Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[sincerly]

Muffled said: ↑
If Jesus is God and I believe He is then He is able to answer questions in a myriad of ways.

So god has a multiple personality disorder according to you.

Jesus is GOD the SON---Not GOD THE FATHER---Nor GOD the Holy Spirit.

No one is calling the apostles arrogant in this topic. Just that John is most likely Nicodemus the Pharisee; thus his testimony is bias and based on hearsay information, that doesn't match the character of Yeshua in the other 3 gospels.

You are claiming that John who was an Apostle for 3 1/2 years of Jesus Christ is NOT writing what he wrote and even that is supposedly distorting the Character of Jesus.

Nicodemus is just another righteous man who believed Jesus. He would not have spoken contrary to the plan of salvation or the Character of Jesus, as you allege.

Matt.7:29, "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32)
John 5:26-27, "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

John 19:11. "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Do you understand what Jesus has said to Pilate? Jesus isn't being arrogant, but truthful.(John 18:37), "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
Therefore, one's answer to "What shall I do with Jesus?
Each of the Gospel writers has given the life and teachings of Jesus Christ showing a more complete picture. However, as John acknowledged, much more could have been written.

 

[wizanda]

You are claiming that John who was an Apostle for 3 1/2 years of Jesus Christ is NOT writing what he wrote and even that is supposedly distorting the Character of Jesus.

No one knows who wrote the gospel of John; yet based on the evidence within it, it is clearly not John the disciple, as the transfiguration he attended isn't even mentioned.
It is most likely by Nicodemus the pharisee high councilor, which explains why the conversation about being born again, which isn't recorded elsewhere, is documented in full.
Also with the many private conversations of the Pharisees and high council in John, it is most likely a member of them, that would have had the knowledge, required to write it.

Do you understand what Jesus has said to Pilate?

According to 3 witnesses and prophecy, he spoke only a word to be polite, by answering a question; John makes up an elaborate conversation, giving justification for Pilate to kill him and not the Sanhedrin.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
You are claiming that John who was an Apostle for 3 1/2 years of Jesus Christ is NOT writing what he wrote and even that is supposedly distorting the Character of Jesus?

No one knows who wrote the gospel of John; yet based on the evidence within it, it is clearly not John the disciple, as the transfiguration he attended isn't even mentioned.

John is the writer as is evidenced by the very things you negate.
It was Matthew and Mark who wrote about the transfiguration, but John was more into recording the miraculous activities which Jesus performed and the people experienced. The Divine side of the SON of GOD. Those parables revealed the humanitarian side of Jesus. Together we have a full picture of why Jesus came and was the propitiation for the sins of mankind.

It is most likely by Nicodemus the pharisee high councilor, which explains why the conversation about being born again, which isn't recorded elsewhere, is documented in full.

Concerning Nicodemus and this scenario, the most likely reason for his false claim for authorship is to cast doubt upon John's true and rightful Divine side of Jesus' Character; Also, Jesus provided John with the care of HIS Mother.

That recording is of greater significance than the transfiguration attended by three of them.
Also, John makes mention 5 times to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved".

Also with the many private conversations of the Pharisees and high council in John, it is most likely a member of them, that would have had the knowledge, required to write it.

Have you forgotten that Peter was in ear shot of Jesus's trial awaiting his three denials and was hearing/seeing what was going on.
There is no doubt that Nicodemus had been privy to some information---But also, so were the (Acts 6:7), "And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith".

There were no lack of witnesses to "private conversations".

According to 3 witnesses and prophecy, he spoke only a word to be polite, by answering a question; John makes up an elaborate conversation, giving justification for Pilate to kill him and not the Sanhedrin.

Pilate, gave ample testimony that he did not consider Jesus guilty of a crime.
Who are you convinced did the writing---Nicodemus or John--- to make up that "elaborate conversation"?---as you claim.??

The Sanhedrin had already crucified Jesus in their hearts, with their, "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matt.27:25)

 

[wizanda]

Who are you convinced did the writing---Nicodemus or John--

We're told in Acts one of the high priests was called John; so John Nicodemus is his full name, and most likely the author of the gospel based on the evidence within it.

with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and the rest of the high priest's family.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Who are you convinced did the writing---Nicodemus or John--

We're told in Acts one of the high priests was called John; so John Nicodemus is his full name, and most likely the author of the gospel based on the evidence within it.

wizanda, the context of Acts should have informed you such a "John" was NOT the same "John" who spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus.
Your farce of a concocted story of Nicodemus and John, a son of Zebedee, is not Scripturally true. You can believe your allegations, but remember the ONE'S Scriptures you are manipulating.

