Reading the fourth gospel in the way it was meant to be read

As I have mentioned several times, I am engaged on an intense, poetic reading of the fourth Gospel ('John's) in which I read with the assumptions that this is the primary and most valid communication concerning Jesus.

Why? Because the author of this gospel is the beloved disciple who is Lazarus (-raised), who is the brother of Mary of Bethany, who is the same person as Mary Magdalene, who is the wife of Jesus (them having married initially in a normal Jewish way in Cana, and then in some heavenly and eternal fashion in Bethany: the episode of the spikenard ointment).

The author of the Fourth Gospel was therefore Jesus's best friend, an ex-disciple of John the Baptist (who had an essential role in the ministry of Jesus), Jesus's brother-in-law on earth and eternally, and himself an eternal being - the first resurrected Man.

The primary validity of such a 'source' is self-evident. 


My assumption is that at the time of writing of the fourth gospel, its readers will all have known the identity of the author, his nature, and his close and unique relationship with Jesus. This is therefore taken for granted in the text; and the text makes perfect sense in light of such knowledge.

This is certainly not an arcane, secret, occult, or gnostic interpretation of the fourth gospel! Quite the opposite. The fourth gospel was and is perfectly clear, its message was and is on the surface and not hidden between the lines. Its message is available to all and not restricted to the 'initiated'.

The fourth gospel is simply the story of Jesus written by such a man as Lazarus was known to be, as clear as possible given the nature of the material, and in the 'poetic' way that such matters were written - at that time and and in that place.


By 'poetic' reading, I mean that I am reading in a manner that empathises with the consciousness of the author and era, and therefore regards the language as poetry not prose.

Naturally, I am reading and re-reading the 'King James'/ Authorised translation of the gospel; as being the only divinely-inspired English version. And the KJB is poetic - indeed it is one of he greatest works of literature in its language, or any language.

Since poetic language (like all ancient language) is poetic, it cannot be translated word-by-word, nor concept-by-concept. Ancient languages meant many things at once in ways that are now impossible to express, except by more poetry (and poetry is currently extinct, or all-but). The nearest - which is not very near - is a list of semi-synonyms based on etymology; from-which a jump of sympathy, empathy, identification may be helped.


Furthermore, my understanding is that because the fourth gospel is by far the most valid and important part of the Bible - to understand Jesus and his work and message I need initially to understand it from the fourth gospel alone - without the endless-distractions and misleading tendencies of attempting to triangulate other and less valid New and Old Testament sources.

In other words, if I can attain clarity of the correct issues from the fourth gospel, regarded as valid; then this understand may then be applied to the other parts of the Bible (and indeed other sources).


Note: The method of the fourth gospel seems to be in working through great sweeps of text which clarify; by approaching a question or point from many 'angles', and aiming to remove ambiguities or incomprehension. It seems necessary to read, therefore, at sufficient length to notice these convergences.  It is proving to be an astonishingly rich experience, yielding wave after wave of clarification and insight.


Most important is the essence of what Jesus offers - that he variously calls by terms such as the word meaning 'thought', making, creation, life, light... So that Life is the key word/ concept; and everlasting life is the main thing that Jesus brings or offers.

Everlasting life (and light) is everlasting creativity, generation - it is thus more like biology (with  development and growth); than it is like physics. Therefore, what Jesus offers us is something 'in' time; it is active, dynamic, changing as living entities - it is not a blueprint for some final static state.

And he offers this on the basis that we 'believe' him - that is we trust him, have faith and confidence in him, love and esteem him, ally with him - and in doing so we ally with the primary creator who is Jesus's Father, with whom Jesus is in complete accord and whose mission he is fulfilling.

It really does seem that simple (and that complex): Jesus offers everlasting life (which is a situation arrived at via death and by bodily resurrection) by-means-of our attitude to the person of Jesus.


Simple, but...

There are many passages in which, by his attitude and teachings, Jesus is clear that many or most people will-not-want-to-take-up his offer of everlasting life - for various reasons.

It seems that it is a mistake to try and persuade people that they want everlasting life.

Jesus works by trying to make clear the situation, and the nature of what he offers, what he brings; he explains things in several ways - with parables, and sayings, with miracles, and with analogies. Sometimes Jesus answers direct questions - but often there comes a point when he refuses to say any more to people; when he realises that they understand and know but reject his gift.

In effect: You asked me, I told you. You will Not accept my answer, yet you ask me again! I am not going to repeat myself. You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. You will not accept the evidence yet you ask for more evidence!

My distinct impression is that Jesus did not expect his offer to be taken-up by everybody; he anticipated that everlasting life would be rejected by many people.


'Belief' in Jesus is clearly something conceptually simple (albeit that concepts such as belief were then far more complex/ multi-valent/ symbolic than they are now) and potentially instantaneous.

But this was when Jesus was physically present on earth in his mortal, or resurrected, life - and therefore his 'influence' was spatially limited.

Jesus explains to his disciples that this limitation will be overcome after he ascends to his Father, when he will send the Holy Ghost or Comforter - who will be an improvement on the physical presence of Jesus.

We moderns find this hard to believe, but Jesus was quite definite: it is better to have the Holy Ghost than the physical presence of Jesus. Because the Holy Ghost provides what Jesus did - but universally and from within each person.


Jesus makes clear that the Holy Ghost is in fact himself - the Holy Ghost is our direct and personal contact and communication with the ascended Jesus; that, without any other source, potentially provides every person with knowledge and guidance sufficient for eternal life.


Sometimes Jesus is talking to and about the disciples as a specific group - it was clearly of great importance that the disciples be a coherent and loving group after Jesus had ascended; at other times he seems to be to be referring to everybody alive and hereafter...

But, rather than the work of the disciples and their descendants; I think the fourth gospel is telling us that the core 'method' of Christianity is the direct contact with Jesus himself, in his universal form as the Holy Ghost/ Comforter.


Much more can, and I hope will, be said on these matters.

Do we get spiritual guidance from God, or the Holy Ghost (= Jesus Christ)?

My contention is that Christian daily spiritual guidance comes - by intent, according to divine plan - from the Holy Ghost, rather than from God the Father.

I'm not sure whether this matters very much; but I think we can see, throughout the Fourth Gospel, that Jesus's intent was that our external spiritual guidance in life was to be from the Holy Ghost. 

Which means, I believe, guidance from Jesus Christ himself; since the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ, resurrected and ascended.  

Of course it is never sufficient to 'quote scripture' since this leaves open the question of how we should read The Bible; and my understanding of the primacy of the Fourth Gospel is unusual among Christians. 

But I think we can make a reasonable case that the plan for guidance of Christians towards salvation would be by Christ himself; since he is the one who enables our salvation. 

And also because Christ is fully divine, hence a creator with full creative powers - hence able to shape the circumstances of our lives to benefit our salvation (and also theosis). 

This conflicts with the usual Christian practice of praying to The Father - that is to the primary creator; which seems to be modelled on what Jesus himself did, and what he is reported as instructing for his followers in the Matthew and Luke Gospels. 

This, then, is a situation in which the prior assumptions before reading the Gospels comes into play: the Fourth Gospel telling us, in effect, to pray to (and/or commune with) the Holy Ghost (which is Jesus Christ); while other sources say we should pray to The Father. 

So - should we pray to The Father; or to The Holy Ghost/ The Son? Are we to model ourselves on Jesus's personal practice, or instead to do what Jesus told us to do? 

Because I regard the Fourth Gospel as primary, I think we know what Jesus wanted.

But either way the decision goes; we should seriously practice inward and intuitive discernment, and seek confirmation of our understanding.  

I doubt if this is crucial - and we could, of course, pray to both Father and Son/ Holy Ghost. But it may be that praying to the intended divine person - i.e. by seeking spiritual guidance from Jesus as the Holy Ghost - may, in some way, be more effective than the alternatives.  

A secret hope. Has Christian teaching helped or hindered over the centuries?

