Matthew, Mark, Luke Vs the Gospel of John

[angellous_evangellous]

The Marcionites rejected all the gospels except for Luke. Even Luke was edited and trimmed down to fit Pauline theology. The Marcionite rejection of John gives it more credibility imho.

How can Marcion lend credibility to a book if he rejects it? My theory is that the Marcionite churches received John much later than Luke, which is why they rejected it -- and this complements historians who already believe that John was written after Luke. Marcion's canon was already closed by the time John came along - and indeed, John was written in such a way that it excluded Marcion's theology (albeit an earlier version of what he would later adopt).

 

[Simplelogic]

How can Marcion lend credibility to a book if he rejects it? My theory is that the Marcionite churches received John much later than Luke, which is why they rejected it -- and this complements historians who already believe that John was written after Luke. Marcion's canon was already closed by the time John came along - and indeed, John was written in such a way that it excluded Marcion's theology (albeit an earlier version of what he would later adopt).

John is usually criticized for representing a "high christology" not found in the synoptics. It is interesting that Marcion, with his two god theory, didn't use John as his lead text. Though I could be wrong. Especially if your theory on his canon being closed happened before John penned his letter.

 

[Thief]

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.

sorry I didn't see this sooner.....
the differences are greater than you listed
indeed....
He was seen changing water to wine three days after His baptism.....
having called two disciples to follow....

In the other three gospels He went forty days and nights to be tempted in the wilderness....
He never changed water to wine.

His character is greatly different in John.
He seems more physical and 'pushy'.

...and no man was able to lay hold on Him.....

 

[Thief]

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)

but as your avatar indicates.....neither do you believe....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

John is usually criticized for representing a "high christology" not found in the synoptics. It is interesting that Marcion, with his two god theory, didn't use John as his lead text. Though I could be wrong. Especially if your theory on his canon being closed happened before John penned his letter.

You didn't even address the question - how does Marcion's rejection of John attest to John's authenticity?

If Marcion received Luke first, and also a few epistles of Paul, he could have rejected John simply because he received it late - which is almost certainly what happened. But John embraces theology that excludes and criticizes Marcion's theology -- most probably, Marcion's theology developed from his father keeping the earliest texts that arrived in Sinope and rejecting the later ones (John and the pseudo-Pauline letters, as well as much of the NT that originated late).

It is very, very telling that Marcion refused all of the late Christian texts - John and the Pastorals, for example. But he also rejected the earliest Gospels, and I believe the simple reason for that is the earliest dissemination of the Gospels were obviously not all in the same place at the same time. Luke reached Sinope first, and Marcion's father or a previous bishop simply rejected everything that came later, especially as it represented a theology that was increasingly exclusivist and non-Pauline.

 

[Muffled]

How can Marcion lend credibility to a book if he rejects it? My theory is that the Marcionite churches received John much later than Luke, which is why they rejected it -- and this complements historians who already believe that John was written after Luke. Marcion's canon was already closed by the time John came along - and indeed, John was written in such a way that it excluded Marcion's theology (albeit an earlier version of what he would later adopt).

i believe by that criteria the Jews could reject Jesus becasue He was later than other prophets. That makes no more sense than the Muslims who claim Muhammed must be greater becasue he came later.

I believe if this is so it shows they weren't relying on the Holy Spirit.

I beleive it seems absurd to me that a man's theology takes precedence over what God says.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i believe by that criteria the Jews could reject Jesus becasue He was later than other prophets. That makes no more sense than the Muslims who claim Muhammed must be greater becasue he came later.

I believe if this is so it shows they weren't relying on the Holy Spirit.

I beleive it seems absurd to me that a man's theology takes precedence over what God says.

Yes, of course I agree about the Jews. I'm not sure if Jews rejecting Christian texts are similar to Christians rejecting Christian texts. The split between Judaism and Christianity occured long before Luke was written.

 

[Rise]

I am glad you have such an interest in the gospels to study and compare them.
However, many of your points can easily be settled with a more thorough understanding of scripture.

