Joe Mendoza

Intensity,

Your first two questions, and the last question are relevant to the Gospel of John, the others (in my opinion) are not, I shall explain why below:

1. Why does John baptise in water? From whence did he get the idea of baptism from?

This is a very important question and I will come back to it at the end of my post.

2. Was John a flesh and blood man according to your understanding?

He may have been a flesh & blood man (Josephus had heard about him), but he is used within the Gospel of John as a literary device. The Gospel of John is not a history nor is it a biography, In my opinion it is guide to enlightenment (or salvation).

3. When JBap's head was cut and presented to Salome (Herods stepdaughter) what did that represent? Did it actually happen?

This is irrelevant in the Context of the Gospel of John. This event may or may not have occurred, but it is not mentioned within John's Gospel, and so is irrelevant to what the author of the Gospel is attempting to do.

4. What/ who does Elizabeth represent and how is she different from Mary, given they both had "virgin births"? Was Elizabeth a flesh-and-blood woman?

This is also irrelevant in the Context of the Gospel of John, for the same reason. This event may or may not have occurred, but it is not mentioned within John's Gospel, and so is irrelevant to what the author of the Gospel is attempting to do. The author never mentions Elizabeth, nor does he allude to her. The author mentions the mother of Jesus (but does not call her Mary), but never alludes to any type of virgin birth.

5. Are you aware, that in The (Secret) book of James (protoevangelium) we have a story similar to Jesus' birth story where Elizabeth also had to flee with infant John from Herods baby-killing spree as Herod looked for John? What does that tell you?

No, I was not aware of that, and it tells me that a good story gets around. However as the author of the Gospel never mentions the story it is irrelevant to what he was attempting to do.


6. Luke 1: 41-42 says "quote:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.


6a. Why did the baby (have to) leap in Elizabeth's womb before Elizabeth was filled with the holy ghost?

Different Gospel, different author with different purpose. The incident is not mentioned by the author of the Gospel of John and so is irrelevant to the Gospel of John.

6b. What was the significance of the baby leaping in Mary's presence?

Same answer as above.

6c. How did Elizabeth know Mary had anything in her womb yet Mary had not yet told her about angel Gabriel's visit?

Same answer as above.

7. Why did JBap baptize Jesus yet he was supposedly born sinless? What did that baptism symbolize?

John does not baptize Jesus in the Gospel of John. It says that John "saw Jesus coming toward him" but never mentions rather or not John baptized Jesus.

8. What did baptism with fire mean as John spoke of in Luke 3:16 and Matthew 3:11? And in what way was it different from Baptism with the spirit (or Holy Ghost) and from Baptism with water?

Baptism with fire and baptism with spirit are different words for the same event. The baptism with water is an external symbolic act with no true spiritual value (except as a teaching tool). The baptism by spirit is the whole point of the Gospel of John. In my opinion it is a handbook for obtaining this baptism. The baptism by spirit has also been called gnosis and enlightenment. (The light in enlightenment is the same light as the fire in the baptism by fire, the same fire seen at Pentecost and by Moses in the bush.

Which brings us back to question #1.

1. Why does John baptise in water? From whence did he get the idea of baptism from?

I'll have to admit that I have no idea where he got the idea. I have read that it was derived from the Jewish purification ritual. That it is a purification ritual makes sense, but I cannot claim to know rather or not that is true.

Why did John baptize in water?

Water seems to play a very important role in the Gospel of John. Jesus changes water into wine, he asks a Samaritan woman for water, water comes out of him when the Roman soldier pierces his side with a sword.
I am intrigued by the author's use of water, and I hope to figure out what it all symbolizes. But I'm not there yet.


I think its imperative that you give a coherent answer to the above questions before you proceed.
Thank you.

Sorry if my writing has appeared incoherent to you. I have had some ideas about the purpose of the Gospel of John for some time now, but they have only been in a rather inchoate state. I am trying to put them all together as I go along. If anything I say seems incoherent to you, please ask me to make myself clearer.

Thanks.

Ted Hoffman

Joe Mendoza,
You have handled the questions very well. I did not mean to imply that you have been incoherent.

If you narrowly want to confine your exegesis on John 1, that is perfectly valid, but I dont think it engenders an eristic or educative discussion on John 1. This parochial approach renders the discussion barren and shuts off any challenging views. I wonder why you find this necessary.

Thank you.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Joe Mendoza

Joe Mendoza,
You have handled the questions very well. I did not mean to imply that you have been incoherent.

If you narrowly want to confine your exegesis on John 1, that is perfectly valid, but I dont think it engenders an eristic or educative discussion on John 1. This parochial approach renders the discussion barren and shuts off any challenging views. I wonder why you find this necessary.

Thank you.

Hi Intensity,

There is nothing wrong with discussing the Gospel of John in relationship to all the other stories and legends surrounding Jesus (& John the Baptist).

However I am not convinced that the author of John knew about all these stories. The Gospel of John was written relatively soon after the events they supposably describe at a time when the story of Jesus had not yet calcified into the story the church has “canonized”. I am trying to get back to a place where I can look at John with fresh eyes that are not loaded with preconceptions about what John is trying to tell me. This is probably impossible, but I am trying anyway.

In order to figure out what author of John is trying to tell me, I have decided not to assume that he knew more, or believed more, about the Jesus story than he tells me, or that there is more than he tells me.

