zen_tom

martinguerre, I'm not saying that so-called Gnostic texts paint a better picture, but am pointing out their worth as unadulterated documents that put into better focus the more traditional writings. Yes they of course have their own agendas, but they are worth noting despite those agendas.

John appears to stand-out from the other Gospels, it contains material that the others don't, it also omits things that the other three share. By authoritarian, I think I mean that John is the one that requires you to believe that Jesus was God. In John's Gospel, belief is more important than good deeds, and belief is something that a church requires. A philosophy might encourage good works (Jesus was undoubtedly a gifted philosopher. "Love Thy Neighbour", is a beautifully simple, three-word distillate answer to one of the worlds most difficult questions) but agreement with philosophical wisdom does not a church make.

In fact, there are many who believe that John was written as an argument against opposing beliefs, those beliefs being that Jesus was God, rather than the Son of God, or a man infused with the Spirit of God, or just a man. If heaven is only accessible through a single gate, Jesus, and if the church holds the keys to that gate. But I have made that point already.

As for Roman-friendly, it is noticed that the crucifixion of Jesus is never the fault of the Romans (who performed it), but of the Jews. Pilate is shown to be bound by the will of the crowd who force his hand against his wish.

I hope nobody considers my using any of these points to deride or shoot anything down, that is not my intention.