My understanding of the Fourth Gospel, and from it the intentions of Jesus with respect to his 'message', is that Jesus provided for the teaching of Men by the Holy Ghost, rather than by Men.

I do not think that Jesus intended Christians to be institutionally organised (like a church) but instead to grow, person by person, loving family members - on the model of the disciples. Presumably many such families would develop, budding-off from the disciples.

What then of teaching about Jesus, and his message? What about scriptures? Well, the life of Jesus and existence of the Fourth Gospel itself implies that there was envisaged a helpful role for teaching.

But I notice that the content of this teaching (by Jesus, and by the author of the Fourth Gospel) was very simple - consisting mostly of different ways to express the two truths of Jesus's divinity, and his offer of everlasting, resurrected Life.

Such teaching would, presumably, be helpful in clarifying what was needed; but so few and such simple truths ought to be discoverable by each Man, from direct intuition: that is, from the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost.

Explicit 'external' teaching might speed-up the process - but on the other hand, might inculcate the bad habit and potentially false practice of looking to Men for answers, rather than to the Holy Ghost.  The needs of teachers might over-elaborate, and when the teachings had become high volume, it would be easily distorted, difficult to retain the proper focus.


In fact, Christianity (apparently) took a very different path from that envisaged by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. It became identified as an organised, institutional, international church (then, soon, multiple churches) - broadly like the many other churches of contemporary Jewish and Roman society. Its teaching became massively elaborated and systematised into a prescriptive way-of-life.

And of course, ultimate authority was displaced from the direct apprehension of the Holy Ghost to an ideal of obedience to an ordained priesthood.

If we take the Fourth Gospel as our ideal, it is hard to know what - by comparison - the overall effect of the various Christian churches has been. At times the core teachings seem to have been reversed. For example, Jesus's offer of Life Everlasting on condition of faith in him; sometimes seems, in practice, to have been inverted into a threat of torment everlasting unless a pattern of prescribed behaviours are followed.

The loving and small scale world of Jesus's family of relatives and disciples, as described in the Fourth Gospel, has given way to hierarchical bureaucracies - regulated by abstract laws, elaborate rituals and procedures, and differentiated by formal training and certification processes.

The consequence has often been Christianity as a mechanism for Good Behaviour, to the extent that the original simple teaching has been all but lost, even when and where Christian Churches were dominant and popular.


Indeed, I wonder if people would have been overall better-off with no teaching at all, and no external knowledge; than with the vast, complex, internally-contradictory mass of supposedly-Christian teachings that has been the actual experience for most Christians since the death of Jesus?

Of course, a great deal of worldly benefit would then have been lost; but perhaps a simplicity, clarity and directness of understanding would have more than made up for it?

But what would 'it' have been like?


Well, presumably there would have been other religions dominant.  These would have set the social frame, the external system.

Most people would never have heard of Jesus, and there would be no possibility of 'Christianity'. Instead, the teachings of the Holy Ghost would have been a secret hope, mostly a private experience of the heart. 

Jesus would have had another name, or no name; the possibility of resurrection, life eternal, becoming Sons and Daughters of God would perhaps have lacked articulation and precision; but these would have been experienced simply as an inner of experience of contradiction to the 'official doctrines' of other religions.

I think the phrase secret hope seems to catch the experience quite well. People would have been taught despair (in various forms) yet 'inside' they would have experienced hope, assurance, confidence, joy.

Their deepest and most convincing experiences would have been this 'faith' - and the experience would have been one of direct contact with another person; experience of the love of that person and the confidence to believe and follow.

Such secret hope might well have been communicated, personally and in private, among family members, husbands and wives, best friends - but probably, shared (if at all) only among a circle of trusted people; because of its contradiction with the local official religion.

There could not really have been any arguments or evidence to support the secret hope - since there was no church, no theology, no scriptures... There could only be an appeal to the most fundamental personal conviction based on those moments when we each feel most deeply in-touch-with reality.

Nobody would know the extent of this secret hope. On the one hand, a believer would either be alone or supported by very few people; on the other hand, exactly because of this, the secret hope would be inextinguishable.

The Dyadic Holy Ghost

Since I regard God the Creator as dyadic, our Heavenly Parents, Father and Mother (actual, and presumably eternally incarnate, persons)...

And since I regard Jesus Christ's marriage to Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene) as a vital and transformative aspect of His work of the Second Creation...

Then it seems to follow - and has a intuitive rightness - that the Holy Ghost is also dyadic, and a consequence of the eternal commitment of Jesus and Mary in love (their "celestial marriage"). 

I think this is necessary because ultimate creativity comes from the eternal dyadic love of our Heavenly Parents (that is, the concept of creation includes (and/or arises from) love, as it includes freedom and agency - as distinguishable but inseparable aspects).  

Thus the Holy Ghost is both guide and teacher, and comforter; and it may be that these aspects reflect Jesus Christ the man and Mary Magdalene the woman; after their death, resurrection and ascension. 

In other words (bearing in mind these are emphases, not separate domains), the main theme of Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost is to contribute discernment and purpose in a long-term, strategic way; while Mary contributes immediate help, here and now, in a tactical way. 

Jesus shows us the path, Mary keeps us upon it. 

Of course this cannot (even in principle!) be proved from the Gospels; yet the account of Mary in the Fourth Gospel strikes me as compatible by what I have just said - and from other traditions in Christianity. 

By my understanding, Mary Magdalene makes five appearances in the The Fourth Gospel: 1, implicitly in Jesus's Marriage at Cana (a passage that seems clearly tampered-with, including by deletions), in the resurrection of Lazarus (Mary's brother), the episode of the ointment on Jesus's feet in Bethany, at the foot of the cross and after Jesus's resurrection. 

Mary's concerns in the latter four episodes are very immediate, supportive, "caring" - and indeed it seems possible that Mary had a role in the resurrection of Jesus in a way analogous to John the Baptist's role in the divine but mortal transformation of the pre-baptism Jesus into Jesus Christ*. 

I get this from the hints contained in the reported conversation between the resurrected Jesus, and Mary, when she was the first to meet Jesus after his death, thus.

John 20: 14... she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

It strikes me that Jesus may here be talking of their future eternal union - to include the spiritual emanation of the Holy Ghost, available to all who follow Jesus - to happen (only) after Mary's death and resurrection. 

In very general terms - to include Mary Magdalene/ of Bethany in the Holy Ghost is a further development and explication of the deadly rejection of the feminine that afflicted Christianity from early-on (and which I blame of the monotheist philosophers who captures and continue to torment Christin theology!)

The progressively increasing emphasis on Mary the mother of Jesus in Catholic practice, I take to be a theologically-distorted - but nonetheless spiritually very valuable - manifestation of the reality of Heavenly Mother, and the wife of Jesus Christ. 

The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is mainly called-upon for aid and comfort in the difficulties of everyday living, fits with my understanding of the role of the divine feminine in general, and Mary Magdalene in her marriage-into the Holy Ghost specifically.   

Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, rediscovered the Christian feminine in God; but the CJCLDS have since neglected and suppressed this aspect of Joseph's revelation - and have chosen not to develop it, while never denying it. 

I am strongly of the view that an explicit inclusion of Heavenly Mother in the fundamental concept of God; and probably too a personal womanly aspect of the Holy Ghost; has (belatedly) become an all-but essential quest or project - for us, here and now. 

This is not something Christians can get off-the-peg or from any external source; but something each needs to work-through for himself - by the usual external and internal means of spiritual guidance. 

*Note added: This is easily (negatively or positively) misinterpreted in terms of divided stereotypical sex roles. I mean much more and almost the opposite; which is that the dyad of a man and woman eternally co-committed in love, can do something that neither can do alone - or, at least, one person can do less, and less well. That is something like a harmony of strategic purposive wisdom with immediate help. By analogy (very approximate) it is a bit like the benefit of being loved and looked-after by two people, a man and a woman, each with distinctive perspectives and capacities, eternally combined in love; who completely share divine purposes and method. This would be better than any conceivable single person, with only a single perspective and vision. That this is two persons creates and sustains a dynamic and growing aspect to the situation - whereas a single person would tend towards inertia and stasis. That this is two persons, rather than more than two, should be seen as an extra gift and potentiality added to the situation of single person - rather than a limitation.   

