There are too many variances between the gospels, to state they were all just copied from each other.
Very true. They didn't all copy from one another. Rather, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that Matthew and Luke used Mark and both also used an independent sources generally referred to as Q. The power of the evidence isn't that the sources are virtually copies of one another (they aren't). For each of the synoptics, we have thousands of manuscripts that actually ARE copies but every single one contains variants (mostly spelling errors and the like).
Rather, the evidence comes from the fact that the authors did not copy one another but from a variety of indications that they are interdependent.
You may or may not have come across research in fields as diverse as cognitive psychology and criminal studies on witness testimony. People who saw the exact same thing tend to differ in relatively radical ways in how they describe it. Greek allows for differences in descriptions and phrasing that English does not. For example, most verbs in English have maybe two forms (e.g., “live” “lives”, “buy” “bought”, etc.). In Greek, each verb has a few hundred. Nouns, pronouns, and adjectives also have various forms, and the word order in Greek is extremely flexible. So when a document is not only largely ordered at the macro scale according to a similar document, but also is largely made up of lines that are almost or exactly identical to another document, there really isn’t another way to explain this other than that one used the other. This is the case here. The author of Luke actually admits to knowing previous sources in the prologue/dedication.
John has a theology, as it matches pharisee Jewish beliefs
It doesn’t come close to any Jewish beliefs, and few Jewish sects of that time could differ more from the theology of John than the Pharisees. Also, as our sources for the Pharisees are mostly the NT, Josephus, & Philo I am curious as to your basis for your understanding of the Pharisees.
of what they thought the messiah would be stating
We don’t have any testament as to what, if any singular concept, the Pharisees believed about the messiah.
The gospels have a clear theology
Expressed where?
So statements such as the "sons of light", comes from where?
An very diverse collection of writings recovered from Qumran that is probably the remains from
an Essene group.
Questions asked about marriage, are based on which disagreement, within which sect of Judaism?
Until Jesus & the NT, no culture or religion forbade divorce.
We've got one line possibly added at the end of John, which says 'we' collected this information from a disciple; yet throughout John there are numerous witness statements, that only a member of the pharisee high council would've known.
The Pharisees weren’t priests and weren’t among the elite, but were (so far as all our evidence suggests) isolationist in nature yet still a group supported by the populous and not the elite. Also, all the passion narratives contain information that the gospels themselves state couldn’t have come from any named or known eyewitness.
There is no evidence to suggest he ever said it
Of course there is. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t be arguing he didn’t because that wouldn’t even occur to you. There is, however a great deal of evidence. Mark, Matthew, and John all present us with evidence that Jesus said this. You have decided to interpret Matthew in a particular way and ignore the components of Mark that make rather clear why Mark equates these accusations with falsehoods, and used this to discount John. Even were you correct, that’s still a fair amount of evidence (and relative to evidence from antiquity in general, it’s an enormous amount of evidence).
what is stated in Matthew and Mark is that 'the 3 days' part was made up.
No, it isn’t.
That is in a completely different context
So what? You read into the addition of a rope in a description of the temple account, concluding that this was added to make Jesus violent, yet ignore a blatant, clear statement we are told Jesus said that states he came to bring conflict and violence? You can’t have it both ways.
The point in the turning over of the tables, is that, what we find in John is an exaggeration of the facts, to suggest an aggressive egotistical nature overall.
We don’t have the facts. We have accounts of what happened in a brief and summary form, and you’ve chosen to not only focus on one variant here but also to read into something that isn’t actually implied.
when Yeshua confirmed the prophets in the synoptic gospels.
You do know why they are called the synoptic gospels, yes?
Considering the 8x I Am statements are not found in the other gospels
Then what? Mark has Jesus say “I am” in the passion narrative in front of the high priest and in response to the question “are you the messiah, the son of the blessed [god]?” Saying “I am” is part of normal speech, and even when uttered in John as signifying more it never even remotely approaches the significance in Mark. And, strangely enough, Matthew omits it. As does Luke.
The verses in Mark, isn't found in Matthew and Luke
I quoted an example in Greek from Matthew for you.
that we see Paul also teaching.
The one person whom we actually know as an author (as opposed to the anonymous authors of the gospels, whose works were attributed based on tradition that was in part influenced by Papias, which gives us reason to think that the apart from anything else the tradition that Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew is baseless).