Forgive me if these points have already been raised and discussed, as I have not yet gone through the rest of the thread.

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

All four gospels end with a command to go into all the world (or all nations) and preach the gospel.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 16:15
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

Luke 24:47
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

It is also see the words of Jesus reported in Acts 1:8;
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

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.

You're actually mixing up two different conversations from two different areas of scripture.


John 2 has Jesus telling the Jews that if they tear down His body He will rebuild it in three days. He is not talking about the physical temple in this statement, as the scripture explicitly explains to us.

John 2:
18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.


The reference to not one stone being left upon another is a different encounter where Jesus is addressing a question posed by His disciples rather than addressing a question posed by religious doubters. It is not related to His statement about His body.

Mark 13:1-2
And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Matthew 24:
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”



His statements in John about dying and resurrecting (destroying his bodily temple and rebuilding/resurrecting in 3 days) as a sign to the Jewish people is also consistent with the rest of scripture; because elsewhere in other gospels when the Jews demand a sign from Him He responds by making reference to His death and resurrection as the sign they will be given.

Matthew 12:39-40
But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 16:21
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Luke 11:29-30
When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

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

Matthew 13:13-14 and Mark 4:11-12 both say that Jesus spoke in parables to fulfill Isaiah 6:9; that hearing they would not understand him.

The greek word for parable is used to describe metaphor. It implies a side by side comparison of two things or using earthly examples to relate heavenly truth.

The gospel of John is packed full of examples of Jesus using deep metaphorial language and speaking in symbolic allegory.
The gospel of John therefore meets the criteria for the greek word parabolē.


Examples of parabolē in John:

John 12:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

John 16:21
When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.

John 10:1-5
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”


As a worthwhile side note, John also makes a reference to Jesus having a parabolic manner of speech meant to obscure the plain meaning of his teaching:

John 10:6;
This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

John 16:25
I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about 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.

The gospel of John does not say that the Holy Spirit has never existed before.

The gospel of John merely says that the Holy Spirit will be given to the disciples.

We also see reference to God giving the Holy Spirit in Luke:

Luke 3:16
John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Luke 11:13
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”


We also see this actually happen, as recorded by Luke, in the book of Acts.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:16-18
But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants[c] and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:32
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

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.

No where does is say that Nicodemus met alone with Jesus.
John could have been there.
However, even if he wasn't, Jesus could have related this the account to his disciples afterward.

The fact that a particular account is only found in one gospel is also not something unique to John. All four gospels have information that is unique to them. So that alone is not a basis for questioning the validity of something found in a particular gospel.

1 Peter 1 also contains the phrase "born again" twice in the same context that Jesus uses it.
The apostle Peter didn't have a problem using this phrase. And the gospel of Mark, based on church tradition, was Mark writing down the gospel according to Peter as he told it in Rome.

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.

You are reading conclusions into this encounter that cannot be supported by scripture. Jesus is not giving a mandate to everyone that they must be without wealth to follow Him.
No where in the rest of scripture, whether old or new testament, is such a mandate found.
It was never taught by any of the apostles in Acts or the epistles that it was a requirement for salvation to give up your wealth either.

What Jesus is teaching, which is consistent with the rest of scripture, is that we must love God more than anything else in this world.
Jesus was identifying an issue in that particular man's life that kept him from following God - his idolization of wealth. It is self evident that the man loved wealth more than he loved God because he wasn't willing to give it up in order to follow God. If he loved God more than wealth then he would have been willing to part with it.

It is loving something more than God which is sin - not having wealth.
As Jesus said "the love of money is the root of all evil". Money itself has no inherent evilness but ones love for it is evil.


Furthermore, let's look at what John actually says about salvation. John does not merely say that we must believe in His name to be saved and leave it at that. The gospel of John says we must love and obey God (these two things being the same thing), which involves repenting of our old ways and being in union with God by His Holy Spirit (abiding in Him), which in turn only comes through the acceptance of His Son.