What Pentecost means to me

If Easter is about the end, or goal, of everlasting life; then Pentecost is about the primary means to that end - in that sense, today is probably the second-most-important Christian celebration. 

Thus, Pentecost refers to the coming of the Holy Ghost after the ascension of Jesus Christ. As I have explained elsewhere, my understanding is that the Holy Ghost is our direct contact with the ascended Jesus. 

And in the Fourth Gospel the main purposes of this contact with the Holy Ghost are knowledge ("he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you");  and 'comfort' (joy and encouragement) - such that the Holy Ghost's synonym is The Comforter. 

Jesus addressed these remarks to his disciples only; but I assume they now apply to all Christians. At the time of Jesus's address, the disciples were the only Christians, the only ones who believed and loved Jesus, knew what he promised, and would seek out contact with Jesus's spirit. But since then, knowledge and comfort by contact with the Holy Ghost is for anyone who seeks it in that same loving spirit. 

What about knowledge of "all things"? At the very least, this refers to all things necessary to salvation and theosis (e.g. whatever is necessary to discernment, repentance, and to learn life's spiritual lessons). But it may means "all" in a more extensive sense - of all that we need to know and would benefit us; and that we are capable of knowing. 

To me, this emphasizes that the constraint on our capacity to benefit from the Holy Ghost is mainly that we seek him in faith and with trust, for the right reasons, asking the right questions - and then we will receive both comfort and knowledge. 

The difficulty is, of course (as anyone who has tried will know) disentangling our thinking from the distraction and distortions of external interference, and from the short-termist and self-gratifying desires of our mortal selves. 

In other words; the guidance and comfort of the Holy Ghost is designed and intended to assist our passage through this mortal life and aiming at resurrected, Heavenly life eternal. 

Therefore, when the Holy Ghost is sought for other purposes - he will probably not be available, and is not likely to be helpful!

We can see that our access to guidance and comfort from the Holy Ghost has an only-indirect relationship to whether we regard ourselves as A Christian or are members of a self-identified Christian Church; and are instead essentially more to do with our purposes in life. 

Any person, in principle - of any place or time, religion or spirituality - can and will be able to know from the Holy Ghost directly, whatever he needs to know about Jesus Christ, Heaven, and the purpose of his own life. And this regardless of availability of Scripture, priests, or any other form of infrastructure. 

The Holy Ghost is therefore what makes Christianity potentially universal and independent of society, civilization and (ultimately) of all personal circumstances. 

A day to celebrate indeed!

What does Jesus teach in the Fourth Gospel? - my renewed understanding and conviction

I have been re-reading the Fourth Gospel (in the Authorized or King James version) with intensity of engagement, and the large sweep of narrative - the miracles and the teaching - that runs from the third through the sixteenth Chapters: from meeting Nicodemus at night to just before Jesus's arrest. 

 

I am struck afresh and with great force what Jesus does and does-not speak of. Again and again Jesus explains who and what he is; and that he is asking to be believed, loved and "followed". 

(What "following" means is explained in the Good Shepherd section.)

Once his hearers know who Jesus is; they are asked repeatedly to love and follow him - and that is very much the focus and the core of the Gospel.  

Jesus apparently has great difficulty in communicating the simplicity of his message to the disciples; and only just before his arrest (at the end of Chpater 16) does Jesus seem satisfied that the disciples have at last grasped what Jesus has told them so many times.

 

Jesus does not talk about rules for living, does not talk of morality. Does not tell people how to behave in the details (or indeed the sweep) of everyday life. 

Indeed, this trait is very marked indeed. Jesus is hardly-at-all a moral teacher. When he refers to sin, he nearly always means death, and suchlike realities of this mortal life.  

And when Jesus speaks of "commandments" he essentially means to "love one another" (as he goes on to explain) and Himself - clearly a qualitatively different matter from the commandments of Moses. 

All this is very different from how Jesus is usually described. 

 

The shaping emphasis is on the life and world to come; not this mortal life and world - it is the post-resurrection reality that ought to shape our current goals and behaviours.

In other words; Jesus is usually talking about having brought a change in ultimate, "cosmic" reality; a change in the set-up of divine creation: new realities and new possibilities. 

 

Throughout, Jesus talks of his Father as a distinct person from himself: clearly with complete harmony between the two of them, but his Father absolutely as a real and separate person from Jesus himself; a person with whom Jesus has a relationship of the same kind as with the disciples, but vastly greater and perfected. 

Thus Jesus's message is cosmic; but the cosmic is personal - indeed a matter of many persons; because Jesus links God to himself, and to the disciples (broadly considered - not meaning some particular number of men); all those with whom Jesus shares mutual love.

Love is mentioned many, many times; and seems like the core term - a new and all-transcending principle of life - the new reality that Jesus made-happen. Reading this, one is immediately compelled to ponder this astonishing reality that Jesus has placed at the heart of creation  

The Holy Ghost, the Comforter, is described Jesus himself (not a separate person) after he will have ascended to Heaven - and who will be present to all who love and follow Jesus. The Holy Ghost is stated to provide - in a personal way - all that is required of guidance and knowledge.  

This is emphasized: everything the disciples need to know after Jesus has ascended to Heaven, will be provided by the Holy Ghost. 

 

Something that is very evident is that Jesus asserts the exclusivity of his message. That only by Jesus, via Jesus, can we attain resurrected everlasting life. There is no other way. 

This is asserted as a fact; although what that fact means is apparently very different from the usual way it has been taught in the centuries since - because the Fourth Gospel is utterly indifferent to any form of church. 

The gospel is all about relationships, and these relationships are personal - indeed Jesus declares (at some length, in detail) that they need to be the relationships of friends, rather than hierarchical or formal.  

 

But Jesus's insistence on the exclusivity of his role in salvation is absolutely hard-line. If resurrection is what people want, there is simply no alternative (when the time comes) to knowing and following Jesus.

The reason why is also explained; which is that those who reject Jesus do not want what Jesus offers. The monotheists (such as the Pharisees) want something altogether different from what Jesus offers: they are rejecting the new cosmic possibilities that Jesus brings. 

What this partial summary fails to do is to describe the power of this reading when I am able to give the engagement full and intense attention; the authority and conviction with which the words and actions of Jesus reach across the centuries; in which these words over-leap the vast complexity of "Christianity" that grew in the generations in-between Jesus and myself. 

Of course, yesterday and today is not the first time I have felt this (as I wrote previously) - but this was a fresh amazement - and evoked a fear that it might not be so!

...Leading-on to a new affirmation of faith and another experience of conviction; of direct validation. 

 

What Jesus is saying and offering in the Fourth Gospel is astonishing to me, breathtaking in its originality and radicalism.

For me it is something that I want deeply, something I therefore really want to be true! And the whole thing therefore hinges on whether I personally believe what Jesus is saying - whether I believe He was who he said, and whether I regard as true what he claimed. 

After which, according to the Fourth Gospel; I am told to turn to the Holy Ghost (that is; to Jesus himself, in person, as available to us here-and-now) to provide exactly that knowledge, and the comfort that derives from conviction of its truth.  

