Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[wizanda]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3; yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

• Yeshua answered in parables, there are no real parables within the gospel of John.
• The destroying of the temple, and then the bit about 'it being rebuilt in 3 days' is a lie, made up by false witnesses, according to both Matthew and Mark; whereas in John it is told as truth, and claimed to be in reference to the body. When it is entirely clear from the witness statements, that Yeshua stated: "not one brick shall stand on top of another." Clearly he didn't say 3 days, as the temple still hasn't been rebuilt.
  
• Within the synoptic gospels, we find Yeshua turning over the money tables, and quoting scripture at them. Within John we find jesus being accused of tying knots at the end of a chord, thus making a whip, and then driving them out; this is used to portray Yeshua as being violent.
  
• jesus in the gospel of John is said to be asked to a party by his disciples, which he answers no to; he then goes to the party secretly; this is used to say that he lied.
• When asked about eternal life, Yeshua stated to follow the commandments and what's more to give up wealth and follow him. In John all you need to do is believe in his name, and that God sent him to the Jews.
• Yeshua stated to receive grace, you should give grace, and should do good works without questioning reward. John creates the statement the lamb of God, which people then think overall implies you get grace from a human sacrifice.
• Where as Yeshua sent his disciples out into the lost sheep of Israel; in John they are sent out into the world.
• Where as within the synoptic gospels and in prophecy, 'he was lead up silently' to Pilate and spoke a word in response. In John there is a long conversation about being 'the king of Israel, thus giving Pilate reason to kill him'.
• Yeshua warns against those that would come after in all 3 gospels, and use the term "ego i-mee" (I Am) to deceive many; which is used 7x (+1) within John. These statements are then used to portray jesus as claiming himself to be God. If we examine the synoptic gospels in Greek, we can see that Yeshua used that term for God.
• Yeshua said 'call no man on this earth your father'; whereas in John we find 'i, and the father are one' and 'that he whom has seen me, has seen the father'.
• Throughout the Tanakh, and then in the synoptic gospels, the holy spirit existed; why would jesus then need to send it in the gospel of John.
  
• Yeshua relates all doing the work of God (peacemakers), can become children of God; we find the term 'the only begotten son' used only within John.

This is still only a start to the many contradictions within John, as clearly there are numerous errors in theology throughout....
Take into account, that who ever wrote the gospel of John, had a good knowledge of everything spoken behind closed doors of the pharisees and high council; as it records word for word, conversations that were private.
It also is only found within the gospel of John, about a private meeting between Nicodemus the pharisee, and jesus at night. It is not even mentioned in the synoptic gospels about being 'born again'; so the only person likely able to record the conversations found within the gospel of John, would be Nicodemus.

 

[Mequa]

A lot of the bigotry in Evangelical Christianity ("Evangelical" referring to their adherence to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), comes from the book of John, which was indeed written after the other 3 "Gospels".

As an example:
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" - John 14:6
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." - John 3:36

The idea that all non-Christians face Hell for the thought crime of not "believing" in Jesus, comes from the Gospel of John. There is no evidence that the above quotes, which preach this concept, are derived from a historical Jesus.

A rival text to John written around the same time is the Gospel of Thomas. The message is very different, with Jesus portrayed as more of a Guru or guide:

"Jesus said, 'I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended. '" Thomas, 13
"Jesus said, 'Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.'" - Thomas, 108

The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources

 

[Simplelogic]

A lot of the bigotry in Evangelical Christianity ("Evangelical" referring to their adherence to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), comes from the book of John, which was indeed written after the other 3 "Gospels".

As an example:
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" - John 14:6
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." - John 3:36

The idea that all non-Christians face Hell for the thought crime of not "believing" in Jesus, comes from the Gospel of John. There is no evidence that the above quotes, which preach this concept, are derived from a historical Jesus.

A rival text to John written around the same time is the Gospel of Thomas. The message is very different, with Jesus portrayed as more of a Guru or guide:

"Jesus said, 'I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended. '" Thomas, 13
"Jesus said, 'Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.'" - Thomas, 108

The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources

This is not what I believe John is saying. But I do agree that Christianity has run wild with these verses.

