Introduction
In visiting the writings of John, I have concluded that all of the information that we have about God and about Jesus comes through men. The christian world has set its eyes on Jesus Christ and has granted him pre-eminence and authority to reveal that which is true, what is real and what is not. So coming from that background, my experiment is with this idea. Yes, Jesus was for real. But the Jesus that really was has been debated for years since he came. Who was he really? What did he say? What did he really do? We have today, and it is the reason that I ponder this question, many competing versions of Jesus Christ, the “only begotten son of God who died for our sins” and all that. Christianity has a variety of versions of Jesus Christ. I grant that there are many similarities, but that there are equally many divergences of who he was, what he did, and what he asked of us to do.
Now in a court of law, when a matter is disputed, witnesses are scrutinized and heavily evaluated for authenticity, for what they personally saw, heard, or experienced. And the courts do not give credence to hearsay or opinions. They are simply disallowed. Therefore, for a long time I have been focusing upon the credibility and authenticity of source and of witness. This Jesus, did he live in a vacuum? Was he not real? Did he not live among real people? We have available to us today the information about Jesus that has been handed down to us from various writers, reports, opinions and such. But standing out from among all of these are what are called the Four Gospels. And without discrediting anyone, when I want to focus on authenticity and legitimacy, and seek to refine it as much as possible, I tend to focus on two of those gospels. There are four gospel writers, Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. And out of those four, Mark did not know Jesus personally, and neither did Luke. So these two gathered much information about Jesus and recorded it to pass it on to us today. And without rejecting their testimony outright, I choose to suspend their testimony and lay them aside and say to myself, “Well, the other two, Matthew and John, they knew Jesus personally. They spent much time in his company and learned from him directly. They heard, saw, touched, lived with, and experienced him first hand. They got to know him.” So, with that in mind, and for that reason, I have suspended all other testimonies about Jesus, and focus on John and Matthew for the time being as the foundational testimonies. Other testimonies could enlarge, but other testimonies should not contradict, John and Matthew.
I will, therefore, begin my exercise by visiting firstly with John the Apostle. I will examine John and I will record my thoughts as I listen to him, trying at the same time not to allow other information that I have been given over my lifetime that would change or discredit what John says. Not only that but, in the translations, going back to the Greek, I will try to listen to John attentively as a learner, a child if you will, receiving what he has to say in his language and not imposing my own ideas and the ideas of subsequent translators that could bias his original teaching and therefore the teaching of Jesus Christ whom he represents. I seek to hear what he said rather than what the translators wanted him to say.
Now I pray that God will inspire me and guide my hand, my friend, as I read and commit this to paper.