This Is A Fair Question

[stretch3172]

I'm afraid it's barely even close to my analogy. Mine implied that we had the same type of experience, and our accounts would therefore be somewhat different yet consistent (assuming that we were both being honest). Yours apparently assumes that they are so radically different from one another that there would be no consistency whatsoever, which is just plain false. Only John differs significantly from the the others, yet it too is theologically consistent with the Synoptic Gospels.

Where is the theologically consistency here:

Miracles that aren't reported in the other gospels:
The changing of water into wine John 2:1-11.
Giving sight to a man blind from birth John 9:1-8.
Raising Lazarus from the dead John 11:1-45.
But then John says nothing about the birth of Jesus, his baptism by John the Baptist, or his temptation by Satan.

To repeat; if the gospels are true they should be the same. They are not the same, they are drastically different and cannot possibly be true.

Once again, I believe you've missed the point. the gospel authors need not include every single miracle and life event of Jesus to be "true." Aided by God, the biblical authors selected the details of their narratives intentionally to emphasize different theological aspects of Jesus' identity and mission. John's primary goal was to describe Jesus as the loving Bridge between mankind and God the Father, while authors such as Matthew and Luke emphasize His fulfillment of the OT prophecies and human nature, respectfully. There is no logical problem with their choosing to include and exclude certain specific details. They are speaking of the same person from different perspectives and with different points of emphasis.