"No one... ...except through me

If one were to ask an evangelical Christian if a person can be saved without accepting Jesus as their savior, which to them is synonymous with being born again, you would be answered with, "well, Jesus said...", and they would go on to quote their end-all-debate passage from the Gospel of John. It is an answer that is to be understood as "no", and implied that such a person will certainly spend eternity in the torments of the lake of fire. The verse that is quoted and the interpretation that has been laminated on it have been used as a proof-text for so long by evangelists like Billy Graham, that it is almost impossible for anyone to read it anymore without automatically hearing the evangelical's interpretation. The fact that it is almost always quoted to answer the question if one can be saved without knowing Jesus establishes the false presupposition that the passage has something to do with the question. Thus, we automatically hear the "no" interpretation. But if a person had never heard this passage used this way and read it for the first time, it is doubtful they would come to the same conclusion. And if it had been read in light of everything Yeshua had said in the book of John up to that point, it would have been understood perfectly well... just as those who heard him understood him. The verse you will hear, quoted all by itself is...

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

There it is! Case closed... right? Unless one accepts Jesus as his savior he will never get to heaven, and therefore he will spend eternity in hell! When reading these words a person can see Billy Graham waving his hand and hear his accent in his thundering authoritative voice as he emphasizes the words "No one". Not surprisingly, many evangelicals who quote this verse this way couldn't tell you the context in which it is found or tell you to whom Yeshua was speaking when he said it. This is in spite of the fact that nearly everyone is familiar with the text. It is because this verse has to be ripped out of its context for it to have the full effect of the desired interpretation. After hearing this verse used this way, one would naturally assume that the context in which it was stated must be similar to the debate that precipitated its use by the evangelical. One would expect there to have been a serious discussion, where Yeshua made a statement concerning how one is saved, then a question arose of if there was any hope for others who didn't find that way, and then we would read what has been portrayed as Yeshua's hard-nose, exclude-all-others answer. None of this can be found there. There was nothing somber or threatening spoken in this scene at all! On the contrary, Yeshua had just given a sweet, peaceful promise to his disciples, and he spoke these words to them in answer to a question from Thomas...

"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, and how can we know the way?" Yeshua said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:1-6

This was in no way a statement of exclusivity. Yeshua's emphasis was on "I", not "No one". The words "No one" were spoken gently as a sweet assurance and personal promise to his disciples that he would be making sure they got to the place he was going to prepare for them. To be sure, they perfectly understood him this way, because they had also heard him say the Father had committed the judgment of all men to him.

"For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the son." "For even as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave also to the son to have life in himself. And he gave authority to him to also execute judgment, for he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear his voice. And they will come out, the ones having done good into a resurrection of life, and the ones having practiced evil in to a resurrection of judgment." John 5:22,26-29 KJIIV

This is what Yeshua meant by the words, "No one comes to the Father except through me". Only in the sense that Yeshua will judge every man is how he meant that no one gets to the Father around him. This is true whether a person believes in him or not! All he was saying, and what the disciples heard him say would be along the lines of this paraphrase.

"I told you I will be judging every man and determining where they go, and that includes you! So don't let your heart be troubled. You know the judge personally. I am the way. Be assured... I will see to it that you get there."

Many evangelicals honestly believe that unless a Jew accepts Jesus as his savior, he will end up in the lake of fire. It's hard to express how repulsive this lie is... especially when there are many Jews who keep both great commandments and do good by loving the Lord their God and their neighbors as themselves. Considering Christianity's horrifying treatment of the Jews throughout most of it's history, is it any wonder why Jews typically want nothing to do with Christianity's Messiah? On judgment day, no one will want to be in the shoes of one who misrepresented and made a mockery of the judge to his "brethren". "

What's at stake

 

[Simplelogic]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3; yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

• Yeshua answered in parables, there are no real parables within the gospel of John.
• The destroying of the temple, and then the bit about 'it being rebuilt in 3 days' is a lie, made up by false witnesses, according to both Matthew and Mark; whereas in John it is told as truth, and claimed to be in reference to the body. When it is entirely clear from the witness statements, that Yeshua stated: "not one brick shall stand on top of another." Clearly he didn't say 3 days, as the temple still hasn't been rebuilt.
  
• Within the synoptic gospels, we find Yeshua turning over the money tables, and quoting scripture at them. Within John we find jesus being accused of tying knots at the end of a chord, thus making a whip, and then driving them out; this is used to portray Yeshua as being violent.
  
