What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[Godscreated]

Wait a minute why are you jumping around, from v. 31 and then go back to verse 27 and then quote v. 29 as if it took place after v. 31.

It's called "explaining the context". I refer to something that happened later to explain what he meant by what he said earlier.

On your part it's called manipulation to support what you want to believe, many reasonable people have read the same Gospels and not drawn your conclusion. You've completely ignored the fact no baptism took place in those verses, John was answering questions that happened earlier.

The next verses are told by John as the events that had happened at an earlier meeting.

Aside from your fevered imagination, what, if anything, do you base that assertion on.

It's not me with the fevered imagination, I seek the truth for scripture, I've even questioned God about scripture, yet kept searching them until I was able to see the truth, without manipulating them, you blatantly took the verses out of order to make them say what you wanted them to. Go back and look at every scripture I've discussed here and you'll see I do not use such tactics

John's gospel is not about a specific time line

Really? Let's go to the tape.

John 1:29 The next day...
1:35 Again the next day after...
1:43 The day following...
2:1 And the third day ...

Sounds pretty specific about both time and order of events to me.

What events, you've pulled up a few verses and not even used a context with them. poor on your part.

You couldn't prove anything to me,

So it is with people who don't listen, don't want to be bothered with the facts and don't want to ever consider they might be wrong.

Why would I listen to someone who blatantly and poorly manipulates the scriptures. I study scripture, not just read it and when there is a specific statement all the rest of scripture has to fit. Yes there are a couple places I'm still working on and I'm sure that one day they will all fit.

I do not buy crap from anyone,

You bought into the Bible.

The greatest book man has ever received.

I've dismissed nothing and it's rude that you presumed I would.

I didn't presume. That's what you did.

You assumed I would try and justify scripture like people you supposedly have talked to, and I didn't and wouldn't have, I understand what I'm reading and do not always accept what other Christians have to say, my pastor taught me this, even about himself. He said go search, make sure.

I explained to you how the gospel's account for what seems like a controversy isn't one, unless someone does like you and twist the verses around in John's gospel to seem like they are say something they do not.

I'm not "twisting". I'm reading what's there. You're the one inventing obtuse "interpretations" to try to make the square round. Skepticism isn't an agenda. Skepticism is just reading one holy scripture with the same critical thinking you would with anyone else's. Apologetics is an agenda. It starts with the conclusion and tries to find (or invent) reasons to believe it.

Yeah, you read it alright, then you started placing verses out of order to prove a conclusion you drew before trying to understand what was actually said. You have no skepticism, but you are critical of scriptures because you have a disdain for them, that is not an honest way to approach them.

The fact that you would obviously disagree with other Christian apologists who have used the "two temple cleansings" argument only underscores how muddled and confusing your book is. Even those explaining away the contradictions can't get their story straight among them.

The Bible belongs to everyone whither they believe it or not and just because there are two interpretations of the same verses only shows the fallacy of man.
I've also noticed you did nothing to defend your position, other than try and call me anything but honest.

GC