 

Note added: I see that I failed to complete the circuit of the above description; because no matter how overwhelming a spiritual experience may be at the time of experiencing it - such conviction does not last. Almost immediately, the experience is subjected to doubts, and indeed is readily explained-away by all kinds of familiar materialistic/ scientistic arguments (just a dream, a delusion, wishful thinking etc.). That is the situation of modern man - and not by accident. As men who have become conscious of much that was once spontaneous and implicit; modern Men must consciously choose. We must decide whether or not to believe our spiritual experiences; whether or not to regard them as an intuition of ultimate reality. This is a free choice, and one for which we ought to take personal responsibility. Specifcially; we ought not to desire to be permanently overwhelmed by a conviction so powerful and lasting that we never get out from under it. Nor should we regard such inescapable experiences as the most valid. Because that would be to desire to be un-free and to evade personal responsibility. Therefore - to complete the circuit - I freely choose to believe as real that religious experience of conviction: I choose to make its validity a bottom line assumption for me. 

The Holy Ghost in the Fourth Gospel

Fourth Gospel 'John' 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)...

14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you....

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe...

15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning...

16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you...

20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

**

Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Ghost to the disciples, seems to come with And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

But on the other hand, Jesus has several times indicated that the Holy Ghost will not come until he is glorified, until he is ascended - that the Holy Ghost cannot come until then.  It seems to me that the Holy Ghost is Jesus's presence after the ascension: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Perhaps, then, Jesus breathing upon the disciples prepared them to receive the Holy Ghost, that is to receive his presence, after his ascension; in the well-known episode described in Acts that is celebrated today.

What about the Filioque? - The (changing) nature of understanding the Holy Ghost

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; 

From the Nicene Creed, In Latin and the Book of Common Prayer translation

The Latin word Filioque was added to the description of the origin of the Holy Ghost in the Nicene Creed by theologians of the Latin speaking, Rome-based, Western division of the pre-Great-Schism Catholic Church - which is now the Roman Catholic Church.

The Filioque is regarded as one of the major causes of the Great Schism (happening gradually around the year 1000AD) between Western Catholicism, based in Rome and led by the Pope who appointed Archbishops of all nations; and Eastern Catholicism, which was then based in Constantinople and led (largely independently) by the Patriarchs of each nation - with that of Constantinople being senior. 

These divisions now continue as the Western Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox* divisions of Catholicism. 

[*Eastern Orthodoxy having also a large, administratively separate, subdivision of the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian etc) - which broke off much earlier in relation to the Monophysite controversy.] 

The reason why adding the Filioque was such a decisively divisive issue has several aspects; some of which may not be understandable to modern Men. 

Perhaps most fundamental was that the Eastern church believed that authoritative church decisions ought to be permanent; and therefore the Nicene Creed should never be changed. While the Western church believed that the truth was something that emerged over time - and that, for example, theology might discover incompleteness or errors in liturgy, creeds, scripture etc. that ought to be corrected. 

But there also seems to have been a difference between West and East over what was the true nature of the relationship within the Holy Trinity; in particular, between the Holy Ghost on the one hand, and the Father and Son on the other hand. 

And this difference - in turn - reflected upon the role of the individual Man in Christian life. 

The original Nicene understanding and formulation was that the Holy Ghost derived only from the Father - and therefore had no reference to Jesus Christ. This fits with the idea that the Christian life was a thing of God, not of Man, and that individual Men had little role in determining the Christian life, but ought primarily to obey the church. 

But it was more than 'obedience'. Orthodox Christianity (with its Father-derived Holy Ghost) is more communal, less individual. Orthodoxy has very little official role for any specific Man - whether by theological study, personal revelation, or through creativity - to make any fundamental or significant effect on the church as a whole. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is perhaps envisaged as upon the church as-a-whole; not on individual Men. 

With the addition of the Filioque; the Western church can be seen as creating a larger and essential role for individual Men - because the Holy Ghost now derived from the incarnated Man Jesus Christ, as well as from the immaterial Father. 

This could be seen in terms of a balance between individual Men and the Church; such that both were required for the Christian life. 

In general terms - the church was seen as an harmonious unity of individuals; but individual Men could and sometimes should have a decisive effect on the church as-a-whole. 

Perhaps this is most obvious in the person of that individual Man who is the Pope of Rome; who has had a special place in the church, as having personal (albeit conceptualized as divinely inspired) authority and capacity to make significant changes - that are regarded as clarifications of original and eternal truth. 

But many other individual Men, such as Thomas Aquinas, most notably, have made decisive contributions and wrought church-wide changes. 

The Protestants have continued this trend, with a greater role for the individual (e.g. Martin Luther) - but rooted in the same conception of the Holy Ghost deriving from both Father and Son - divinity and Man. 

My own understanding of the Holy Ghost can, from this narrative, be seen as continuing this historical trend, by advocating a pure Filioque. That is, I believe that the Holy Ghost is not only derived-from Jesus Christ - but actually is the ascended Jesus Christ. 

This seems to me quite clearly stated in the Fourth Gospel (usually called the Book of John) - which I regarded as by far the primary and most authoritative source we have on Jesus's teachings and life.

Also in-line with this narrative direction is that I believe that individual men are now primary in the Christian life; and not "the church" (not any church). 

In other words; primary authority and discernment lies in the hearts of individual Men, each for himself; and the churches role is now secondary, and inessential. 

Thus the direction of change through the past 2000 years would be (something like) at first regarding the church as primary and essential and Man's duty to obey (proceeding from the Father); then moving-through the intermediate stage when both church and Man are required (proceeding from the Father and the Son); and arriving at my current understanding that the Holy Ghost 'proceeds from', or rather actually-is, the spiritual manifestation-of, The Son, Jesus Christ - a Man*.

*Note: I suppose I should perhaps add, for anyone unfamiliar with this blog; that I regard Jesus as fully-divine - as well as a Man. 

Gospel of Matthew though the lens of the Fourth Gospel: Chapter 3

I set aside the first two Chapters of Matthew as being unreliable, probably legendary accretions and/or adopted to butress the argument of the Gospel as a whole. So Chapter 3 is the first part of Matthew's Gospel that is consistent with the Fourth Gospel - and it is an account of the teachings of John the Baptist.

This is interesting, as the author of the Fourth Gospel was a disciple of John's before he became a disciple of Jesus - so when there is subtanative disagreement, the Fourth Gospel is clearly to be preferred.

Let's see whether there is anything about Matthew 3 that adds to or deepens our understanding of John.

Matthew 3: [1] In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, [2] And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [3] For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. [4] And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 

So far this is much the same as the Fourth. Except for: Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Here Matthew seems to be reporting John stating that there is not much time for those living 'now' to repent. He will later have Jesus say the same. 

[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, [6] And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. [7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Matthew introduces here a favourite 'repent or else' theme (not a part of the Fourth Gospel) that there is a wrath to come, an apocalypse, the second coming of Jesus; which will specifically affect the Pharisees and Sadducees to whom John is talking. In other words the wrath is coming soon. The implication seems to be that John's baptism was a matter of people confessing and repenting their sins and being absolved; and that this procedure was to safeguard these people from the wrath to come.

The attack on Pharisees and Sadducees who are coming to John for Baptism seems wrong. Surely they are doing precisely what Matthew wants everybody to do - which is, from terror of the burning to come for those who are not baptised, they will accept baptist at the cost of repentance.

Matthew's basic method in his Gospel is to induce fear of 'Hell' which will be inflicted soon; and describe what to do to escape this fate. What to do entails following a set of rules that is even more numerous and rigorous than those of the Pharisees - Jesus adds to The Law. But this was presumably regarded as a genuine possibility precisely because the apocalyptic second coming was not far away...


[9] And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. [10] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 

This is the 'or else' part of of the 'repent, or else'. In other words, if people do not confess, repent and be baptized - they will be 'cast into the fire'. I suppose that the attack of the Ps and Ss is actually a criticism of their lack of rigour, their hypocritical failure to live by the laws they profess to follow. Whereas in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus preaches an extremely simple message of loving and following Jesus to life everlasting; nothing about following laws or living a prescribed life.

[11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: [12] Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. [13] 

Here is the idea of 'Hell' as an eternal punishment, of unquenchable fire; which will be implemented soon - within the lives of the people to whom John is talking. And also the idea that Hell is the default state - which everyone will go to excepting those who are saved. Jesus will divide people into those he gathers, and those he casts into fire. 