• jesus in the gospel of John is said to be asked to a party by his disciples, which he answers no to; he then goes to the party secretly; this is used to say that he lied.
• When asked about eternal life, Yeshua stated to follow the commandments and what's more to give up wealth and follow him. In John all you need to do is believe in his name, and that God sent him to the Jews.
• Yeshua stated to receive grace, you should give grace, and should do good works without questioning reward. John creates the statement the lamb of God, which people then think overall implies you get grace from a human sacrifice.
• Where as Yeshua sent his disciples out into the lost sheep of Israel; in John they are sent out into the world.
• Where as within the synoptic gospels and in prophecy, 'he was lead up silently' to Pilate and spoke a word in response. In John there is a long conversation about being 'the king of Israel, thus giving Pilate reason to kill him'.
• Yeshua warns against those that would come after in all 3 gospels, and use the term "ego i-mee" (I Am) to deceive many; which is used 7x (+1) within John. These statements are then used to portray jesus as claiming himself to be God. If we examine the synoptic gospels in Greek, we can see that Yeshua used that term for God.
• Yeshua said 'call no man on this earth your father'; whereas in John we find 'i, and the father are one' and 'that he whom has seen me, has seen the father'.
• Throughout the Tanakh, and then in the synoptic gospels, the holy spirit existed; why would jesus then need to send it in the gospel of John.
  
• Yeshua relates all doing the work of God (peacemakers), can become children of God; we find the term 'the only begotten son' used only within John.

This is still only a start to the many contradictions within John, as clearly there are numerous errors in theology throughout....
Take into account, that who ever wrote the gospel of John, had a good knowledge of everything spoken behind closed doors of the pharisees and high council; as it records word for word, conversations that were private.
It also is only found within the gospel of John, about a private meeting between Nicodemus the pharisee, and jesus at night. It is not even mentioned in the synoptic gospels about being 'born again'; so the only person likely able to record the conversations found within the gospel of John, would be Nicodemus.

Looking forward to this!

 

[Spiderman]

Jesus said the law is nonviolence. let the one who is without sin cast the first stone. do not return violence with violence but turn the other cheek! The greatest law. The greatest commandment. The primary law trumpts all

very simple...this is the law:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Judging others Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

[Deidre]

I'd take the NT with a grain of salt since there are omitted ''Gospels''. It makes the entire NT suspect to me, therefore. (not to mention that I feel the OT isn't literally the 'word of God,' either)

 

[Spiderman]

Keep in mind that the old testament was written by cavemen that now adays we find amusing. Look at the old testament and laugh!

 

[Simplelogic]

When asked about eternal life, Yeshua stated to follow the commandments and what's more to give up wealth and follow him. In John all you need to do is believe in his name, and that God sent him to the Jews.

Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the son to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth--those who have done good, to a resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to a resurrection of condemnation. John 5:25-29

 

[Simplelogic]

Keep in mind that the old testament was written by cavemen that now adays we find amusing. Look at the old testament and laugh!

Israelites were extremely intelligent. Today humans have access to SO MUCH MORE INFORMATION then ancient Israelites. Even so, I would wager that most of the men from the Hebrew scriptures would run circles, intellectually, around most humans today.

 

[sincerly]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3; yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

The three Gospels reveals the loving Character of Jesus as he seeks to teach/call the population to the kingdom of GOD which is at hand.
John's focus is on the love shown the population in the seeking and saving that which was lost. The "come unto me" as I know the way to the Father's Mansion where I go to prepare a place for you and all who Believe the Father sent ME to guide your there.

Any contradictions are assumed by those who disbelieve the writings of the four Gospels.
Your twelve bulleted items are attestation to that truth.

Matt. 12:25, Jesus didn't need an inside spy ring as you alluded. "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Nor was that the only such---after all the Scriptures are clear(in those Gospels) that HE is the Messiah and the Son of GOD.(John 6:67-69), "
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

1Peter 1:18-20, confirms it."Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,..."

 

[wizanda]

"No one... ...except through me

There is an aspect to Yeshua sharing his inheritance with the strong; which still applies, even if we remove the egoistical statements with John.
Luke 10:22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

5:25-29

Sorry should've included the verses i was referring to within John based on eternal life. That though the verse you've posted is in a pharisee understanding of the resurrection into the messianic age, it isn't directly related to Yeshua answering about eternal life; which within John, it makes it into simply being about believing that God sent Yeshua to die. (works Vs belief)

Any contradictions are assumed by those who disbelieve the writings of the four Gospels.
Your twelve bulleted items are attestation to that truth.

