus and both part of the council and yet both conveniently left of the invite list to the party.

 That is your assumption. And you are wrong... if the whole story is meant to be believed.



  It could be they were hiding. It could be the Sanhedrin didn't want any opposition. Very often corrupt councils gather together in a forum to get what they want. It is not unusual as pathetic as it is. 

 I agree on the corruption. And this would apply to any member of the council. Jesus himself called them corrupt and "a nest of vipers".


Neither of these gentlemen were there. otherwise there would have been or might have been a different result. 

See above I have told you, Nicodemus is placed in the thick of it .  And if the council went by vote, then appears that they had been out voted.


 Well that would be a nasty little conspiracy wouldn't it?

Well if the bible is to be believed then it was " nasty little conspiracy", wasn't it? But not so little considering an alleged "innocent" man's life was at stake.







#58
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
what is the biblical evidence that either nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea was there during the trial? 

Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness.  emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country, 

But do you have specific evidence - a verse that tells us that Joseph and /. or nicodemus was in this meeting?  


Topic's author
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness.  emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country.. 
  
 Very lame for such and educated person as yourself. But if that is all you have as a rebuttal, then you have nothing imo.



Do you not have any idea at all as to who these "certain" accusers were, Tradesecret?

#60
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness.  emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country.. 
  
 Very lame for such and educated person as yourself. But if that is all you have as a rebuttal, then you have nothing imo.

I guess that is your "gotcha this time" move - or distraction at the least - telling us you don't have any specific evidence from the Bible telling us that both / or either of Nicodemus or Joseph was there.    Perhaps my response is lame, but not irrelevant. Where is your evidence that these two must have been there under threat of capital punishment?  I don't see to recall it in your above comments - the link to the evidence supporting this.  But I am sure you will provide it - and in anticipation thanks very much.

Do you not have any idea at all as to who these "certain" accusers were, Tradesecret?
I have never given it much thought - because their evidence was never relied upon and was shown even according to the text to be unreliable since it was inconsistent.

So I am content to say "I don't know who it was" but I am confident of who it wasn't.  It wasn't Nicodemus and it wasn't Joseph of Arimathea. And I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including Judas Iscariot.  There is simply not enough data in the texts.  I expect you have some grand conspiracy that you are just biting to get out - to show us how clever you think you are.  So I will wait in delightful anticipation of your next great reveal.