I thought that I would give this a go. Before I start, I'll set out some rules, so that I follow the instructions as well I can:
- I will be as unbiased and open minded as possible. I will attempt to do this without any preconceptions about what the outcome will be.
- I will attempt to evaluate the book as if I had never read or heard of it before.
- I will use my knowledge of critical thinking to point out any problems that I find.
- I will hold the book to the highest standards, checking that any important claims (especially extraordinary ones) have suitable references or evidence.
- I will evaluate it on it's own, rather than as part of a collection of books known as the New Testament, ignoring any contradictions or similarities to the other books.
- I will be genuinely honest with myself, and seek the truth.
So, first lets start with a background check... who is John? Is he the subject, or the author? When was it written? Etc...
According to Wikipedia:
- The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned in John 21:24, who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars. Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the true name of the author remains unknown.
- John is usually dated to AD 90–110.
- Written in Greek.
According to this website:
- The oldest manuscript (just a few verses) is dated at 125 AD (we don't have the original).
- We have a manuscript of some more verses dated from about 150 to 200 AD.
- Most of the first two thirds of John are in a manuscript dated at about 200 AD.
From this we can already make some guesses about the book:
- Since the original book was probably originally written 60 to 80 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, it's unlikely that the author was an eye witness to the events he recorded, and could have gotten some information from the other three gospels written beforehand, and perhaps other writings or stories passed on by word of mouth. Nevertheless, it is slightly possible that he was an eye witness to some events as a boy, and lived a longer life than most. People didn't live very long in those days. If he was an eye witness, and wrote the book from memory, it is likely that any quotes would be paraphrased, rather than exactly what the person said, and could easily be inaccurately remembered. I have also noticed, while reading through the book that it is not written as an eye witness account. It is written using the third person omniscient perspective, as most stories are: In this point of view the narrator knows everything. The narrator isn't limited by what one character knows, sort of like the narrator is God. The narrator can know things that others don't, can make comments about what's happening, and can see inside the minds of other characters.
- Since we don't know much about the person who wrote the book, any quotes without references or evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt.
- Since we don't have the original manuscripts, we don't know how many changes, omissions and additions there have been since the original. Changes and mistakes were common when hand copying manuscripts, as can be seen by footnotes in bibles detailing discrepancies between manuscripts.
John 1
The book starts off with some poetic writing about someone called "The Word", which created everything along with God. He doesn't write how he knows this, which I would consider to be a very important omission. I could guess that this comes from stories that the author had heard, or other writings, but either way, I can't trust what he's writing without any kind of reference. I think it's possible that he could have got the idea from Genesis 1:26, where God is quoted to have said, "Let us make mankind in our image," indicating that there were multiple creators. If he were to write something obvious and simple, like that the weather is sunny today, then it would be easier to believe what he's writing, but any extraordinary claims, like that a particular person was the other creator, require references or evidence.
I do find it interesting that he claims that "Through him all things were made," which contradicts some people's beliefs that Satan made the bad things. According to the author, all things were made through Jesus, which would obviously include snakes, spiders, mosquitoes, cockroaches, viruses, bacteria, mold, poisonous mushrooms, volcanoes, lions, etc.
Verses 12 and 13 are interesting: "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
Again, no references, but I suppose if I say that for every line without references, I'll get rather repetitive, so I'll just assume that you understand this very clearly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wherever the author writes about anything extraordinary without a reference, claiming some knowledge about God or a miracle or prophecy, it cannot be rationally accepted, and is most likely untrue.
Furthermore, the poetic nature of the writing makes his point unclear: being "born of God" does not have a definition, and neither does "believed in his name." For example, does this apply to someone who believes that Jesus is God's son? Does it apply to someone who believes that Jesus is God's son, but doesn't actually know that his name is "Jesus", e.g. what if one believed that God had a son, and made up a name for him, like "Phil"? What if one believed that Jesus existed, and was part of the creation, but didn't believe that Jesus was related to God?
The author writes about John baptizing, and baptizing Jesus, which historians consider to have actually happened. John's baptism was, according to the author to "Make straight the way for the Lord," but the author does not write how the baptism does that. The purpose of the baptism, and why people came to John to be baptized seems unclear.
