Something I am wondering about lately is false witnesses and how they might relate to an issue and how they might not, even though they are identified as false witnesses. Matt 26:59 Matt 26:60 and Matt 26:61 Nkjv Also Mark 14:55 mark 14:56 mark 14: 57 mark 14:58 mark 14:59 Nkjv. If the testimony of the two did not agree, then why was their testimony accepted? Mark 14:60 and Matt 26:62 What Jesus said was : John 2:19 Nkjv It is obvious that the false witnesses claimed that Jesus would be the one tearing down the temple, which is not what He said or implied. But on the requirement of the testimony of two witnesses, why was this not enough? How does their testimony differ that they needed to get Jesus to say something they could condemn Him for?