A Listing of Various Contradictions Between The Two Gospels Mark Smith 1995 Rule #1 of Evidence: Several Witnesses RequiredThe Apostle Paul sets up the principle that alleged evidence needs to be established by at least two or three witnesses (1st Timothy 5:19). If this can't be done, the "facts" are probably not facts, and should be tossed out and ignored. It is tainted evidence. To paraphrase from the famous OJ trial, the glove don't fit. This "multiple witness" principle of Paul means we need more than just one "eyewitness" all by his lonesome to establish a claim. If all we have is one "witness" claiming to have seen an event, the testimony from that one lone witness must be rejected, for ALL "facts" (no matter how tasty to Christians) must have more than one lone "witness" to hold up. This, to a Christian's horror, would also apply to Paul's claim (1st Cor. 15) to have witnessed a group of 500 all seeing the resurrected Jesus. Applying this principle, seeing how Paul is the "lone witness" to this alleged event, and it takes at lease two witnesses to establish an event, this fish-story of Paul's should have been cut out on the editing floor when the New Testament was put together and mailed to Nero's National Inquirer instead.
Rule #2 of Evidence: The Several Witnesses Must AgreeWe also learn how to establish evidence from Jesus himself, for when he was on trial, he faced several "eyewitnesses" brought in to testify against him. But when the "facts" these various "eyewitnesses" swore to, turned out to contradict each other right and left, the validity of their alleged "eyewitness testimony" was rejected by the author of The Gospel of Mark, as seen in Mark 14:55-59. It should also be pointed out that no "multiple witnesses to a chariot crash" scenario was used to excuse the contradictory testimony.
Applying The Rules to Matthew & JohnThe above New Testament rules show that we need more than one person testifying, and these people damn well better not contradict each other, or all their testimonies should be thrown out and ignored. As you read the following contradictions between two of the major "witnesses" who helped establish the Jesus story, keep this principle in mind: to be intellectually honest, contradictory testimony FOR Jesus should be rejected just as fast as contradictory testimony AGAINST Jesus.
From The Gospel of Mark... "Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put him to death; and they were finding none. For many were giving false testimony against him, and yet their testimony was not consistent. And some stood up and began to give false testimony against him, saying, 'We heard him say, "'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'" And not even in this respect was their testimony consistent." (The Gospel of Mark, NASB, 14:55-59) ************ False testimony seems to have been widespread back then, and therefore something we need to watch out for when reading these ancient documents. So when we see contradictory testimony within these documents, BE IT FOR OR AGAINST JESUS, intellectual honesty demands that we reject it. The gospels contradict each other? Then their whole testimony should be rejected. The witnesses against Jesus at his trial contradicted each other? Their whole testimony should be rejected. What say ye?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