In verse 49, someone named Nathaniel says, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel," but the reason that he says this is because Jesus told Nathaniel that Jesus saw him under a fig tree, which doesn't make any sense.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 starts off with a story about Jesus turning water into wine (Extraordinary claim without references). I find it interesting that Jesus' mother simply assumed that Jesus could create wine. Jesus seemed to not want to perform the alchemy as his hour had not yet come, but does it anyway. His mother assumed that he would need other people to help, which implied that she knew how it was done. I assume therefore that the author is implying that he'd done this before.
The next part of chapter 2 is about Jesus driving the traders out of the temple with a whip. Verses 18 and 19 are interesting:
"The Jews then responded to him, 'What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?'
Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'"
These verses are a prophecy, which if fulfilled would be evidence that Jesus was special. However, I find verse 21 annoying: "But the temple he had spoken of was his body." This is an example of a logical fallacy called "Moving the goalposts" or "Special pleading." Any prediction (or prophecy) has to be very clear in order for it to have any value. If one can just re-interpret a prediction when it doesn't come true, then the prediction was entirely meaningless. One could even go as far as to say that if the goalposts are moved / re-interpreted, then the prophecy was false, and therefore a lie or mistake.
There are plenty of examples of this logical fallacy in religions, for example, Mark's gospel predicted the end of the world / Armageddon / the second coming was supposed to happen within the lifetime of those standing by, but since it didn't happen, the prophecy is re-interpreted due to cognitive dissonance. Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted the date of the end of the world / Armageddon / the second coming many times, and when the event doesn't occur within the time frame, they simply change the date, or try to explain away the prediction as a misinterpretation, instead of admitting that they are simply wrong.
Chapter 3
In chapter 3 Jesus is reported to have told Nicodemus that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. He does this without explaining what he means, and seems to get frustrated that Nicodemus doesn't understand him. I don't understand why Jesus couldn't have simply been straightforward, and explained it in a way that did make sense. Jesus goes on to say, "everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." Again, it's unclear... Jesus doesn't explain precisely what needs to be believed. It seems he tries to give an explanation of the reason that the belief would allow anyone to have eternal life, but it doesn't make sense: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
There is no explanation as to what good condemning a person does, nor why a person who believes something is not condemned. I'll add that a rational belief is based on evidence, which is especially required when an extraordinary claim is made. Since there is no evidence for these claims, it follows that belief in them is not rational, and therefore the book suggests that only people who have irrational beliefs may have eternal life.
The same concept is repeated in vs 36: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
Chapter 4
In chapter 4 Jesus speaks to a Samaritan woman. He supposedly tells her that she has had five husbands and that the man she was with was not her husband. From this she deduces that Jesus is a prophet, and blows it way out of proportion in vs 29. This deduction is very poor reasoning. The same faulty reasoning is used by people who believe people who claim to talk to spirits, or be healers or have some other kind of magical mind reading skills. If someone told me some things about myself, the rational thing to do is simply believe that they've heard it from someone, or something else,... not that they're a prophet!
Back in vs 24, Jesus says, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." Samaritans would have been used to worshiping God. I do, however question what the purpose of worship is. I would guess that people used to believe that deities were responsible for anything that they couldn't understand, so when there were natural problems, like drought or sickness, they would assume that the deity was angry and do anything they could, including appealing to its ego. To me, however, the idea of someone expecting worship is immature, egotistical, and certainly not loving.
I do find it interesting that he claims that "Through him all things were made," which contradicts some people's beliefs that Satan made the bad things. According to the author, all things were made through Jesus, which would obviously include snakes, spiders, mosquitoes, cockroaches, viruses, bacteria, mold, poisonous mushrooms, volcanoes, lions, etc.
Verses 12 and 13 are interesting: "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
Again, no references, but I suppose if I say that for every line without references, I'll get rather repetitive, so I'll just assume that you understand this very clearly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wherever the author writes about anything extraordinary without a reference, claiming some knowledge about God or a miracle or prophecy, it cannot be rationally accepted, and is most likely untrue.