 

[wizanda]

wizanda, the context of Acts should have informed you such a "John" was NOT the same "John" who spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus.
Your farce of a concocted story of Nicodemus and John, a son of Zebedee, is not Scripturally true.

John the apostle isn't the author, he would not have known the information contained in the gospel of John... It has multiple private conversations amongst the pharisees and high council; it has knowledge that only Nicodemus was aware of:

• The private conversation between Yeshua and Nicodemus about being Born again.
• The private conversation between the officers and the Pharisees, where Nicodemus quoted the law.
  
• The burial herbs, that are said to be brought by Nicodemus, it includes the weight; no one else would have weighed them.

So it is a collection of hear say evidence, and some partially collected from a disciple, which it says at the end of it.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them down. We know that his testimony is true.

If this mainstream concocted view point, that the author was John the apostle who wrote it; why are there no parables, and none of the sayings we find in all the synoptic gospels? It literally makes no sense!
Yet it is understandable why people want to believe it, as John is the place it says you get free eternal life simply by believing.
Yet clearly it matches the warning given by Yeshua about the term 'Ego I-mee' (I AM) being used to deceive many.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
wizanda, the context of Acts should have informed you such a "John" was NOT the same "John" who spent 3 1/2 years with Jesus.
Your farce of a concocted story of Nicodemus and John, a son of Zebedee, is not Scripturally true.

John the apostle isn't the author, he would not have known the information contained in the gospel of John... It has multiple private conversations amongst the pharisees and high council; it has knowledge that only Nicodemus was aware of:

• The private conversation between Yeshua and Nicodemus about being Born again.
• The private conversation between the officers and the Pharisees, where Nicodemus quoted the law.
  
• The burial herbs, that are said to be brought by Nicodemus, it includes the weight; no one else would have weighed them.

"""John the apostle is the author """ John wrote of Nicodemus. Just as he wrote of Mary being left in his care.
Since all are dead in trespasses and sins. One has to have a new birth---Jesus was correct

So it is a collection of hear say evidence, and some partially collected from a disciple, which it says at the end of it.

If this mainstream concocted view point, that the author was John the apostle who wrote it; why are there no parables, and none of the sayings we find in all the synoptic gospels? It literally makes no sense!
Yet it is understandable why people want to believe it, as John is the place it says you get free eternal life simply by believing.
Yet clearly it matches the warning given by Yeshua about the term 'Ego I-mee' (I AM) being used to deceive many.

When one looks up the phrase "I Am" one sees it is said over 700 times and by many persons. The only deceiving is your attempt with these posts and that not even using the "I Am".
As the record states, the people were awed by the miracles more than the parables. They Could only be from GOD. and that is what the prophets had indicated and Jesus said to tell John the Baptist.
John's Gospel is the correct Gospel and message for the world. The new creature in Christ Jesus---Repent and live.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, it would be helpful to know who is the recipient of your messages and what is the subject of them.
My post is above this, and I see no correlation--between them.
Also, could you answer one's post in a single post rather than chopping it up? Or is there a good purpose for such?

I don't know what happened there. Usually I get my quotes in and I don't remember the reference.

Sometimes a post is too long to respond to everything so I respond to one thing at a time.

 

[Muffled]

So god has a multiple personality disorder according to you.

I believe that is a misinterpretation of what I said. If you believe that to be true, prove it. I find God having a consistent personality.

No one is calling the apostles arrogant in this topic. Just that John is most likely Nicodemus the Pharisee; thus his testimony is bias and based on hearsay information, that doesn't match the character of Yeshua in the other 3 gospels.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.

 

[Muffled]

John the apostle isn't the author, he would not have known the information contained in the gospel of John... It has multiple private conversations amongst the pharisees and high council; it has knowledge that only Nicodemus was aware of:

• The private conversation between Yeshua and Nicodemus about being Born again.
• The private conversation between the officers and the Pharisees, where Nicodemus quoted the law.
  