I've got a firm belief in Yeshua statements and understand them more than you'll ever know, so that isn't in question; yet it makes an easy way for someone to religiously debate the case.
The character within John doesn't match Yeshua's; so claiming that it somehow reveals extra details the other authors failed to know about (like his whole ministry), makes no logical sense, other than in a faith based statement, that you like what you find within the gospel of John...
Which is like in Charlies Chocolate Factory, saying John gives me a fake free golden ticket to get in; yet if you read the small print within the competition, you will get nothing for believing it.

Using Simon the stone (petros) to back up the case, counts for nothing; as Yeshua stated satan wished to use him, and thus he called him the stone to fulfill prophecy. Yet lets keep it on topic and will start another debate against Simon later, if we get anywhere with John and Paul.

 

[Simplelogic]

There is an aspect to Yeshua sharing his inheritance with the strong; which still applies, even if we remove the egoistical statements with John.
Luke 10:22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Sorry should've included the verses i was referring to within John based on eternal life. That though the verse you've posted is in a pharisee understanding of the resurrection into the messianic age, it isn't directly related to Yeshua answering about eternal life; which within John, it makes it into simply being about believing that God sent Yeshua to die. (works Vs belief)

I've got a firm belief in Yeshua statements and understand them more than you'll ever know, so that isn't in question; yet it makes an easy way for someone to religiously debate the case.
The character within John doesn't match Yeshua's; so claiming that it somehow reveals extra details the other authors failed to know about (like his whole ministry), makes no logical sense, other than in a faith based statement, that you like what you find within the gospel of John...
Which is like in Charlies Chocolate Factory, saying John gives me a fake free golden ticket to get in; yet if you read the small print within the competition, you will get nothing for believing it.

Using Simon the stone (petros) to back up the case, counts for nothing; as Yeshua stated satan wished to use him, and thus he called him the stone to fulfill prophecy. Yet lets keep it on topic and will start another debate against Simon later, if we get anywhere with John and Paul.

What if I told you that the greek word for "believes" is most accurately translated trust/obey?

Would an in depth study of this crucial word be of any interest?

 

[wizanda]

What if I told you that the greek word for "believes" is most accurately translated trust/obey?
Would an in depth study of this crucial word be of any interest?

It is an interesting point, due to the nature of our own language, where the word faith has been bastardised by Paul, by creating the terminology 'The Faith" (the religious belief)....So faith is no longer seen as having a similar meaning as 'to trust', i.e. trustworthy and faithful having virtually the same meaning.

Yet even with that info, it wouldn't change the debate; because Christ is clearly stating it is about works, character and your own righteousness in gaining eternal life; John is making it about 'trusting' (believing) in someone else's righteousness.

 

[sincerly]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3; yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

Wizanda, John taught by the live examples done by Jesus to show that Jesus is/was who HE claimed to be and who the disciples knew HIM to be. I see now that it is necessary to respond to your listed comments.

1) Yeshua answered in parables, there are no real parables within the gospel of John.

See above.

2)The destroying of the temple, and then the bit about 'it being rebuilt in 3 days' is a lie, made up by false witnesses, according to both Matthew and Mark; whereas in John it is told as truth, and claimed to be in reference to the body. When it is entirely clear from the witness statements, that Yeshua stated: "not one brick shall stand on top of another." Clearly he didn't say 3 days, as the temple still hasn't been rebuilt.

Jesus spoke of HIS death and Resurrection in Matt.12:40; 16:21; Luke 11:30+; Mark9:12 (HIS Temple/body) John 2:18--21, "But he spake of the temple of his body.
Also, of the Temple/Sanctuary in Matt.24:1-2, 20; Luke 19:43-44.

Within the synoptic gospels, we find Yeshua turning over the money tables, and quoting scripture at them. Within John we find jesus being accused of tying knots at the end of a chord, thus making a whip, and then driving them out; this is used to portray Yeshua as being violent.

Yes, Jesus did cast out the thieves as all attest to HIM doing---and rightly so. That sort don't go peacefully. Look at the world today.

jesus in the gospel of John is said to be asked to a party by his disciples, which he answers no to; he then goes to the party secretly; this is used to say that he lied.