Furthermore, the poetic nature of the writing makes his point unclear: being "born of God" does not have a definition, and neither does "believed in his name." For example, does this apply to someone who believes that Jesus is God's son? Does it apply to someone who believes that Jesus is God's son, but doesn't actually know that his name is "Jesus", e.g. what if one believed that God had a son, and made up a name for him, like "Phil"? What if one believed that Jesus existed, and was part of the creation, but didn't believe that Jesus was related to God?
The author writes about John baptizing, and baptizing Jesus, which historians consider to have actually happened. John's baptism was, according to the author to "Make straight the way for the Lord," but the author does not write how the baptism does that. The purpose of the baptism, and why people came to John to be baptized seems unclear.
In verse 49, someone named Nathaniel says, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel," but the reason that he says this is because Jesus told Nathaniel that Jesus saw him under a fig tree, which doesn't make any sense.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 starts off with a story about Jesus turning water into wine (Extraordinary claim without references). I find it interesting that Jesus' mother simply assumed that Jesus could create wine. Jesus seemed to not want to perform the alchemy as his hour had not yet come, but does it anyway. His mother assumed that he would need other people to help, which implied that she knew how it was done. I assume therefore that the author is implying that he'd done this before.
The next part of chapter 2 is about Jesus driving the traders out of the temple with a whip. Verses 18 and 19 are interesting:
"The Jews then responded to him, 'What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?'
Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'"
These verses are a prophecy, which if fulfilled would be evidence that Jesus was special. However, I find verse 21 annoying: "But the temple he had spoken of was his body." This is an example of a logical fallacy called "Moving the goalposts" or "Special pleading." Any prediction (or prophecy) has to be very clear in order for it to have any value. If one can just re-interpret a prediction when it doesn't come true, then the prediction was entirely meaningless. One could even go as far as to say that if the goalposts are moved / re-interpreted, then the prophecy was false, and therefore a lie or mistake.
There are plenty of examples of this logical fallacy in religions, for example, Mark's gospel predicted the end of the world / Armageddon / the second coming was supposed to happen within the lifetime of those standing by, but since it didn't happen, the prophecy is re-interpreted due to cognitive dissonance. Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted the date of the end of the world / Armageddon / the second coming many times, and when the event doesn't occur within the time frame, they simply change the date, or try to explain away the prediction as a misinterpretation, instead of admitting that they are simply wrong.
Chapter 3
In chapter 3 Jesus is reported to have told Nicodemus that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. He does this without explaining what he means, and seems to get frustrated that Nicodemus doesn't understand him. I don't understand why Jesus couldn't have simply been straightforward, and explained it in a way that did make sense. Jesus goes on to say, "everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." Again, it's unclear... Jesus doesn't explain precisely what needs to be believed. It seems he tries to give an explanation of the reason that the belief would allow anyone to have eternal life, but it doesn't make sense: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
There is no explanation as to what good condemning a person does, nor why a person who believes something is not condemned. I'll add that a rational belief is based on evidence, which is especially required when an extraordinary claim is made. Since there is no evidence for these claims, it follows that belief in them is not rational, and therefore the book suggests that only people who have irrational beliefs may have eternal life.
The same concept is repeated in vs 36: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
Chapter 4
In chapter 4 Jesus speaks to a Samaritan woman. He supposedly tells her that she has had five husbands and that the man she was with was not her husband. From this she deduces that Jesus is a prophet, and blows it way out of proportion in vs 29. This deduction is very poor reasoning. The same faulty reasoning is used by people who believe people who claim to talk to spirits, or be healers or have some other kind of magical mind reading skills. If someone told me some things about myself, the rational thing to do is simply believe that they've heard it from someone, or something else,... not that they're a prophet!
Back in vs 24, Jesus says, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." Samaritans would have been used to worshiping God. I do, however question what the purpose of worship is. I would guess that people used to believe that deities were responsible for anything that they couldn't understand, so when there were natural problems, like drought or sickness, they would assume that the deity was angry and do anything they could, including appealing to its ego. To me, however, the idea of someone expecting worship is immature, egotistical, and certainly not loving.
