1. INTRODUCTION

Many see John's Gospel as presenting a Jesus who is not truly human.
It also plays a major role in the development fo the Creeds and the church's dogma.
It thus fueled such dreadful events as heresy hunts and the Inquisition.

The Creeds are barrier-builders.
They draw theological lines beyond which we are barred from straying.
They lock Jesus into a pre-modern world and define God as
an invasive miracle worker from outer space.

Such an approach tempts us to avoid this Gospel.

Atonement Theology is the common view of Christianity.
It centres on human depravity and weakness and portrays God as the great rescuer.
It has collapsed under the onslaught of increasing Western knowledge.
As part of the author's investigation into the Gospel of John
he revised his view of God to one of universal consciousness,
perhaps seeing God as Being itself, rather than as a being.

Jesus became a Jewish mystic with a high degree of God-consciouness.
The story of this Gospel took on a new meaning; new aspects emerged.
One was that the book was written, over time, by different authors.
Another is that the way which we treat these writings
is not even close to what the writer intended.

2 MORE THAN ONE AUTHOR

Various bits of evidence point to there having been several authors to the book
and that it was much editted for the first couple of hundred years
since the initial creation in the very early second century.

It is possible that it was based on an earlier "Signs" Gospel.
The book majors on the conflict with orthodox Jewry,"The Jews",
from whom the Christians had a, seemingly acrimonious, split.
It was only when this split was achieved and Christianity merged into the Gentile world
that the hard edges and dualistic nature of the religion, became added.
sadly they then formed the foundation of the church.

We can derived a whole new understanding of life
if we delve anew into the real meaning of John's Gospel.

3, SEPARATION FROM OTHER GOSPELS

The Christian story has suffered a blending process.
The three synoptic Gospels have a common theme, or base,
because Mark's was foundational to the other two.
Ninety percent of Matthew is taken from Mark
and about fifty percent of Luke.
John's Gospel does not share this heritage.

For instance, the story that we tell of Christmas
starts with Luke's account and switches to Matthew's
for the final (Wise Men) scenes.

Neither account appears in Mark and
the facts that they promote are neither
credible nor, when traceable,true.

A similar critique can be made of the Crucifixion accounts.
The story seems incredible and more related to mythology
than any factual description of the event and
is adjusted by the authors so as to fit
the current doctrine of their church.

None of the sayings from synoptics fit the needs of John.
He abandons them all and replaces them with new words:
"Woman behold your son...." and so on,
finishing with the triumphant
"It is finished!".

So we can tabulate the differences between John and the Synoptics:
1. John does not follow the established tradition of a Virgin Birth.
There appears to be nothing supernaturak about the origins of Jesus.
2. John does not report any baptiism of Jesus by John the Baptist.
3. There is no account of the Temptation of Jesus, nor of the Transfiguration.
4. There are no provocative sayings, nor an account of the Sermon on the Mount.
Instead Jesus makes long convoluted speeches or theological dialogues.
5. The Cleansing of the Temple is moved to near the start of the story.
6. The setting is mostly in Jerusalem, whereas the Synoptics focus on Galilee.
7. There is no account of the Last Supper
Instead there is the foot-washing ceremony.
8. Miracles become "signs", though few of these tie up with Synoptic accounts
9. There is no Gethsemane anguish and no prayer for Jesus to be spared.
Instead Jesus states that this was the purpose for which he was born.
10. The Crucifixion is seen as glorification rather than suffering.
11. Several new characters are introduced.
and other characters are given new attributes.

4. THE WORK OF A PALESTINIAN JEW

This is a book is shaped by a first century form of Jewish mysticism
and the author tells us, on almost every page, that it is not a literal account.
Those not familiar with Jewish worship patterns with miss many nuances.
The book also includes references to detail which only a Jew would know.

Despite this, the book, like all the Gospels, was written in Greek,
and thus will have absorbed some gentile influence to an extent.
Even so, the book resonates with quotes and inferences of scripture.
The term "Lamb of God" applied to Jesus comes from synagogue liturgy.

The synoptic Gospels are structure to provide material
for the successive seasons of the Jewish liturgical year.
Though Mark only covers half of it, the others cover it all.
John follows a different pattern, which covers a 3 year liturgical cycle.
Thus John's stories needed to be told in a different sequence.

