I don't know why people are quoting the so-called gospel according to John as if it could tell us anything about the actual words of Jesus.
As I noted before, the majority of modern NT scholars date it to approximately 95 AD, long after Jesus' death. Its style and content are so different from the three synoptic gospels that if they preserve much of Jesus' teaching, then John probably has little or none.
One clue that it is written late is the reference to Jesus' enemies as "the Jews" where the synoptic gospels call them the Scribes and Pharisees, a much more limited group. If the gospel of John had been written early by an actual disciple of Jesus, it is unthinkable that he would have referred to his fellow countrymen as "the Jews" as if they were an alien race. Another clue about the late date is how more of the blame is shifted away from Pontius Pilate and the Romans onto the Jews." This reflects an era in the history of the church when few if any Jews were coming into the church but it was making inroads among the gentile population of the Roman empire.
There are other clues that "John`is not singing from the same hymn book as the synoptic authors. In the synoptics Jesus does his miracles when a person appeals to him for help and shows faith, and when people ask for a "sign" (i.e. a miracle) Jesus becomes angry and tells them that it is an evil and adulterous generation which asks for a sign. John is just the opposite. The miracles are all called signs, and Jesus is represented as doing them in order to generate faith. Contrast the two resurrection stories. Jairus' daughter in Mark 5 is raised in a private setting. In John 11 Jesus deliberately waits a few days to allow Lazarus to die, and then raises him in a very public display to show his power. In Mark 4 we are told that Jesus taught the crowds only through parables. You will search in vain to find a single parable in John. More could be said, but that is enough.
As I noted before, the majority of modern NT scholars date it to approximately 95 AD, long after Jesus' death. Its style and content are so different from the three synoptic gospels that if they preserve much of Jesus' teaching, then John probably has little or none.
One clue that it is written late is the reference to Jesus' enemies as "the Jews" where the synoptic gospels call them the Scribes and Pharisees, a much more limited group. If the gospel of John had been written early by an actual disciple of Jesus, it is unthinkable that he would have referred to his fellow countrymen as "the Jews" as if they were an alien race. Another clue about the late date is how more of the blame is shifted away from Pontius Pilate and the Romans onto the Jews." This reflects an era in the history of the church when few if any Jews were coming into the church but it was making inroads among the gentile population of the Roman empire.
There are other clues that "John`is not singing from the same hymn book as the synoptic authors. In the synoptics Jesus does his miracles when a person appeals to him for help and shows faith, and when people ask for a "sign" (i.e. a miracle) Jesus becomes angry and tells them that it is an evil and adulterous generation which asks for a sign. John is just the opposite. The miracles are all called signs, and Jesus is represented as doing them in order to generate faith. Contrast the two resurrection stories. Jairus' daughter in Mark 5 is raised in a private setting. In John 11 Jesus deliberately waits a few days to allow Lazarus to die, and then raises him in a very public display to show his power. In Mark 4 we are told that Jesus taught the crowds only through parables. You will search in vain to find a single parable in John. More could be said, but that is enough.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
