Better reasons to quit Christianity

[spockrates]

Never said John's evidence was more substantial; just tried to make the point that John's information is additional. He added details of Jesus' life the others left out of their gospels. We see the same today, don't we? Some journalist writes a biography of some president. It sells a lot of copies, and the public becomes interested. A former member of the president's administration writes another biography, with details not found in the previous one. People buy that one, too--not because the new biography rehashes the same old details of the man's life, but because the new biography has additional information not presented in the previous biography. See what I mean?

Ok, I see what you're saying in this case. If we use your metaphor, then what I understood (wrongly?) last time was that a younger journalist would be getting more/better information than an older journalist. I didn't see anything to do with the person's position. Maybe I misunderstood.

Either way, let's go with what you have written here. I can see how it would be reasonable to expect John to have more information.

Yes, in fact, John ends his gospel with these words:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Seems like more evidence that the purpose of John's gospel was to write down some of the additional information about Jesus' life, and he was making the point that there is much more that might never be written.

Is it coincidence though that his Gospel was the last one written as well? It seems to me like the content in it is the icing on the cake where the cake is simply a shaky foundation consisting of the dubious Synoptics.

Why dubious?

So I guess my question would be how much did 'John' know of the others and how much did he stretch the truth?

It's possible John could have stretched the truth, but I think it would be improbable. For it would be out of character for the one who wrote:

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

(1 John 1)

I think that for me to believe John intentionally tried to deceive, I'd have to see some evidence supporting the idea that he was dishonest, or perhaps going insane, or I'd need to see evidence that the one writing his gospel was not the same one who wrote his letters found in the Bible. Regarding him making up stories, I don't see how he would benefit from these, given that anyone associated with Jesus and claiming he was God got a target put on him by both the Roman and the Jewish authorities. After Jesus' death, if he did not rise from the dead as he said, the wisest thing would be to keep one's mouth shut and go into hiding.

I'm sure you're familiar with all the instances where Jesus seems to be a lot more divine than in the Synoptics.

Why do you think the writer of Matthew's gospel did not believe Jesus was God incarnate?