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. [14] But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? [15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. [16] And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: [17] And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

This is descriptively similar to the account in the Fourth Gospel - but whereas in the Fourth this event is a divinization of Jesus, leading directly on to his miracles; no such link is made by Matthew.

In sum, what we get from Matthew Chapter 3 (compared with the Fourth Gospel) is the completely different, alien and contradicting idea that the main thing about Jesus was that he was shortly to return, and divide Men into his own whom he gathers, and those who shall burn forever.

This teaching is also attributed to John the Baptist, and the only difference is that John was an agent describing how to be saved from the burning; while Jesus is the judge who will himslef make the division of men. John gave the theory; Jesus will implement the practice.  So this is the implied sense in which John 'prepares the way of the Lord'.

By contrast the Fourth Gospel has nothing about this scheme; no imminent second coming, no burning punishment; and John the Baptist's role seems to be to enable Jesus to become divine by baptism.

In Matthew, however, Jesus is already (in Chapters 1 and 2) marked-out as divine by his miraculous, prophecy-fulfilling childhood and youth; so John's baptism is merely done in order to 'fulfil all righteousness' and to enable the signs of the descent of the dove and the voice from heaven.

So, do I get anything valuable from Matthew 3? Just one thing - which is that what John was doing with his baptising was probably a temporary 'cleansing' of the individual from sin; active only in this mortal life and with no implications for eternal life.

What about "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" - this suggests that Jesus will himself be doing a better kind of baptism. But the Fourth Gospel states that Jesus himself never baptised anyone. So this is either an error, or else refers to baptism in a symbolic way.

Since Jesus is assumed to be returning imminently to dive the heavenly wheat from the hell-bound chaff, it looks as if this means the judgment itself: baptism of the Holy Ghost is for the wheat; and baptism of fire is for the chaff, baptism of fire being an indirect way of referring to the unquenchable fires of damnation. 

This corresponds with John's report in the Fourth Gospel that the 'normal' thing that happened when he baptised, was that individuals were 'touched' by the divine spirit; that they were momentarily divinized and thereby (presumably) cleansed of their sins up to that moment. John did not change the prospect for the individuals he baptised, he did not change their fate - but, nonetheless, what John was doing (as described in the Fourth Gospel) was new, different, and contrary to the usual laws and rules and sacrifices of the Jews of that era. John was, in this sense, the first to practise the new dispensation; albeit in a partial, and this-worldly, form.

But when Jesus was baptised by John, uniquely the spirit stayed upon him, meaning (I suppose) that Jesus became permanently divine by the agency of John: John had this absolutely vital role (as the Fourth Gospel implies) in making Jesus fully divine.


Note: I found the above detailed analysis to be a depressing exercise; and probably will not continue with it through the rest of the Matthew Gospel. It is the kind of thing that becomes necessary when the Fourth Gospel is really believed - but it is probably better to make such decisions in a broad brush way than to engage in this kind of miserable dissection... 

Was John the Baptist Necessary? Yes; as necessary as Jesus's mother, Mary

I've written before about the person of John the Baptist, who has always puzzled me by his extreme prominence in the Fourth Gospel ('John') especially.

This prominence now seems to require a more specific explanation than that the author of the Fourth Gospel was previously JtB's disciple, and that the Baptist was a high status Holy Man and Prophet who could confirm Jesus's identity as the Messiah.

I now believe that John the Baptist was necessary to the ministry of Jesus; by which I mean that it was necessary that Jesus was baptised by John (and not somebody else) in order that Jesus could fully become the Messiah, could fully become both Man and God, could perform miracles (including raising the dead), and could have the self-knowledge to do all this in full awareness of its significance.

In other words, when John describes how he knew that Jesus was the Messiah because when he baptised Jesus the divine Spirit came down upon Jesus and stayed upon him - and John had previously been told directly by God that this would be how the Messiah was known - this represents a very significant and direct intervention in reality by God the Father specifically via John.

(Plus, John the Baptist's own miraculous conception and personal history, and its prior linkage to the lineage and life of Jesus, is described in the other Gospels.)

John 1: 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

This carries the implication that in every other case when John baptised, the Spirit descended from heaven but did not abide - that the baptised person was 'touched' by the divine spirit - but not transformed by it into a qualitatively different being.

(This passage also confirms that the Holy Ghost came only with the ministry of Jesus, and that the many previous examples of divine Spirit intervening in the world - for example in the Old Testament, and before this point of the New, were distinct-from the Holy Ghost. I understand this to mean that the Holy Ghost was/is Jesus.)

This suggests to me that baptism by John was of miraculous nature for everybody - in being touched by the divine; but that this touching and abiding made a decisive transformation for Jesus. After which, Christ's miraculous ministry began.

In other words, John the Baptist's role in the incarnation of Jesus was not merely to help or assist; but was a necessary and decisive part of Jesus becoming what he became.

Now, perhaps if John had failed to do the baptism of Jesus (because John could not be compelled by God, he had to choose to do what he did, and for the right reasons), some other way would have been found - by God - by which the necessary and decisive transformation could be accomplished... This is quite possible, given God's power; just as perhaps God could have found another to bear Jesus had Mary declined.

But as it actually happened; I think we need to acknowledged that John the Baptist was as personally important as Mary - and indeed the analogy is a close one, since John's baptism was Jesus being 'born again' (as indirectly implied by the later discussion with Nicodemus).

Mary was responsible for Jesus being born as Man; John the Baptist for Jesus being born-again as Man and God - that's a measure of how important John was!

Why think of the Holy Ghost as Jesus?

Don Camillo seeks guidance from "the Holy Ghost" (i.e. Jesus Christ)

I have suggested that the Fourth Gospel tells us that the Holy Ghost is the ascended Jesus Christ; so whenever we talk about the Holy Ghost we are actually talking about Jesus. 

Is this helpful? very, very much so - I would say. Instead of a nebulous (because bodiless, unpersonal) spirit-being; we are offered guidance and consolation from the actual person of Jesus - which fits with John 16:7 "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Why would it be expedient for the disciples (and everyone else, presumably) if Jesus goes away (that is dies, resurrects, ascends to Heaven) if the person of Jesus - someone we might love as one individual loves another - was replaced by a nebulous ghost spirit for whom love can only be an abstraction?  

As an example, we might consider the comic but Christian character of Don Camillo; a fictional Italian priest who has two-way conversations with Jesus on a crucifix in his Church - and this Jesus is a very distinct, humorous, character (and an exemplar of tough-love).

In these stories, it seems to me that Jesus is replacing, fusing-with, and thereby rendering unnecessary, the Holy Ghost as some kind of separate aspect of deity.  

Of course any such conversation as Camillo's with Christ is not a literal communion with Jesus, since it is subject to all our limitations of understanding and motivation, as well as the inevitable ambiguities of language. 

Nonetheless, insofar as it is underpinned by direct communion; then this is exactly how Jesus can be or become a real-reality in the lives of Christians: the apprehension of a real personage with who we have present contact.   

What is the Holy Ghost? - more from the Fourth Gospel

(The argument behind this post can be found in my mini-book on the Fourth Gospel.)

The Holy Ghost is essentially Jesus - as is made clear from the fact that the Holy Ghost could not be present on earth and operate until after Jesus had first resurrected, then completed his divinisation by ascending to Heaven.


The resurrected Jesus has an indestructible and eternal body; that is to say he is solid and located. Therefore to operate across the whole world, in all people's hearts, to lead as all to life eternal after our deaths; then Jesus must 'project' an immaterial and universal spirit. That is the Holy Ghost.

Jesus is 'in a place' - because he is resurrected; but the Holy Ghost is everywhere.

So, the Holy Ghost is Jesus, as he is directly accessible to us, knowable by us, in this mortal life. Meanwhile the body of Jesus is elsewhere, in Heaven (which is A Place).  