Verse 48 says, “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” I would say that's entirely rational. One should not merely believe an extraordinary claim without sufficient evidence.
At the end of the chapter, Jesus is said to have told a royal official that his sick son would live. In verses 52 and 53 it says,
"When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, 'Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.'
Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, 'Your son will live.'"
This is an example of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when someone has an experience that could be co-incidence, but is taken as evidence instead. This type of logical fallacy causes many people to believe in things like alternative medicines, vitamins and prayer as cures, simply because they have experienced being cured of something at the same time that they took the supposed cure. Of course it could have just been the body's immune system, or another medicine that cured them. The belief is compounded because co-incidences are remembered, and events that don't coincide are forgotten. To explain this another way, for every co-incidence that happens, there are thousands of co-incidences that don't happen, but we only remember the co-incidence. If someone phones you and you happened to be thinking about that person shortly before the call, you'd probably remember the event as a surprising co-incidence, but you won't remember the thousands of times that you thought of a person and they didn't call. Our minds are very good at pattern recognition, and will constantly look out for interesting co-incidences and "evidence" for our beliefs.
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 starts off with something quite bizarre. It's about some kind of magical pool. According to the footnotes, some manuscripts explain as follows: "From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had."
To me this is the most far fetched idea so far, because this magic has nothing to do with Jesus. We know that magic like this doesn't exist today, because if it did, we would be able to see it and test it. So there are two options... either Jesus lived in a magical time, when it was normal for angels to stir water and make it magical, or the story is simply based on a myth. When given two options like that I see no reason to believe the extraordinary option.
Verse 16 is also quite bizarre: "So, because Jesus was doing these things (miracles) on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him." This is really hard to fathom; Jesus is supposedly commanding lame people to walk, and instead of being completely gobsmacked at the incredible thing they've just witnessed, they tell Jesus not to perform miracles on a Saturday!
Verse 29 contradicts what Jesus said earlier about those who believe not being condemned: "Those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." The promise of eternal life for believers is repeated many times in the book.
Chapter 6
In chapter 6, Jesus gives a confusing talk: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
Many disciples say "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" and they stop following Jesus.
Jesus says, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." What I understand from this is that Jesus told people that God decides whether or not someone may become a Christian. So the belief in Jesus is not something you choose... you simply either believe, because God allows you to, or you don't believe because God doesn't allow you to. Rational belief is based on evidence and logic, any other reason for belief, like it only being available to chosen people sounds like nonsense to me. It also brings up the question of what God's criteria would be for choosing his followers. What I like about this statement is it is actually testable. We could, theoretically, look at the kind of people who follow Jesus, and get an idea of God's criteria. A look at the kind of people who follow Jesus, however, reveals that people are more likely to be followers of Jesus if they are brought up in a Christian community, and if they have Christian parents. Chinese and middle eastern people, for example, are unlikely to be Christians. Does this mean that God doesn't like Chinese people? Of course not... people simply believe because they've been brought up with those beliefs and have either not challenged their beliefs, or have challenged the beliefs and not found them to be false. Another example of a group of people which seem to be to be very unlikely to be Christians are experts in critical and rational thinking, as well as AI researchers. This is surely because, in their intellectual pursuit of truth, they have challenged the beliefs of Christians, and have not found enough evidence, rather than simply not being "enabled" by God.
Chapter 7
John 7 verse 5 says, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." I think this is an interesting statement.
Chapter 8
Up to this point it seems that most of the book is about Jesus struggling to convince people to believe that God sent him. At the end of chapter 8, he claims to be God: “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Chapter 9
Jesus heals a man born blind by spitting on the ground and making mud, then placing it on the man's eyes and telling him to wash it off in the Pool of Siloam.
Since there is no evidence nor references for these extraordinary miraculous claims, they are unlikely to be true. Therefore it makes me curious about where the ideas originated from. I can see that there is a recurring pattern in that something is usually used to do the miracle: water, loaves and fish, a pool and spit. I would guess that the use of spit and pools for healing might have come from ancient ideas that spit or water could be used for healing. So I looked it up to see what ancient Greeks believed (the book was written in Greek), and I found this: "Greek mythology specified that certain natural springs or tidal pools were blessed by the gods to cure disease. Around these sacred pools, Greeks established bathing facilities for those desiring healing." - Wikipedia.
