It is NOT a well known fact, it is merely guesses by SOME historians, and when pressed they admit that it is just their guess.<quoted text>
It is a well-known fact that the Gospel, According to John, was written by many Johns. This is a fact which no one can deny.
It says that it only speaks of SOME things that Jesus did, not all. And it says that what was recorded was so that you may believe, but that it can't record everything. What is the matter with your ability to read properly?<quoted text>
Historians have nothing on John and others. What we hear is from historians of the Church.
This is from John 20:
" The Purpose of Johnís Gospel
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
And it also says Son of God, which is something that you deny, and you blatantly left that part out. Very dishonest.<quoted text>
So, the main purpose of that gospel is to tell you that Jesus is the Messiah.
That's just your opinion, but you say that the Church itself says it's a fraud and then you quote an explanation from them that clearly says Son of God. What is the matter with your reasoning abilities oh veritable scholar? Didn't you say earlier that anybody who says you are smart is right? Sorry, but I just don't see that at all. You have a difficult time with even the most basic forms of logic and reasoning.<quoted text>
John did not say that you may believe that Jesus was God or the Father.
Son of God is another fraud.
Then Yusuf Ali forged the Quran as well in his translations. It's just a translation.<quoted text>
If you read the first ever translation of the Bible in English by Wycliffe, he wrote:
"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."
Which means in the beginning, God was the only word.
How do you expect us to accept the 15th Century deliberate mistranslation and a forgery, "In the beginning was The Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Sometimes I just can't understand how your cross eyed mind thinks.
Who says they were copied? Look, if you want to ask a real question, ask why some Gospels were considered canonical and others weren't. That's perhaps the REAL question. I don't know why you fancy yourself to be smart. I think that they just took toe ones that told about the story of Jesus, but there are other Gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas that does nothing but quote sayings of Jesus and has no story to it.<quoted text>
Any sensible person reading John will find ZERO divinity of Jesus. Do you see any divinity of Jesus in Mark's gospel, which was copied wholesale by Matthew and Luke?