It appears that you are misrepresenting John 7:1-24. NO! Jesus didn't lie. However, liars do lie. Just as the context stated, The leaders wanted to kill Jesus. Therefore, secretly.

When asked about eternal life, Yeshua stated to follow the commandments and what's more to give up wealth and follow him. In John all you need to do is believe in his name, and that God sent him to the Jews.

Wrong, John recorded, that if one loves Jesus, one keeps HIS Commandments. Also, When one Abides in HIM there is a Faith in HIM and what Jesus has accomplished to free one from the sin debt/penalty. that is the message of the "Everlasting Gospel" which all teach as part of the "GO Ye" and teach the "what-so-ever I have told you".

Yeshua stated to receive grace, you should give grace, and should do good works without questioning reward. John creates the statement the lamb of God, which people then think overall implies you get grace from a human sacrifice.

Matthew and Luke record the conversations with the Angel Gabriel concerning the birth of Jesus and who HE IS , along with HIS mission. (God with us and Savior of the world).
Peter also, affirms the fact that the "sacrifice" was planned and "ordained" prior to the laying of the foundation of the world.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

With a careful examination of Yeshua's character within Matthew, Mark and Luke, we can clearly see an overall matching concept within the first 3

That's because Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q. John didn't.

yet on examining John it is a completely different character, with numerous contradictions in theology and testimony overall.

Partially this is because John is the only gospel in which there exists a theology. The synoptics don't really have anything coherent enough to be called such. Christology, yes. Theology, not so much.

Also, consider the depictions of Socrates in Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Each one presents a different picture, a different portrait. This is due to multiple reasons. One is genre: Aristophanes depicts Socrates in a comic play, while in Plato it is impossible to separate "Socrates" as a character (a mouthpiece for Plato's views) vs. a historical portrait. The differences in the nature of our sources as well as their content make it difficult to flesh out the "real" Socrates, but this doesn't mean that any source should be excluded. Aristophanes' Clouds, for example, is a work of fiction yet contains information about Socrates much the way Shakespeare's histories do.

Let us suppose that the synoptics were really independent, such that their similarities were due to the fact that the authors either received a collection of very similar orally transmitted stories about and sayings from Jesus (or that one or more were eye-witnesses). It is still entirely possible for "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to have been an eyewitness and accurately recounted what he saw and heard of Jesus. Differences could just be due to different weight placed on different aspects of Jesus' personality/character, or the fact that the authors of the synoptics didn't really care much about theology but (as Luke says explicitly) were interested mostly in historiography (of a type belonging to or similar to the "genre" of ancient biography).

The destroying of the temple, and then the bit about 'it being rebuilt in 3 days' is a lie, made up by false witnesses, according to both Matthew and Mark;

On that note, Matthew and Mark disagree. The extent of the disagreement is lost in translation. In Mark, Jesus isn't accused of saying that he will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. The verb used in both is οἰκοδομέω (in Matthew it is οἰκοδομῆσαι, the 3rd person optative, while Mark the simpler οἰκοδομήσω), but Mark describes explicitly how he would rebuild the temple in contrast to how it was made using a word for which there is no English equivalent: χειροποίητος (in the text, the form is accusative not nominative). This word means "built by hands", and in Mark it is how Jesus describes the manner in which the temple is built, while he will rebuild it ἀχειροποίητον or "not built by hands". The contrast is stark and deliberate: the accusation is that Jesus had claimed to be able to rebuild "magically" (according to the interpretation of his accusers) in three days that which required far longer when built as any building is (by hand). There is no need to include either word except to emphasize this distinction, as οἰκοδομέω wouldn't mean just "I build" but by implication "I build by hand". Hence the exclusion of both words in Matthew still makes perfect sense. However, the fact that it makes perfect sense is because Matthew fundamentally differs from Mark as to the nature of the charge. In Matthew, Mark's statement about the nature of the temple (that it was built by hands) is lacking entirely, and there is no mention of what in Mark is the truly blasphemous component to the accusation; namely, that Jesus said he could rebuild the temple magically.