It is a mistake to see John's Gospel as reflecting Greek or Gnostic thinking.

5. THE JEWISH ROOTS OF THE PROLOGUE

New ideas are immediately introduced in the Prologue:
a new view of John the Baptist, a pre-existent Jesus.

The word "Logos" runs through Jewish tradition.
John sees "the Word" as primary: as creator: as God.
"Genesis" chapter 1 gives God's Word the same impact.
The Word of God is seen a God's very essence.
(and what else is there than the still small voice in the night that guides our way?)

In the Old Testament, Moses was seen as the primary link to God.
When he delegated his authority, boundaries had to be set,
a book of The Law had to be created.
Over the years, those basic laws had to be expanded
and defined to cover every eventuality and possible situation.
Thus The Word became The Torah and was captured into human words
and the inscribed tablets became treated as holy in themselves.

However God can not be possessed.
God continued to exist outside the religious framework
in the lives and words of the prophets, speaking God's word
to the citadels of power. (as they do today!)

The concept of The Messiah initially pointed to "the Annointed One",
and was nothing more than a title for the King of the Jews.
This ended with the end of the Jewish royalty and
the people came to look forward to an ideal ruler,
though with wide variations in what that implied.

Behind this lay a yearning for wholeness and union with God.

6. THE DOORWAY TO JEWISH MYSTICISM

Mysticism forms part of every religious system.
In some ways it is a commentary on the inadequacies of traditional worship.

The Gospel of John was distorted from its mystic foundation by Grecian thinkers
with a dualist doctrine and no concept of the mystic tradition.
Within Judaism mysticism was a possible route for those
forced from the embrace of traditional Jewry,
such as the Christian community.

The emptiness within the soul couid be filled
by a God who was immanent within,
who gave one Wisdom.
It was the permeating presence of divinity, from which there was no escape.
The finite factor of Wisdom was The Word.
"In the Beginning," John wrote, "was the Word
and The Word (Wisdom) was from God and The Word (Wisdom) was God".

Both The Word and Wisdom were calls to life, to love and to being.
In Jesus dwelt the Wisdom and Word of God.
The Christlife can not be found in ritual,
but in the very presence of God.

John writes "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
In the life of Jesus people saw the will of God being lived out.
and they heard the word of God being spoken.
To be "Born again" was not a conversion experience,
but to be freed from life's limitations and be part of the oneness of God.
This, said Jesus, was to satisfy humanity's greatest hunger and need.

7. JOHN THE NON-LITERALIST

Mysticism expands words beyond their normal meanings.
Literalsim, on the other hand, implies a concrete, unchanging, meaning.
Literalism commits us to the idea that divinity is finite and explicable>
Religious literalism requires infallible leaders and inerrant scripture.
John's Gospel makes a mockery of literalism!

Most Western people are embedded with a literal view of the Bible.
They respond with guilt, or even anger, to another view, or
evidence of the need for a non-literal interpretation.

Examples of the foolishness of a literal view lie in the scholarly opinion
of a range of much-loved myths about the life of Jesus.
What we have been doing is to confuse story-telling and parable with history.
We become confused, lost, when we lose confidence in literal explanations.
Many take the Fundamentalist escape to avoid the dilemma and remain believers.

At many points in his story,Jesus encounters and challenges literalists.
Examples are his meeting with Nicodemus and with the woman at the well.
Both respond to his non-literalist question with literalist scorn.
In each case Jesus exposes the literalist view by his response.
John returns to this theme again and again.

We justify our prejudices with the perfume of the Bible,
yet the words of the Bible can only point to Truth.
They are not Truth itself.

John tells the story of one who transcends limits.
It is about bringing God into existence on earth.
It is about the Spirit transcending the limits of the flesh.

To read John's Gospel we must leave literalsim aside.
There is probably not a factual account in this book.
Jesus probably never spoke a word that is reported here,
but the words reported may expose what he meant>

The characters of the Gospel may also be considered in the same wat.
Ecah has a partto play, but none probably have any reality,
but represent a particular group or thought pattern.
Nathaniel, in Chapter 1, is a case in point.