Hosting by Yahoo Web Hosting
You need Java to see this applet.
What Manner of Man?
What John the "beloved" saw
The Son of Man came to give His life, to ransom
the lives of the many!
John provides perhaps the most graphic, certainly the most detailed, and
therefore the most “telling” of the Lord’s teachings regarding His person as
a Galilean, His beginning and His future.  His gospel is rich with insights
and lessons from the mind and heart of the Lord Jesus with respect to
how He wished to be both perceived and, received.  In His own voice, He
establishes clearly His perception of Himself, even as He makes clear
delineation between Himself and the Administrator behind His calling and
mission, His activity and authority.  He made it perfectly clear to His
apostles (though they did not get it!), that—His origin and beginning
notwithstanding—His walk, His activities as a man were not a charade;
that is, He was not pretending; He was not holding back anything;
whatever and whoever He was previous to Mary’s womb and that feeding
trough at Bethlehem, He was no longer.  His condition then was, and is
appearances (where He in human form demanded to be viewed, and
received, as Almighty God.  Regardless of how He appeared, that was
Who He was indeed!).  In Judea, however, He was not Almighty God
masquerading in human form—His transformation was as complete as it
was, by design, irreversible (that is, again unlike as was true of the OT
Christophonies, He could then, and He can now, not simply, randomly
return to His former Spirit-self).  Moreover, His words are decidedly both
implicit and explicit (how odd that Mr. Abdullah in his ‘authoritative’
rebuttal did not seem to pick-up on this fact!).  Thus, it might well be said
than any of the other gospels, John’s shows demonstrably that the best,
most authoritative commentary on Christ Jesus is Jesus Christ.  Thus, full
consideration must be given to all of His words and statements regarding Himself, otherwise, one risks presenting a view and a
picture that is other than what He and the Father had in mind.  Contrary to current evangelical practice, the Pharisees were
never presented as either an authoritative source of interpretation of OT scripture, nor were they looked upon as apt interpreters
of His own words (hence, it does not follow that, in the absence of any rebuttal to their accusations such that He claimed to be
notions.  He simply left them in their errors.).  

Not at all strangely, then, you cannot get the light and insights that Jesus of Nazareth sheds on Himself from, or by regurgitation
of any of the multiplied, thousands of volumes of works of the many theologians, preachers, scholars and skeptics, past or
present.  Most of them (evangelical/fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Jesus People, or, Calvary Chapel movement alike) are
patently ignorant, with perhaps 95% of today’s preachers being (overtly or covertly) unbelievers.  Although they write and
speak, in His Name, ultimately, they do not even care.  They did not know Him then, far too many (Christian educators and
theologians, congregations and their preachers that is) do not know Him now.  Since they have never truly sat at His feet, they
now have no walk with Him.  He who tries to bridge the chasm between all these various beliefs systems, blending them into
one big, bulging cohesive that agrees with the Bible (expecting that the Father is pleased to acknowledge them), automatically
denies the faith, and the Lord of all glory, even as he makes God a liar.  

Moreover, it must be noted that this matter of Jesus Christ, His nature and His Person, is one not the least bit retrieval in the
Father’s Eyes.  How He saw Himself (which is precisely how the Father saw Him) is for the Christian an issue of paramount
significance, and therefore, not optional theology.  This is particularly true for those of countries like America, where time and
occasion to invest in careful study are bountiful.  God took and still takes supreme delight in the Son’s full humanity, and
expects no less from His saints.  For this reason, Christians cannot be negligent; dereliction is inexcusable.