I am not of the opinion that the author of John agreed with what the authors of the other three Gospels where saying. We are so used to seeing all four Gospels together that we assume that they belong together. I am not sure that that is true. All four Gospels were written by different authors at different times, and probably for different purposes. The first three Gospels are very similar and do seem to represent a single tradition, but the fourth gospel, John's Gospel, seems to stand alone.

I agree that this is not always the best method to study a book in isolation, (and in this case I am not studying it in complete isolation, I think that the book of Genesis is definitely related to John and is important to understanding it) but I am not convinced that the other Gospels are related to John even if they are supposed to be dealing with the same subject.

-Joe

Joe Mendoza

John 1:35-50

35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"
37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"
They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

The first two disciples came over from John. They make the symbolic leap from the Psychic (John represents the best that the Psychic can be, the best that social man under the law can be) to the Pneumatic (Jesus). There are two disciples; one is later named as “Andrew” one is never named. That there is two may be significant, one represents the Hylic (natural man) and one the Psychic (social man).

Jesus begins by asking them what they want (other translations say seek). And they answer by asking him a question. That was the correct answer, because when seeking one does not begin by knowing what is being sought. When seeking it is impossible to know what is being sought when the seeking starts. If you begin by thinking you know what is being sought, you begin calcified, crystallized in Krisnamurti’s terms. The goal in seeking should be to remain uncrystallized, to be willing to find the unexpected.

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.
40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[10] ).
[Footnote: 10. 1:42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.]

Jesus calls Simon a rock, something that is hard, inflexible and crystallized. Not a compliment; it is not how a seeker should be. It is also interesting that Simon Peter is the son of a “John” and John is also the name of the greatest of those under the law (of Moses), this is another indication that Simon is under the influence of the law (which is also symbolized by rock or stone).

Peter is the third disciple.

43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."
44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.
45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.

Philip is the fourth disciple. Philip brings the fifth disciple to Jesus.
This is interesting. What is wrong with Nazareth? Nazareth is mentioned only 5 times in John.

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote–Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."


John 1:46
"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip.


John 18:4-8
4Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"
5"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.
6"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
7Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?"
And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
8"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

John 19:19
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Nazareth is used as part of Jesus’ name in all but one of the references, Once when Philip is telling Nathanael about Jesus, twice when the soldiers are looking for Jesus, and once when Jesus is on the Cross. The one reference when Nazareth is not connected directly to Jesus’ name is when Nathanael says "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nazareth is a place, a piece of earth. Nazareth represents this world (the Hylic nature) Nathanael is asking if anything good can come from it. But our Hylic nature is our starting point. It is where we begin our journey towards resurrection. Note also that Jesus is referred to as “Son of Joseph”, Joseph being his earthly father.

47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."
48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."
49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

It is my opinion that Nathanael may represent the Buddha. Nathanael’s main characteristic is that he sat under a tree. Also Nathanael is the fifth disciple, and the Buddha was famous for his five noble truths.

Israel or Israelite is only used 5 times in John (Jews or Jewish is used 73 times in John, Judea or Judean Countryside is used another 7 times)

John 1:31
I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

John 1:47
When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

John 1:49
Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

John 3:10
"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?

John 12:13
They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna![ 12:13 A Hebrew expression meaning "Save!" which became an exclamation of praise] " "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"[ 12:13 Psalm 118:25, 26] "Blessed is the King of Israel!"

Israel is mention three times in chapter one, once in chapter three and once in chapter 12. It is interesting that at Palm Sunday when the crowd is proclaiming him Jesus is referred to as “King of Israel” but later at his trial and crucifixion he is mocked as “King of the Jews”. Israel and Israelite are never used in a negative manner, unlike Jew which is (at times).

This is important because “Jew” is used to refer to those who are under the law (in particular, but not necessarily, under the Law of Moses). Israel seems to refer back to before Moses to the age of the Patriarchs before Israel had divided into tribes.

Israel may refer to the whole, integrated man; the person has integrated his Hylic, Psychic & Pneumatic natures into one (his genetic, social & spiritual natures).

50Jesus said, "You believe[11] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, "I tell you[12] the truth, you[13] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
(Footnotes: 11. 1:50 Or Do you believe ...? 12. 1:51 The Greek is plural. 13. 1:51 The Greek is plural.)

This chapter ends with a reference to seeing “heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." Which not only refers back to when John saw the spirit decent on Jesus (John 1:32) but More distinctly to Genesis when Jacob (also called Israel) saw the Heavens open and Angels of God ascending and descending.

gwh00

1 In the beginning was the Word,

Prior to the beginning there was only God (non-dual Super Consciousness) in stillness.

and the Word was with God,

The Word, is the primordial vibration within the fluid body of God.

and the Word was God.

The vibrating wave is only a ripple in God’s body(no independent existence).

2 He was in the beginning with God.

The vibration is the active masculine principle (yang).


3 All things were made through Him,

The crest of the masculine wave enfolds creating the primordial feminine, yin (void or empty space).

and without Him nothing was made that was made.

This simple event blooms space/time and our foam based universe.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

That primordial vibration is the spark that moves all living systems and is perceived in humanity as internal luminosity.(Divine Essence, Ousia)

5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

That light shines in all of humanity, even the most ignorant and, for the most part, is not comprehended.

Gary