Chapter 10
Jesus tells people that they have to go through him to be saved. In verse 30, he claims that he is his own father (God): "I and the Father are one."
Chapter 11
In this chapter a man named Lazarus dies and Jesus suggests they go to him. Verse 16 is very strange: "Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, 'Let us also go, that we may die with him.'"
Jesus again tells people that if they believe in him they will have eternal life. He resurrects Lazarus.
Chapter 12
This chapter contains a few examples of the third person omniscient perspective that the book was written in: "So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well," and "At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him."
Chapter 13
Jesus washes his disciples feet. This is a nice gesture to his disciples and a practical way to teach them how they should behave towards each other.
Jesus prophecies that Judas will betray him. I find this sentence a bit strange: "As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him." I wonder if the author is saying that Judas was just an ordinary, decent man, but Jesus caused Satan to possess Judas and make him betray Jesus.
Chapter 14
Jesus says to his disciples, "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe."
I take this to mean that Jesus is predicting his death and resurrection, and when he rises and comes back to them they will believe.
Chapter 15
Jesus prophesied to his disciples, "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."
This is an extraordinary statement, and therefore unlikely to be true, but it does make me wonder if Jesus actually said it to his disciples, and if any of them tried it out. If God were to tell me, "Ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you," I would probably say something like, "Get rid of sickness, aging, cold, hunger, thirst, stress and death, and give everyone amazing games to play, so that we can all have fun and be happy." Of course cognitive dissonance would make it difficult for a strong believer to stop believing simply because a prophecy didn't come true. They would probably have made excuses like, "That wasn't 'done for me' because I have forgotten some of Jesus' words."
Chapter 16
Jesus prophecies "The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." Interestingly many of the apostles (if not all) were supposedly murdered. However, since the book was written after the murders would have already occurred, this doesn't provide us with any evidence that Jesus (nor the writer) knew the future.
Jesus prophecies about his death and resurrection, and again tells them that they can have whatever they want: "Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete."
Vs 29 is interesting: "Then Jesus’ disciples said, 'Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.'"
Firstly it shows us that quoted text does not mean that a person said exactly those words. It would be ridiculous to think that all the disciples said exactly the same sentences.
Secondly the disciples didn't believe that Jesus came from God because of the miracles. They believed because Jesus apparently knew all things without asking questions. In the preceding verses, however, Jesus doesn't say anything that would provide any evidence that he knew all things. He merely prophecies about things which haven't happened.
Chapter 17
Verse 1 says, "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed."
I have to ask... which direction is heaven? I think the use of the word heaven could either refer to the sky or the place in which God lives. However, based on the context, that Jesus is praying to his Father, God, I think it refers to the place in which God lives. I would guess that people back in those days believed something like the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe, and heaven was up, and hell was below. Of course, if there was a heaven, it would neither be up nor down, because that direction changes as the earth spins. It seems that the idea of hell being below the Earth comes from observations of volcanoes... fire coming from below Earth... hence the phrase fire and brimstone (brimstone means sulphur, and volcanoes emit sulphur dioxide and smell like sulphur).
Interestingly, it seems that God (the Father) doesn't even agree to Jesus' request, as Jesus asks "Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Chapter 18
Jesus is arrested and Peter cuts of the priest's ear (Strangely in this version there is no mention of Jesus healing the high priest). Peter later denies Jesus.
Chapter 19
Jesus is crucified.
This chapter contains an interesting verse: "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." I say "it's interesting" because the writer assumes that it's true, but provides no reason why he says that the man's testimony is true. It's a bit strange. Why write that the testimony is true, if you have no more reason to believe it than the reader?
Jesus is buried in a tomb.
Chapter 20
Mary Magdalene and two disciples discover the empty tomb.
I'm a bit confused about one verse: "Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)"
I'm so used to seeing the word believed in this book in the context of believing in Jesus, that I wonder if here it means that the disciple believed that someone had taken Jesus' body. I don't think it means that he believed that Jesus had risen, because that would be the last thing someone would believe if they saw an empty tomb, before they had seen any evidence of something extraordinary. It carries on to tell how Mary Magdalene was crying because she believed that Jesus' body had been taken away.