Mark, then, isn't actually in conflict with John. In Mark, the accusation can be understood to be false because of a misunderstanding: Jesus didn't mean he would destroy the temple and then magically put it back together. Rather, he was being metaphorical, but his accusers did not understand. This also explains why the accusation is in Luke/Acts (Acts 6:14), Mark, Matthew, & John, which suggests that Jesus did say something to this effect, yet also why the accusation was false.

Whatever the case, the accusation in Mark is not the accusation in Matthew. For as you state, in Matthew we find that

"not one brick shall stand on top of another." Clearly he didn't say 3 days, as the temple still hasn't been rebuilt.

In Mark, Jesus is accused of saying that it would be built ἀχειροποίητον, which could be interpreted to ways: that Jesus was claiming he would put each stone back in place using magic or miraculous powers, or that he was being metaphorical. The three days part (which, from an historical point of view is a post hoc addition to the Jesus tradition) fits perfectly within the resurrection narrative so long as one understands ἀχειροποίητον to mean a metaphorical temple would be "not built by hands".

Within the synoptic gospels, we find Yeshua turning over the money tables, and quoting scripture at them. Within John we find jesus being accused of tying knots at the end of a chord, thus making a whip, and then driving them out; this is used to portray Yeshua as being violent

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matt. 10:34

jesus in the gospel of John is said to be asked to a party by his disciples, which he answers no to; he then goes to the party secretly; this is used to say that he lied.

If I say I am not going to do something and I mean it, and then change my mind, am I lying? You seem to be grasping at straws here.

Yeshua warns against those that would come after in all 3 gospels, and use the term "ego i-mee" (I Am) to deceive many; which is used 7x (+1) within John.

Yet is found in the most pivotal place in all the gospels in Mark. It is found in Matthew too, just not there.

Yeshua said 'call no man on this earth your father'; whereas in John we find 'i, and the father are one' and 'that he whom has seen me, has seen the father'.

These aren't incompatible statements.

 

[Faybull]

Whatever happened to the Gospel, according to Christ?

 

[wizanda]

Whatever happened to the Gospel, according to Christ?

To me the gospel of Yeshua would be based on cross referencing Matthew, Mark and Luke; which is then found to be the idea of a living concept, of feeding the poor, giving up wealth, doing good works to glorify God, and loads more points to living righteously.
Paul and John create a different corrupted version of the gospel, which is all about believing in jesus came to die.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To me the gospel of Yeshua would be based on cross referencing Matthew, Mark and Luke

Which requires knowledge of ancient Greek and at least a decent familiarity with Aramaic just to read these. Analysis requires far more, from orality studies to numismatics.

 

[wizanda]

Wizanda, John taught by the live examples done by Jesus to show that Jesus is/was who HE claimed to be and who the disciples knew HIM to be.

Since the author of the gospel of John was more likely a member of the pharisees, due to the overwhelming amount of private conversation within John; there is no reason that he would have inner knowledge, greater than what we find in the synoptic gospels, which have more chance of being written by a disciple, than John does.
The fact most of the stuff written in John, isn't even mentioned in the synoptic gospels, and contradicts what we find within them; means it doesn't make any sense it is additional knowledge; it makes far more sense, it is to put a false representation across, of what the pharisee believed he had said.

Jesus spoke of HIS death and Resurrection in Matt.12:40; 16:21; Luke 11:30+; Mark9:12 (HIS Temple/body) John 2:18--21, "But he spake of the temple of his body.
Also, of the Temple/Sanctuary in Matt.24:1-2, 20; Luke 19:43-44.

We're told what Yeshua stated, he didn't say "in 3 days"... In Matthew and Mark it is stated, it is a made up lie by false witnesses. We can see how people can assume it fits with the resurrection; yet he never said it, and thus it shows the gospel of John to be untrustworthy, due to containing false statements told as truth.

If we examine the synoptic gospels, the concept of the 'gospel' is as i just stated above 'a living gospel'; Yeshua gave up his life to minister, and instead was murdered, as within the parable of the wicked husbandmen.
John claiming God committed premeditated murder, is balaam teachings; God has never required sacrifice.

 

[Hawkins]

The idea that all non-Christians face Hell for the thought crime of not "believing" in Jesus, comes from the Gospel of John. There is no evidence that the above quotes, which preach this concept, are derived from a historical Jesus.

Do your home work. Matthew contains more hell concept explicitly.

Matthew 25:46 (NIV)
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”