I put 'project' into scare quotes, because the real process is the opposite. We all began as immaterial spirits; and to become incarnated (embodied) is a kind of condensation of spirit - in a two stage process: first the current mortal incarnation, then via death to a potentially eternal incarnation: i.e. resurrection. So the ability of Jesus to exist as spirit is original to himself and to all of us; and it is incarnation that is a progression. The fact that Jesus is (now) both embodied locally and also is a universal spirit should not be surprising - in a sense we all are this already, but without only mortal and partial stature and power. 

To receive the guidance and comfort of the Holy Ghost - you need to be a Christian (i.e. committed follower of Jesus Christ)

My understanding of the nature of the Holy Ghost - drawn from the Fourth Gospel primarily - is that he is the spirit of the ascended Jesus Christ. 

The Holy Ghost can potentially be accessed by anybody, anywhere, at any time - and will provide us with the divine guidance and comfort of Jesus Christ... But

That is to say potentially. 

In practice the Holy Ghost is only 'accessible' to Christians; because, to understand and respond appropriately to guidance and comfort, entails that we know the identity and motivations of the source of communication. 

When a non-Christian accesses the Holy Ghost, seeks and receives a communication; then the guidance and comfort is Not acknowledged to be from our Saviour - but from some-one or some-thing else. 

How a person does regard that source of communications would, presumably, vary. He might regard the communication as the voice of his conscience, memories of some earthly authority (parents, mentor, guru?), or coming from some other God or gods (like Socrates' daemon - who seems to have been an emanation of Apollo). 

Yet, if we assume that the Holy Ghost really is from Jesus Christ; then to assume that HG guidance and comfort actually come from something else is a mistake. 

Having mistaken the identity; we are then bound to misunderstand the communications: to misunderstand the authority and purpose of the communications. 

For Christians; the guidance and comfort of Jesus Christ is 'designed' for our salvation; that is, so that we personally may follow Jesus to resurrected life in Heaven. 

That purpose - and not something else - is what such guidance and comfort is for. 

Because if we mistake the provenance of the guidance and comfort, then we will evaluate it wrongly. 

For example, we might suppose it was designed to make us happier here and now, or be more successful in earthly life, or that it was supposed to gratify our desires and ambitions. 

However, knowing that the Holy Ghost speaks for Jesus, we also know that the timescale of His communications stretches across eternity; and the source will therefore understand our specific present situation in this mortal earthly life in a Heavenly context - in terms of divine plans, meanings and purposes. 

Why did Jesus die when he did?

That Jesus died was necessary - he was a mortal Man. Like you and me; Jesus could only become immortal via the portals of biological death: mortal death is necessary to immortal resurrection. 

(I cannot explain by what mechanism this is so, but it apparently is a constraint of our created reality.)  

But Jesus was fully divine in his powers before he died - we know this because he was a divine creator, able to create divinely. That is the significance of the resurrection of Lazarus in particular, but also some others of the other miracles; these demonstrate that Jesus was a primary creator. 

Being on the one hand a mortal Man, but on the other hand having this divine creative power, meant that although must die sooner-or-later, he could (in principle) often elude death here-and-now. 

And there are examples in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus does this - for instance John 8:59 "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

So, sometimes - either by his behaviour, or through miraculous means, Jesus chose to delay his own death. This happened many times through the three years of his ministry, between the baptism by John and the death by crucifixion - during which Jesus was fully-divine, and had miraculous powers - but also, in general terms, he made decisions that kept him alive.

But at a certain point, Jesus stopped doing this, let events take their course, and ultimately allowed himself to be crucified. 

Ordinary mortal people may be called-upon to make a similar decision. After spending perhaps many decades trying to stay alive, keep healthy, extend life - a time may come when it is wrong to fight death and right to allow oneself to die... to allow events take their fatal course.  

How did Jesus know, how can we know, when it is right to allow ourselves to die? 

After all, for Jesus, he was still young - just thirty-three - and presumably could have had many more years to preach and teach; and personally to lead the development of a church, built according to correct principles (if that was what he wanted). 

Why then did he die at 33? The implicit reason given in the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus had completed his ministry with the resurrection of Lazarus. 

It is a further question why it was necessary for Jesus to raise Lazarus. Many Christians believe that this miracle was not a resurrection; however, I believe that it was (and that we are told this in in the Fourth Gospel). 

Therefore, apparently, it was necessary for Jesus personally to resurrect Lazarus in order that he would (after death and ascension) be able to offer the same to all Men. And this was precisely what Jesus came to do: offer resurrection to all Men.  

A difference was that Lazarus was resurrected into his own corpse, and into this mortal earth. This was clearly a very important demonstration and teaching - but its cosmic significance was that Lazarus soon afterwards wrote the Fourth Gospel; which is our primary and most authoritative source on Jesus's mission and teaching. 

(Presumably, this interpretation of Lazarus's resurrection suggests; the resulting Fourth Gospel is more than just another historical text, with the inevitable errors and deficits of transmission, copying, tampering and translating through many centuries. Presumably there exists the possibility of its being 'received' in a qualitatively special fashion - by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. So that its message may be directly-known in a way that transcends error and distortion... Such an explanation makes sense of the distinctive nature of Lazarus's resurrection.)  

But, to return to the original question of "why did Jesus die when he did?" - this can now be understood as a more important question than the usual one of "why was Jesus crucified?"

It was necessary that Jesus died (that he allowed himself to die) when he did, but the method of death was only secondarily important. 

In the Fourth Gospel we can read of Jesus meditating, praying, consulting with his Father about whether this was the 'time to die' (or, presumably, whether there was more he needed to do first) - and being assured that Now was the time. 

To this, Jesus needed voluntarily to assent. He might in theory have resisted death for many decades longer, and done all sorts of other things... but Jesus agreed to allow death to happen Now, because his real earthly-work was finished; and it was time for his Heavenly work (as the Holy Ghost) to commence. 

Resolving apparent inconsistencies/ omissions in the fourth Gospel

Long-term readers of this blog will know that I am trying to understand Christianity using only the fourth Gospel, as if it was my only source; because I regard it as qualitatively the most authoritative scripture.

On that basis I have come to regard the author (the disciple who 'Jesus loved') of the gospel as the resurrected Lazarus (and that Lazarus was resurrected, not just brought back to life); that Lazarus's sister Mary (of Bethany) was married to Jesus in Cana (in an 'ordinary' Jewish ceremony) when the first miracle was performed, and that there was a further mystical marriage at the time of the anointing of Jesus's feet with Spikenard on Mary's hair, and that this Mary is the same person as Mary Magdalene ('both' Mary's treating Jesus with loving but respectful familiarity, and 'both' engaging in physical contact appropriate only to a wife)...


Anyway; this is the background for trying to interpret an anomalous verse John 2: 4 - when Jesus says to his mother "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is yet to come."

To me, there is something clearly wrong with this verse - certainly it does Not mean any kind of rejection of Jesus's mother, since she accompanies Jesus (and his brothers) to Capernum in verse 12. The verse might be garbled, or interposed - but my guess is that - since Jesus is the 'bridegroom' of the marriage feast, it may refer to Jesus's new allegiance to his wife.


And this may answer another puzzle about the fourth Gospel: why did Jesus's ministry start when it did? The answer seems to be that Jesus's ministry began when he was baptised by John the Baptist, and JtB recognised Jesus as the Christ, as the divine Spirit descended upon him and stayed - causing Jesus's new self-awareness as Son of God (to become Son of Man, at his ascension), and his new powers.

But why did Jesus get baptised by JtB? Well, the author doesn't say that Jesus and John are cousins  (that is in another gospel) - which seems like a strange omission, since the author of the fourth gospel - Lazarus - was a disciple first of John then of Jesus. So, if they were cousins, then he would know!