• The burial herbs, that are said to be brought by Nicodemus, it includes the weight; no one else would have weighed them.

So it is a collection of hear say evidence, and some partially collected from a disciple, which it says at the end of it.

If this mainstream concocted view point, that the author was John the apostle who wrote it; why are there no parables, and none of the sayings we find in all the synoptic gospels? It literally makes no sense!
Yet it is understandable why people want to believe it, as John is the place it says you get free eternal life simply by believing.
Yet clearly it matches the warning given by Yeshua about the term 'Ego I-mee' (I AM) being used to deceive many.

I beleive there is no evidence that Jesus was alone during this conversation.

I believe John was present:
John 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;

I believe this does not rule out the presence of John.

I believe this idenitifies the disciple as John: John 21:7 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved ...

I believe Paul by the Holy Spirit says the same thing so there is corroboration. THe null hypothesis for the other gospels requires that proof must be given that the other discipes knew and understood the gospel and failed to report it or that they would automatically understand what Jesus said when all too often they were looking for explanations.

I believe I know nothing of such a warning so one must provide a reference for what one is misinterpreting.

 

[Thanda]

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.

And what makes you think God is not violent? Exodus 13:5. It is also recorded that there was war in heaven and Satan was defeated and cast out. God is a peacelover and maker but he is not a all out pacifist.

Where as Yeshua sent his disciples out into the lost sheep of Israel; in John they are sent out into the world.

In Matthew Chapter 28 Jesus says:

19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
​

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.

In John 7 we have:

6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. and
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.​

Jesus simply told his brothers that it wasn't time for him to go up to the feast yet. He did not say he wouldn't be going.

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'.

Jesus did not say he is the King of Israel. In John 18 this what he says:

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.​

If He is not the kingdom is not of this world the how can you say that he stated that he was the King of Israel?

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.

In John chapter 1 verses 12 to 13 we have:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
​

I think you really need to come out and say what John did to you cause you really don't seem to like him. Even to the point of misrepresenting what he said.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Brilliant and carefully researched post.
Can't think how I missed it.
Can't believe that nobody gave you a 'like' for it.
Thankyou.

 

[wizanda]

And what makes you think God is not violent?

Even if the Bible declared 'YHVH as a man of war' (Exodus 15:3); that isn't the point, the point is that the testimonies don't match... In John it is a false representation of the facts (which happens a lot), this is just one of the many contradictions in the testimony that misrepresents Yeshua on purpose.

In Matthew Chapter 28

You are aware the end of the gospels are often blatant additions added later?

He did not say he wouldn't be going.

But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

It blatantly portrays him as not being truthful and open, which he was.

how can you say that he stated that he was the King of Israel?

The point is in prophecy and in all three synoptic gospels, he only spoke a word; thus none of that conversation even took place, let alone trying to justify how it makes sense...The end conclusion tho, was that Pilate asked the people, 'do you want the release of the king of the Jews'.

In John chapter 1 verses 12 to 13 we have:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.​

That is a good point, yet this is about noticing the differences.... So where as in the synoptic gospels Yeshua is saying those who do the work of God, shall be his brothers and sisters; within John it is making that you've got to accept jesus to be saved.

I think you really need to come out and say what John did to you cause you really don't seem to like him. Even to the point of misrepresenting what he said.

I like John Nicodemus the pharisee who most likely contributed to most of the writing of John; yet he completely misrepresents Yeshua, and destroys what he established. Instead creating something that commits Balaam teachings, by accusing God of first degree murder. You'd be offended too, if you realized the many errors within it, and that you're being lied to about the truth of Yeshua's mission on purpose.

 

[Thanda]

You are aware the end of the gospels are often blatant additions added later?

Then you are contradicting yourself since even in John Jesus sends the apostles out towards the end.

It blatantly portrays him as not being truthful and open, which he was.

As for not being truthful, you are wrong, he was very truthful. He said he was not yet ready to go up. And true to his word he didn't go up to Jerusalem when his brothers went. But when he felt that his time had come he then went up. This is common with Jesus, he has a sense of timing and does that only and always at the right time. Even when Lazarus was sick unto death, he waited a few days before he went to him.
As for not being open, he has no requirement to open to anyone. He is not accountable to any man, he is only accountable to God the Father. He is under no obligation to tell anyone what he is doing and when he is going to do it. Mary his mother learnt this well when he stayed behind at the temple when everyone else was going home and when questioned responded: How is that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?