It turns out the guy she's crying to is Jesus.
Jesus appears to his disciples, gives them the Holy Spirit, and says, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." So far in this book Jesus has never mentioned hell, nor what happens to someone if their sins are not forgiven. Nevertheless, if I were to receive the ability to forgive sins on God's behalf, and believed that God would give eternal life to anyone I forgave, I'd forgive everyone.
Thomas doesn't believe that Jesus has risen, until provided with evidence, by seeing the holes in his hands and side.
Chapter 21
Jesus appears to the disciples again, and miraculously fills their fishing net with fish. There's a strange verse here: "None of the disciples dared ask him, 'Who are you?' They knew it was the Lord." Maybe it's a translation problem, because if it really was Jesus, they would obviously recognize him, and there would be no need to write the sentence.
Jesus prophecies about Peter's death. Jesus then speaks about the disciple that he loves and says, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" I think this is the only time in the book that Jesus refers to his so called second coming.
The writer clarifies, "Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die." If I were to guess, I'd say it's likely that the writer wrote it because the disciple had died and Jesus had not yet returned.
He then writes, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." He's writing about this disciple as being another person. Again, he mentions that his testimony is true, but doesn't explain. Since the disciple apparently wrote about Jesus, it seems possible that the writer of this book copied those writings.
Additional Thoughts
The book of John paints a very different picture to traditional Christian beliefs:
- There is no mention of hell... which is an extremely important topic in Christianity.
- There is no mention of paradise... merely eternal life, without defining what it is.
- Jesus teaches about love, and good values, but only about 4 times; The main emphasis of the book is Jesus repeatedly performing miracles and trying to get people to believe in him.
- There is no mention of Armageddon or the end of the world, but only a brief mention of the second coming, including a possible excuse that the disciple who was expected to be alive for the second coming may not have survived (perhaps he avoids it because Armageddon / the end of the world never happened within the predicted time frame of Jesus' generation).
- Baptism is not required for salvation... only belief.
At the end of the chapter, Jesus is said to have told a royal official that his sick son would live. In verses 52 and 53 it says,
"When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, 'Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.'
Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, 'Your son will live.'"
This is an example of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when someone has an experience that could be co-incidence, but is taken as evidence instead. This type of logical fallacy causes many people to believe in things like alternative medicines, vitamins and prayer as cures, simply because they have experienced being cured of something at the same time that they took the supposed cure. Of course it could have just been the body's immune system, or another medicine that cured them. The belief is compounded because co-incidences are remembered, and events that don't coincide are forgotten. To explain this another way, for every co-incidence that happens, there are thousands of co-incidences that don't happen, but we only remember the co-incidence. If someone phones you and you happened to be thinking about that person shortly before the call, you'd probably remember the event as a surprising co-incidence, but you won't remember the thousands of times that you thought of a person and they didn't call. Our minds are very good at pattern recognition, and will constantly look out for interesting co-incidences and "evidence" for our beliefs.
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 starts off with something quite bizarre. It's about some kind of magical pool. According to the footnotes, some manuscripts explain as follows: "From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had."
To me this is the most far fetched idea so far, because this magic has nothing to do with Jesus. We know that magic like this doesn't exist today, because if it did, we would be able to see it and test it. So there are two options... either Jesus lived in a magical time, when it was normal for angels to stir water and make it magical, or the story is simply based on a myth. When given two options like that I see no reason to believe the extraordinary option.
Verse 16 is also quite bizarre: "So, because Jesus was doing these things (miracles) on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him." This is really hard to fathom; Jesus is supposedly commanding lame people to walk, and instead of being completely gobsmacked at the incredible thing they've just witnessed, they tell Jesus not to perform miracles on a Saturday!
Verse 29 contradicts what Jesus said earlier about those who believe not being condemned: "Those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." The promise of eternal life for believers is repeated many times in the book.
Chapter 6
In chapter 6, Jesus gives a confusing talk: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
Many disciples say "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" and they stop following Jesus.
