Sami Zaatari vs James White: Was Jesus Crucified ?

Sami says the disciples could of misunderstood the crucifixion since they have misunderstood Jesus through the gospels and therefore their testimony isn't trust worthy, it has no bases.

Whats interesting, since Sami said for argument sake that he would grant that the disciples wrote the Gospels, is that the VERY DISCIPLES THEMSELVES are narrating how THEY HAVE AT TIMES MISUNDERSTOOD JESUS. (Side note sure sounds like that passes criterion of embarrassment.)

Its one thing for a person or a group to make the claim that disciples are untrustworthy, and Sami assumes that the people making the claim are trust worthy regarding their assessment of the disciples.

But on the other hand if disciples misunderstood Jesus and therefore because of that they are untrustworthy, why in the world would Sami believe the disciples testimony that they misunderstood Jesus if they are untrustworthy?

I guess the disciples were trustworthy enough to correctly narrate every time they misunderstood Jesus. But ironically they fail to narrate that they misunderstood the crucifixion.

And doesn't admission of a mistake or a misunderstanding presuppose that the person or people have to come to knowledge to what exactly the truth is in order to know that they are mistaken?

Here is the point that would mean anytime that the disciples narrated that they were mistaken about anything about Jesus that would mean they have come to knowledge of the actual truth by the Triune GOD.

Which means Jesus didn't leave the disciples in the dark about ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS about him, because it would be counter productive to their ministry because they would be spreading false information about Jesus.

And Jesus even promises them the Spirt of Truth which would guide them into and all Truth and enable them to remember everything he said.

But yet Sami wants us to believe when the disciples seen Jesus, he didn't correct their assumption that he was Crucified and Rose from dead.