That is a good point, yet this is about noticing the differences.... So where as in the synoptic gospels Yeshua is saying those who do the work of God, shall be his brothers and sisters; within John it is making that you've got to accept jesus to be saved.

John 7: 16 - 18 - Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me. If any man will do his(the Father's) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Jesus clearly taught that men must Keep God's commandments in order to be saved. And in Matthew 17:5 this is what the Father commands: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Jesus told people to believe in him because that is what the Father commanded him to say.

 

[wizanda]

Jesus told people to believe in him because that is what the Father commanded him to say.

Yes your jesus in the gospel of John told people to 'believe in him'; the real Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke told people to have faith in God.

If people want to argue because they really can't spot the differences in character, between Yeshua and the made up jesus; it just goes to show they had no interest in knowing him in the first place, let alone believing in him.

 

[bird]

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.

I enjoyed how you noticed some things different in a way between the gospels, particularly in John. However, it is not as if scripture is supposed to line up with human notions of concord. In fact, Scripture points out in Ezekiel 1:10, for example, that their are many faces to the same God depending on the angle of view. One is the face of a lion, another an ox, another an eagle and another a man. The scripture calls these four faces part of the Lord himself in Ezekiel 1:28: " This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD." It has been proposed that these four different faces can be representative of the four different perspectives of the four gospels. The lion face represents the gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and Jewish lineage and tradition is emphasized, and he is the Jewish king. The Ox represents the gospel of Mark, showing the power of Christ to do miracles and so forth. The man represents the gospel of Luke, which shows Christ as very human, suffering and identifying with those he came to save. The eagle represents the gospel of John which shows Jesus as transcendant and heavenly, particularly emphasizing the perspective of him being in concord with/full of the Holy Spirit. These differences in perspective on the one same Lord do not negate scripture, like the gospel of John, but rather give us clearer views of the Lord in more totality. Further, to take away the gospel of John from the Bible would make Ezekiel chapter one a non-sequitor, only needing three faces, when in fact the fourth face is needed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

John's Gospel was always my favorite, ironically. It's the most Gnostic and poetic of the four.

 

[Thanda]

Yes your jesus in the gospel of John told people to 'believe in him'; the real Yeshua in Matthew, Mark and Luke told people to have faith in God.

If people want to argue because they really can't spot the differences in character, between Yeshua and the made up jesus; it just goes to show they had no interest in knowing him in the first place, let alone believing in him.

My friend, you definitely have an axe to grind with John. In Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

[wizanda]

In fact, Scripture points out in Ezekiel 1:10, for example, that their are many faces to the same God depending on the angle of view.

That is an interesting take on Ezekiel imposed on the gospels; yet Ezekiel didn't mean that, so to imply we've got to keep a made up gospel, to see a pattern that sort of fits (if you cut off all the edges), doesn't make sense.

In Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Just read that before posting to you, yet look at the context.... That doesn't say you get eternal life for believing in him; that says you will be condemned for taking from those children that do believe in him, big difference.

My friend, you definitely have an axe to grind with John.

John misrepresents Yeshua, turning his ministry into a mockery; it was only the second time i re-read the gospels that i noticed it is an entirely different person, with a totally different theology pointing in the wrong direction. As saying you'd be offended if you could see it; which is why I'm trying to possibly help people see it. As stated in the original post, this is a start to the theological and testimony differences; you'd think after two thousand years, people would be ready to answer all the faults, not sit defending lies.

It's the most Gnostic and poetic of the four.

It does have a slightly gnostic slant and comes across as wooly; yet when you look under the wool, you find a wolf in disguise... As it is saying God sent his son to die; that is accusing God of first degree murder, when that is highly illogical (especially in its Jewish context).

 

[Thanda]

ust read that before posting to you, yet look at the context.... That doesn't say you get eternal life for believing in him; that says you will be condemned for taking from those children that do believe in him, big difference.

Taking what from them? Taking their belief? And why such a huge penalty for those who offend those that believe in him if believing in him is not necessary for eternal life. Remember what is not necessary for eternal life is meaningless to God. So why does he care about those who believe in him?