Jesus says, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." What I understand from this is that Jesus told people that God decides whether or not someone may become a Christian. So the belief in Jesus is not something you choose... you simply either believe, because God allows you to, or you don't believe because God doesn't allow you to. Rational belief is based on evidence and logic, any other reason for belief, like it only being available to chosen people sounds like nonsense to me. It also brings up the question of what God's criteria would be for choosing his followers. What I like about this statement is it is actually testable. We could, theoretically, look at the kind of people who follow Jesus, and get an idea of God's criteria. A look at the kind of people who follow Jesus, however, reveals that people are more likely to be followers of Jesus if they are brought up in a Christian community, and if they have Christian parents. Chinese and middle eastern people, for example, are unlikely to be Christians. Does this mean that God doesn't like Chinese people? Of course not... people simply believe because they've been brought up with those beliefs and have either not challenged their beliefs, or have challenged the beliefs and not found them to be false. Another example of a group of people which seem to be to be very unlikely to be Christians are experts in critical and rational thinking, as well as AI researchers. This is surely because, in their intellectual pursuit of truth, they have challenged the beliefs of Christians, and have not found enough evidence, rather than simply not being "enabled" by God.
Chapter 7
John 7 verse 5 says, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." I think this is an interesting statement.
Chapter 8
Up to this point it seems that most of the book is about Jesus struggling to convince people to believe that God sent him. At the end of chapter 8, he claims to be God: “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Chapter 9
Jesus heals a man born blind by spitting on the ground and making mud, then placing it on the man's eyes and telling him to wash it off in the Pool of Siloam.
Since there is no evidence nor references for these extraordinary miraculous claims, they are unlikely to be true. Therefore it makes me curious about where the ideas originated from. I can see that there is a recurring pattern in that something is usually used to do the miracle: water, loaves and fish, a pool and spit. I would guess that the use of spit and pools for healing might have come from ancient ideas that spit or water could be used for healing. So I looked it up to see what ancient Greeks believed (the book was written in Greek), and I found this: "Greek mythology specified that certain natural springs or tidal pools were blessed by the gods to cure disease. Around these sacred pools, Greeks established bathing facilities for those desiring healing." - Wikipedia.
Chapter 10
Jesus tells people that they have to go through him to be saved. In verse 30, he claims that he is his own father (God): "I and the Father are one."
Chapter 11
In this chapter a man named Lazarus dies and Jesus suggests they go to him. Verse 16 is very strange: "Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, 'Let us also go, that we may die with him.'"
Jesus again tells people that if they believe in him they will have eternal life. He resurrects Lazarus.
Chapter 12
This chapter contains a few examples of the third person omniscient perspective that the book was written in: "So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well," and "At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him."
Chapter 13
Jesus washes his disciples feet. This is a nice gesture to his disciples and a practical way to teach them how they should behave towards each other.
Jesus prophecies that Judas will betray him. I find this sentence a bit strange: "As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him." I wonder if the author is saying that Judas was just an ordinary, decent man, but Jesus caused Satan to possess Judas and make him betray Jesus.
Chapter 14
Jesus says to his disciples, "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe."
I take this to mean that Jesus is predicting his death and resurrection, and when he rises and comes back to them they will believe.
Chapter 15
Jesus prophesied to his disciples, "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."
This is an extraordinary statement, and therefore unlikely to be true, but it does make me wonder if Jesus actually said it to his disciples, and if any of them tried it out. If God were to tell me, "Ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you," I would probably say something like, "Get rid of sickness, aging, cold, hunger, thirst, stress and death, and give everyone amazing games to play, so that we can all have fun and be happy." Of course cognitive dissonance would make it difficult for a strong believer to stop believing simply because a prophecy didn't come true. They would probably have made excuses like, "That wasn't 'done for me' because I have forgotten some of Jesus' words."
Chapter 16
Jesus prophecies "The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." Interestingly many of the apostles (if not all) were supposedly murdered. However, since the book was written after the murders would have already occurred, this doesn't provide us with any evidence that Jesus (nor the writer) knew the future.
Jesus prophecies about his death and resurrection, and again tells them that they can have whatever they want: "Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete."