We see in Acts that the message of salvation preached by Peter is in line with what we find in the gospel of John.
Also of note; nowhere does Peter make reference to any kind of material or legalistic observances as a prerequisite to salvation.


Acts 2:36-28
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 4:9-12
if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

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'.

Jesus never calls anyone on earth his Father.
He calls God his Father.
He is referred to as the Son of God in all four gospels.

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.

Turning over people's money tables is already an aggressive physical way of cleansing the temple of corruption.

Driving them out with a whip is also an aggressive physical way of cleansing the temple of corruption.

These two actions are in line with each other in their nature. You might try to say one is more violent than the other but the truth is that neither are passive actions. Both are aggressive physical ways of forcing the corruption in the temple to come to a halt at that moment, so there's no reason to believe they did not both happen.

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.

Are you referring to when Jesus said he wasn't going to the feast?

It wasn't his disciples who asked him, but his brothers. And it wasn't a party. It was one of the required religious feasts in Jerusalem.

Jesus did not lie about going. When his brothers tried to tell him to go, for their own reasons, he told them it was not yet his time.

Later he did go, presumably because it was his time. What we take away from that passage in John 7 is that he went when he was suppose to and not when his brothers told him to.

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'.

Every gospels says that Jesus stopped answering Pilate's questions after affirming he is the King of the Jews.

However, no gospel precludes the possibility of anything else being spoken between them prior to Jesus affirming that He is King of the Jews.

You will notice in the gospel of John that after Jesus affirms that He is the King of the Jews that
he does not answer Pilate's follow up question about what truth is.

It would be a logical mistake to try to conclude that the absence of a recorded dialogue, prior to the question about Jesus being King of the Jews, means that none took place.
The gospels are abridged events and each writer abridges the same events in different ways, leaving out some details or recounting additional details.

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.

You can find Jesus saying "I am" outside of the gospel of John.

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest was questioning Him, and [ab]saying to Him, “Are You [ac]the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

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.

The gospel of John never implies that we cannot become sons of God.

The question is how does one become a son of God.

You are taking that passage from the sermon on the mount out of context if you think Jesus is saying that by simply being a "peacemaker" we become entitled to be a son of God. It also says in that same passage that the gentle will inherit the earth - yet it would be a mistake to take that out of context and claim that merely being gentle is what earns you that place of ruling and reigning over the earth with Christ. You have to look at the fullness of what scripture teaches about is required to establish right relationship with God through Christ, live in communion with Him, and be rewarded in the age to come.

 

[Muffled]

Welcome to RF Rise. I appreciate the scholarly effort.

 

[wizanda]

What evidence can you provide that John was written as you say?

The evidence is provided for within the gospel....

There are multiple accounts throughout John that only a member of the Pharisees, and high council would've known about...

So using deduction, we could conclude Nicodemus as a partial author, with hearsay evidence collected by a group of authors.

And if John's gospel was such a phony, then why is it that the early church clearly believed Jesus was the messiah?

Because John is meant to sound credible, it matches 1st century opinion on the Messiah....

Yet as Yeshua was saying, not to go around telling people that, as it wasn't his time.

If John was a distortion, then common sense would have it that others that knew the truth would have negated not only that book but also that belief about Jesus.

John is so close to the truth, as it copies from it; also a lot of peoples faith rests upon that concept...

Yeshua prophesied the 'I Am' statements would be used claiming to be him, which we find in John.

Since the Christian church is founded on the Pharisaic ideals of Simon peter and Paul, then it fits nicely with the gospel of John as a foundation.

 

[sojourner]

The evidence is provided for within the gospel....

There are multiple accounts throughout John that only a member of the Pharisees, and high council would've known about...

So using deduction, we could conclude Nicodemus as a partial author, with hearsay evidence collected by a group of authors.

Because John is meant to sound credible, it matches 1st century opinion on the Messiah....

Yet as Yeshua was saying, not to go around telling people that, as it wasn't his time.

John is so close to the truth, as it copies from it; also a lot of peoples faith rests upon that concept...