However, I think we can assume that it was Lazarus who brought his future brother-in-law Jesus to be baptised by his then-Master John the Baptist, just two days before the wedding. Perhaps (as in my own extended family) terms like 'sister' (referring to John's and Jesus's mothers), did not necessarily mean sharing the same parents - and perhaps the real link was the marriage-link between Lazarus's and Jesus's families, and that was underpinned by some childhood relation between the mothers of Jesus and Lazarus... (The beloved disciple is asked, by Jesus on the cross, to look-after Jesus's mother.)

Thus it was Lazarus who was responsible for the timing of  Jesus's ministry; and Lazarus was present at his sister's wedding to Jesus in Cana two days later when Jesus's new status as the Messiah became explicit with the first miracle - in which water to wine is both literal and deeply symbolic (the symbolism - which is itself literal - being multiply expressed in other parts of the fourth Gospel).


The second omission is more obvious and important than the garbled comment of Jesus to his mother; and it is the dispute among the Jewish leaders about whether Jesus could be the Messiah given that he had not been born in Bethlehem.

John 7: 41-3 - Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh out of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where Davis was? So there was a division among the people because of him.

Having raised this as an important issue, the author of the fourth Gospel does not resolve it for us. Of course, we are told in Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem... But we are not told this in the fourth Gospel, where the issue is left 'up in the air' and (so far as I can see) never resolved for the reader.

This could be some omission from the Gospel, something that was lost - a statement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; because it seems strange that, if Jesus was indeed born in Bethelehem, the dispute reported in the fourth Gospel was not simply settled.

Or, if nothing was lost; and since I regard the fourth Gospel as more authoritative than any of the Synoptics (or Epistles); perhaps this really was one way in which Jesus did not fulfil all the prophecies - but one which was later patched-up by oral history and legend...

After all, the fourth Gospel provides in abundance all the evidence necessary to prove that Jesus really was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah... There is, in particular, the testimony of John the Baptist (the most authoritative witness of that time and place); the miracles - especially the raising of Lazarus; and of course Jesus's resurrection, ascension, and his sending of the Holy Ghost.

Remission of sins? - wrongness in the Fourth Gospel

When reading the Fourth Gospel, some passages stand-out as wrong.

How these passages got-into the text I am reading is not really important to me - clearly there are many times and ways it could have happened; and equally clearly, when dealing with divinely inspired and sustained texts the normal understandings of secular 'historical' scholarship are inadequate and misleading.

(Mostly, the provenance of error is unknowable because there are an open-ended number of possibilities; it is the provenance of truth which is vital.)


The Fourth Gospel has a form, a method, a shape - overall it is a highly-perfect work, perhaps the most perfect of all sustained works; this means that errors stand out. Furthermore, the gospel is true, and known-as-such; so wrongness stands-out.

From Chapter 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe...

The italicised are wrong, furthermore they are detached from the narrative - which runs straight from verse 20 to verse 24. .

Verse 21: The analogy between the Father sending Jesus, and Jesus sending the disciples, is basically-false.

Verse 22: Jesus has previously explained at length that the Holy Ghost cannot come to the disciples until he has ascended to Heaven - so he cannot breathe the Holy Ghost onto them at this point.

Verse 23: The bald statement that the disciples are being given power to remit/ retain sins (whatever that may mean) is at odds with the rest of the Gospel. The possibility that the disciples be given power over sins, or that such a remission is even necessary or coherent, is in stark contradiction to the overall teaching of this gospel - in the sense of having nothing-to-do-with the rest of the gospel. Furthermore (in this gospel), whenever Jesus says anything as important as this would have been; he always says it several times, in several ways, generally in several places; to ensure it is appreciated and understood.

(Why were these verses wrongly interpolated? Well, at the cost of contradicting the core gospel message; it seems fairly obvious that these verses imply that Jesus ordained his disciples as a priesthood analogous in power and status to himself, and as necessary to salvation. Maybe that explains why they were inserted at some point?...)


The Fourth Gospel is - on the one hand - hard to understand; being expressed in an unfamiliar way; on the other hand it is understandable by anyone who gives it sufficient of the right kind of attention - because it is a window onto universal consciousness.

The fact that the Fourth Gospel is a human product, as well as divine, will not block that possibility - because God is on both sides of the situation: as-it-were present in the text and also as a part of our-selves: present (not in perceptions, not in mental concepts) in the thinking of the real self.

Furthermore; if one is reading the gospel for the best kind of reason - that is, as a kind of meditation/ prayer, for personal and direct knowledge (rather than in order to extract from it rules and regulations for general, public communication and control) -- then the process of understanding, or knowing, is itself of great value and greatly satisfying.


Understanding the Fourth Gospel is not really a finite task that could be done and finished-with; nor is it 'objectively' checkable whether or not the task has been achieved. This is because when talking about the Fourth Gospel - we are only talking about it.

Knowledge comes first - but the communication of knowledge, and its reception, is a different matter altogether.

Spiritual relationships should primarily be loving, not functional (or, Why is the Holy Ghost called "the comforter"?)

If our relationships ought to be loving; this means that thy ought Not primarily to be functional. 

Yet this is easily forgotten - plus, of course, the functional aspects of friendship and relatedness may lead to, and synergize with, the loving. Yet, for Christian ideals, the loving must be first and foremost. 

For Christians the Holy Ghost is a Being (I personally believe the Holy Ghosts is Jesus Christ, ascended) to whom we appeal for guidance, strength, help in time of need etc; yet the Holy Ghost is also called the "Comforter" in the Authorized Version of the Fourth Gospel (called "John") - especially in Chapters 14-16. 

To provide "comfort", in the modern sense of the word, sounds pretty feeble and insipid as the job of a divine Being!

Yet I now think that - properly understood - this "comfort" is, or should be, the primary aspect of our relationship with the Holy Ghost. 

I have come to understand "Comforter" as meaning the primacy of a loving relationship with the Holy Ghost; such as we might have - at the best - with a parent, sibling, child, spouse, best friend or similar. 

Such a relationship ought to be loving first and foremost; and therefore not to have its foundations built on a basis of functionality, nor of providing useful this-worldly service to each other. We ought to be visiting our parents because we love them, rather then to get a good meal, clothes washed, or for presents. No matter how sustaining and mutual such exchanges may be; they have to be secondary if they are not to be corrupt.  

After all, whatever we might do for each other in this mortal life and world is temporary and expedient, and will (unless resurrection follows) be lost at biological death -- if not (usually) before death.

I think the "Comforter" should therefore be understood as  meaning that there is a primary - and potentially eternal - comfort - encouragement from faith and hope - to be had from the basic fact of contact, and awareness of contact, between us in this mortal life, and the spirit of the Holy Ghost. 

We ought not to regard the Holy Ghost as mainly about helping us navigate through mortal life by the giving of good advice, nor even by providing us with the wherewithal to do  the right thing; these should be regarded as valuable by-products of the simple fact of our awareness of here-and-now contact with the Being that is the Hoy Ghost. 

"Comforter" can then be taken to mean the faith and hope that we might reasonably hope to derive a recognition of the reality of the Holy Ghost; that derives from experiencing contact between our conscious thinking, and the actuality of the Holy Ghost.   

Note added: I would not like to give the impression I regard love as a static state, a kind of time-less bliss or something. Love is inter-personal (including inter-Beings, Beings of all kinds). Indeed, I regard love as bound-up with divine creation, and therefore purpose and direction. This is why (as I understand it) love of God is given primacy in Christian theology - because it is by our love of God that we become part of the whole purpose of divine creation; and also part of the whole "method" of that creation - which "works" by means of the cohesion and desire that is part of networks of mutual loving. To state it very simply; our love of one another provides the cohesion of creation, and our love of God provides its direction. Neither being sufficient without the other... meaning they are inseparably linked in the choice to affirm love as the primary value; that-lovingness upon which the origin and progression of divine creation rests. 

What is baptism in the Fourth Gospel? Divine transformation

What happened at the baptism of Jesus?

(The relevant text from the Fourth Gospel is below.)

