Just like Burger King, eh? Your way. Your way is wrong. In a court of law, that is hearsay. It is what someone else said he said. He was a Rabbi, and there is no way he would have made such a statement. In those days, the Hebrew tradition of dual paternity was well known and G-d was every human being's father in heaven. The belief is that there can be no conception without the presence of the *father* in heaven and the *father* on earth. In other words, each child is a miracle. Without that, there can be no children.
So you must take the New Testament in context of the time period, which you haven't, and most people who preach incessantly don't. Jesus, according to the NT, was a very devout Hebrew who tried without much success to stop the influx of Hellenism into the Judaic culture. There was as much political intrigue then as there is now, and a devout Jew, a rebel Rabbi, would never have walked away from his roots. Not until Paul did the convolutions begin, and Paul wasn't even born until after Jesus was supposed to have died. Paul CHANGED the traditions Jesus fought to restore. Read it for yourself. Both Peter AND Paul can't be right. Jesus handpicked Peter, not Paul. So who messed it all up for the rest of time?
Oh, hell. What's the use...
1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4 And you know the way where I am going." 5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
If you elect to dismiss the Gospel of John as "hearsay," then you dismiss the entire Gospel as "hearsay," and your opinions on the alleged "teachings" of the "devout Rabbi" (and nothing more) Yeshua Ben Joseph are utterly baseless, in that no other written account exists. He wrote no texts.
Again I say, correctly, that a question was posited, and I answered it - correctly. Not "my way," but the only way it could possibly be answered on the basis of any evidence whatsoever. What you dismiss as "hearsay" would actually be admissable as "eyewitness testimony" in a court of law - and such testimony is, every single day, in every single court of law in the world. Your tangent on the origin of Paul's writings (which are not the Gospels), however, would be dismissed as "irrelevant," at least to the issue of debate.