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.
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.
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.