John the Baptist was baptising many people. From John's perspective, it is implied that at each baptism he saw the Spirit descend and then depart. But when John baptised Jesus, the spirit remained.

This presumably means that all who were baptised by John were briefly touched by divinity but Jesus was transformed and became divine.

So, from John's perspective, it would seem that baptising was primarily a means of detecting, and 'making' the Messiah - the Lamb of God.

What about the people who were being baptised - first by John, then by the disciples - but not by Jesus himself; after the Messiah had been discovered? (Referenced later in the Fourth Gospel.) Presumably these baptisms were done in order to have people touched by the Spirit. Perhaps this induced a - temporary - change of heart (repentance) that could be built-upon.

The Gospel of Luke - 3:3 (presumably) quotes someone who remembered that John had been "preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins".  What does this mean, if true?

My guess is that those baptised by John were temporarily cleansed of all sin, were turned towards God - so that they could commune with the divine Spirit. When this happened to Jesus, he realised who he was, became fully divine, began his ministry. 

But Jesus did not baptise with water - but 'baptised' with the Holy Ghost. And we know (from later in the Fourth Gospel) that the Holy Ghost came only after Jesus had ascended. This seems to be using 'baptise' metaphorically (as we would term it, although at that time and place such a metaphor was literal as well as symbolic) - it is a reference to what Jesus would ultimately achieve by enabling all Men who 'followed' him to become resurrected, divine, and attain life everlasting.

Thus baptism seems to be a matter of being touched by divinity; either temporarily, or else as a permanent process - to become oneself divine.

In other words (at least when performed by John or the disciples); baptism was a temporary divine transformation; analogous to the permanent divine transformation that is resurrection to eternal life. 


Note: By 'transformation' to divine I mean the term literally; since we and Jesus are siblings, and the actual children of God, we have the nature and possibility to become divine in the same way (to a subordinate degree, since we dwell in God's creation) as God the creator. It is therefore a 'process' somewhat resembling the metamorphic transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. It follows that there is more than one god in addition to the creator, including - potentially - as many gods as there are Men. (Although in practice some Men - perhaps most Men - reject the gift of Christ to his followers; that of resurrection to eternal life: to god status.)


John 1: [19] And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? [20] And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. [22] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. [24] And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. [25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? [26] John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [28] These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [30] This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [31] And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. [32] And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [33] And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. [34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

God the creator, God-within, the Holy Ghost - Three different natures of divine guidance

My current understanding is that we have three main type of divine guidance available. 

They are not, I believe, identical in nature - but they are (always and necessarily) in profound and ultimate harmony; because of their shared committment to the goals of creation as motivated by love.

Actually to gain access to these forms of divine guidance (here, now, 2020) requires that we each make conscious decisions, and are spiritually active. 

...Because, while children and Men in the past (and perhaps other cultures still) may passively and unconsciously be guided (manipulated) by the divine; in our situation we need to to be conscious and active in our choosing our path through life. 

And, as the flip-side, if we are Not conscious and active in our spiritual choices; then (here, now, 2020) our committment to the divine will decline, and we will (sooner or later) almost certainly be induced to join the side of God's enemies. 

Such are these times.  

 

1. God - the creator

I think that the guidance of God the creator comes to us mainly via ongoing creation. In other words, God influences our lives by influencing the situation we inhabit, our circumstances, our environment. 

If we want to follow God's influence, we must therefore regard our world as a creation of God, and as having meaning and purpose for us as individuals - as continually being-arranged for our ultimate (eternal) benefit, by a loving and personal God. 

 

2. Jesus Christ - the Holy Ghost

My understanding of the Fourth Gospel is that it tells us explicitly that the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the ascended Jesus; by which he is avialble to all the people of the world for 'comfort' and guidance.

For this to happen, we need to be aware of the wise and loving continual presence of the Holy Ghost; and to open our minds to him, so that the Holy Ghost's thinking will arise in the stream of our thinking.  

 

3. God - within us

We are children of God, in the literal sense of being divinely-procreated by God (our Heavenly Parents) and of the being capable of developing and growing to be like God; of like 'kind', as was Jesus Christ. 

We are therefore immature gods/ godlings/ mini-gods now, already - and contain that-within-us which is in harmony with God's creation and purposes; albeit this guidance is only intermittently and incompletely effective (since it is not fully-developed). 

God-within-us is the reality behind the concept of conscience; and we know it by intuition - by 'introspection' (looking within' to our deepest nature (below or within the social conditioning and natural instincts); and this may occur in some kinds of prayer and meditation. 

 

All forms of divine guidance will agree each with the others; but not all may be discerned, or may be incompletely or distortedly discernible - so they may superficially appear to differ. 

But if deeper and more solid knowledge of individual kinds of guidance can be attained, then the unity of 'what to do' will emerge. 

We should recall and have trust in God that we are 'never left bereft' by God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost. That is - no matter what our situation - those who ask for help (spiritually) will always be given help, and a way-out.   

(The only truly-damned by circumstances, are those who will not ask for help.)

God the creator and the Holy Ghost work from opposite directions

(Where shall we seek guidance in navigating a Christian path through this mortal life? One potentially helpful way of thinking about it might be this...)

 

If we regard Goodness as living in harmony with God's creation and creative purposes: then we are able to do this because there is divinity within each of us. In other words: we are God's sons and daughters; which I understand to mean that there is a literal (procreative, not symbolic) sense in which we have been made divine, in our souls. 

We are not fully divine (as was Jesus Christ) but we each have that potential - and to have that potential we must be (and are) partly divine. 

It is this aspect of "God-within" that enables us to want Good, and also enables us each to discern and know The Good. 

OK. So we are each a God-containing, partly-divine being - living our mortal lives in this world. 

As such; and we need to learn from our experiences in mortal life, lessons that which will be of value in resurrected eternal life (i.e. theosis); and we also need to desire and make choices such as to reach that resurrected eternal life after our biological deaths (i.e. salvation). 

How are we enabled to discover guidance in navigating through this complex world? Especially considering that we are each unique and changing, and live in unique and changing circumstances. 

Because our guidance needs to cope with unique and changing personal and life problems - then it seems clear that generic and fixed answers will be insufficient.  

Salvation and theosis must therefore be 'bespoke' - that is, 'made to measure' for each particular human soul; because 'off-the-peg' guidance (such as that provided by generic church teaching, practices, supervision etc.) cannot take into account our unique circumstances and nature. This generic guidance is always inadequate (even though it may be helpful). 

Our personal guidance is available from both directions: from outside us, and from inside. 

From outside; God is the primary creator; and continues His work of creation - and (because we are God's children) this creating extends right down to the level of each of our lives. 

Therefore, we are guided by God by means of his creative work in arranging of the circumstances of our each of lives. 

This guidance may take many and various forms, starting with our nature, abilities, circumstances of birth and parents; and including what might be termed 'luck' and 'coincidence' or 'synchronicity'. 

This guidance from God ensures that we are given the necessary opportunities and choices by which we can (from our our agency and by 'free will') attain salvation, and learn valuable lessons from mortal life. 

External guidance from God is therefore from the direction of outside - by creation acting upon our lives. This is met by the guidance of the Holy Ghost which is experienced from 'inside' us. 

Led by the Fourth Gospel (called John); I regard the Holy Ghost as our (potential) relationship with the ascended Jesus Christ. Such guidance is accessible by those who (whether explicitly, or implicitly) desire Heaven and have chosen to follow Jesus Christ - i.e. be guided by Jesus Christ. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is therefore an inner personal relationship (which is why the Fourth Gospel uses the synonym of 'comforter') that will inform us of... whatever we need to know for salvation and theosis. 

Again, it is a matter of our chosen free agency whether we follow this guidance. 

In sum: we can envisage the scheme of guidance as coming from from outside us - as God creatively-shapes the circumstances of our specific mortal life; and also from the opposite direction: from inside us - as Jesus personally-guides-us through the unique circumstances of our unique lives.