Yeshua prophesied the 'I Am' statements would be used claiming to be him, which we find in John.

Since the Christian church is founded on the Pharisaic ideals of Simon peter and Paul, then it fits nicely with the gospel of John as a foundation.

John was written too late for Nicodemus to have penned it.

Peter wasn't a Pharisee.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, of course I agree about the Jews. I'm not sure if Jews rejecting Christian texts are similar to Christians rejecting Christian texts. The split between Judaism and Christianity occured long before Luke was written.

I am just saying later or earlier doesn't matter much. For instance the Gnostic texts come later but the main point is not that but that they have false theology in them.

 

[kepha31]

The evidence is provided for within the gospel....

There are multiple accounts throughout John that only a member of the Pharisees, and high council would've known about...

St. Paul was a Pharisee, so were the Bereans. So what. Last I checked, John was a fisherman.

So using deduction, we could conclude Nicodemus as a partial author, with hearsay evidence collected by a group of authors.

Because John is meant to sound credible, it matches 1st century opinion on the Messiah....

Yet as Yeshua was saying, not to go around telling people that, as it wasn't his time.

John is so close to the truth, as it copies from it; also a lot of peoples faith rests upon that concept...

Yeshua prophesied the 'I Am' statements would be used claiming to be him, which we find in John.

Since the Christian church is founded on the Pharisaic ideals of Simon peter and Paul, then it fits nicely with the gospel of John as a foundation.

A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to "create contradictions" when there are none by violating the context of the passage(s) in question.

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts into the text as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief.

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none.

The critic sometimes assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where none exist.

Also related to the context problem: Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded -- including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam.

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would appear to be a real contradiction/error. You have to know the whole story, or at least have a plausible explanation.
Countering Bible Contradictions

 

[wizanda]

John was a fisherman.

We don't know who the gospel writers are; yet based on the evidence within the gospel of John, it was most likely a Pharisee to know the conversations that took place behind closed doors of the high council chamber meetings, and thus Nicodemus could be the author, as the article relates.

one perceives contradictions where there are none.

First we establish the character of Yeshua based on the Synoptic Gospels ('see together as one'); then we can examine other material to see if it fits with his teachings, as according to what he stated, we're judged by following his words, not other made up text that came after.

So saying we've got to follow a Christian blue print, to discerning what is truth, when it is established on false texts to begin with (John, Paul and Simon); means we'll just end up not seeing any of the contradictions against the teachings of Yeshua.

Countering Bible Contradictions

You keep posting that, which doesn't really go over any of the points of Paul Vs Yeshua, or John Vs Yeshua; which was all prophesied to happen like this.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, of course I agree about the Jews. I'm not sure if Jews rejecting Christian texts are similar to Christians rejecting Christian texts. The split between Judaism and Christianity occured long before Luke was written.

John and the other Gospels are at least compatible which is more than can be said for the gnostics. One doesn't even need the Holy Spirit to see that.

 

[Muffled]

John was written too late for Nicodemus to have penned it.

Peter wasn't a Pharisee.

However John was reported to be friendly with the high priest explaining why he was there. One could speculate that information would be available to him.

 

[wizanda]

Another fascinating point; Yeshua repeatedly uses the word faith pistis G4102 within the Synoptic Gospels; yet there isn't a single usage by John, instead it tells you to believe in things G4100 pisteuō.

 

[Muffled]

Another fascinating point; Yeshua repeatedly uses the word faith pistis G4102 within the Synoptic Gospels; yet there isn't a single usage by John, instead it tells you to believe in things G4100 pisteuō.

I believe this is the null hypothesis. You need to prove that it was necessary for John to use that word. Also it seems to me the Greek words are very close in spelling. How is it you come up with such variant meanings. Are you dipping into less common meanings of a word in order to find a difference?

 

[wizanda]

Are you dipping into less common meanings of a word in order to find a difference?

Nope, was looking things up, and found it.

 

[Muffled]

Nope, was looking things up, and found it.

I believe you need to be more specific that that. You looked it up on Wikipedia?