Vs 29 is interesting: "Then Jesus’ disciples said, 'Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.'"
Firstly it shows us that quoted text does not mean that a person said exactly those words. It would be ridiculous to think that all the disciples said exactly the same sentences.
Secondly the disciples didn't believe that Jesus came from God because of the miracles. They believed because Jesus apparently knew all things without asking questions. In the preceding verses, however, Jesus doesn't say anything that would provide any evidence that he knew all things. He merely prophecies about things which haven't happened.
Chapter 17
Verse 1 says, "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed."
I have to ask... which direction is heaven? I think the use of the word heaven could either refer to the sky or the place in which God lives. However, based on the context, that Jesus is praying to his Father, God, I think it refers to the place in which God lives. I would guess that people back in those days believed something like the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe, and heaven was up, and hell was below. Of course, if there was a heaven, it would neither be up nor down, because that direction changes as the earth spins. It seems that the idea of hell being below the Earth comes from observations of volcanoes... fire coming from below Earth... hence the phrase fire and brimstone (brimstone means sulphur, and volcanoes emit sulphur dioxide and smell like sulphur).
Interestingly, it seems that God (the Father) doesn't even agree to Jesus' request, as Jesus asks "Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Chapter 18
Jesus is arrested and Peter cuts of the priest's ear (Strangely in this version there is no mention of Jesus healing the high priest). Peter later denies Jesus.
Chapter 19
Jesus is crucified.
This chapter contains an interesting verse: "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." I say "it's interesting" because the writer assumes that it's true, but provides no reason why he says that the man's testimony is true. It's a bit strange. Why write that the testimony is true, if you have no more reason to believe it than the reader?
Jesus is buried in a tomb.
Chapter 20
Mary Magdalene and two disciples discover the empty tomb.
I'm a bit confused about one verse: "Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)"
I'm so used to seeing the word believed in this book in the context of believing in Jesus, that I wonder if here it means that the disciple believed that someone had taken Jesus' body. I don't think it means that he believed that Jesus had risen, because that would be the last thing someone would believe if they saw an empty tomb, before they had seen any evidence of something extraordinary. It carries on to tell how Mary Magdalene was crying because she believed that Jesus' body had been taken away.
It turns out the guy she's crying to is Jesus.
Jesus appears to his disciples, gives them the Holy Spirit, and says, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." So far in this book Jesus has never mentioned hell, nor what happens to someone if their sins are not forgiven. Nevertheless, if I were to receive the ability to forgive sins on God's behalf, and believed that God would give eternal life to anyone I forgave, I'd forgive everyone.
Thomas doesn't believe that Jesus has risen, until provided with evidence, by seeing the holes in his hands and side.
Chapter 21
Jesus appears to the disciples again, and miraculously fills their fishing net with fish. There's a strange verse here: "None of the disciples dared ask him, 'Who are you?' They knew it was the Lord." Maybe it's a translation problem, because if it really was Jesus, they would obviously recognize him, and there would be no need to write the sentence.
Jesus prophecies about Peter's death. Jesus then speaks about the disciple that he loves and says, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" I think this is the only time in the book that Jesus refers to his so called second coming.
The writer clarifies, "Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die." If I were to guess, I'd say it's likely that the writer wrote it because the disciple had died and Jesus had not yet returned.
He then writes, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." He's writing about this disciple as being another person. Again, he mentions that his testimony is true, but doesn't explain. Since the disciple apparently wrote about Jesus, it seems possible that the writer of this book copied those writings.
Additional Thoughts
The book of John paints a very different picture to traditional Christian beliefs:
- There is no mention of hell... which is an extremely important topic in Christianity.
- There is no mention of paradise... merely eternal life, without defining what it is.
- Jesus teaches about love, and good values, but only about 4 times; The main emphasis of the book is Jesus repeatedly performing miracles and trying to get people to believe in him.
- There is no mention of Armageddon or the end of the world, but only a brief mention of the second coming, including a possible excuse that the disciple who was expected to be alive for the second coming may not have survived (perhaps he avoids it because Armageddon / the end of the world never happened within the predicted time frame of Jesus' generation).
- Baptism is not required for salvation... only belief.
