but wait there's more

I understand and appreciate this is not a “religious” blog… and will respect it, as such. (I, don’t consider myself a “religious” person.) However, you seem to be interested in vigorous dialogue… and even, perhaps, getting to the “truth” (we’ll see where that pursuit leads) and so, as such, I felt compelled to write. I’ll try and be brief. As for your “personal view” of the Disciple John as a “Kitty Kelly” and his Gospel an “unauthorized biography of Christ…” I’m almost not sure where to begin. We know that John was one of the three most intimate disciples of Jesus (along with Peter and older brother, James). He was an eyewitness to and participant in Jesus’ earthly ministry. After Christ’s ascension, he became a pillar in the Jerusalem church, ministered with Peter, authorized 1-, 2-, and 3-John and the Book of Revelation. More than any other gospel, John proclaims the divinity of Jesus. The apologetic purpose is closely related to the evangelistic purpose: he wrote to convince his reader of Jesus’ true identity as the incarnate God-Man. The entire gospel is organized around the eight “signs” or proofs that reinforce Jesus’ true identity leading to faith. As to being a book that looks to “separate itself from the ties of the Jewish faith…” Yes, it was written to a non-Jewish audience – primarily to believers (Jew and Gentile) but indirectly for the Orient where there were millions crying out in that day for deliverance – (Matthew to the Jews; Mark to the Romans; Luke to the Greeks). An “anti-Semitic… gospel?” How? Where? Look at John 4:22, “…salvation is of the Jews.” (By the way, John – James’ brother – was, indeed, Jewish and not Gentile.) For you to then launch into what people did, distorting the Word, during the Middle Ages is utterly irrelevant to what John wrote so much earlier. The Crusades were not some sort of mandate laid down in his gospel… or anywhere else in the Bible. Re: the date this gospel was written… Yes, it has often been dated late – toward the end of the first century – but there are many who present good reasons for dating it much earlier. [For more, see the John Rylands Papyrus that suggests the Gospel of John was already in wide circulation during the second century A.D.; some have even proposed a date prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. If it were already being read in Egypt and Ephesus, how early must it have been written in order to circulate so widely and so quickly; not as fast as Kitty Kelly, of course. Heck, she’s on the web, right? Sorry, don’t mean to be glib. But the time at which something is written does not, necessarily reflect its veracity. Back to the issues at hand… Why jump into talking about fundamentalists? (And, of course, I’m assuming you mean Christian fundamentalists. Which ones? At last count, there are some 40,000-plus Christian church “denominations”… we can probably stop counting. I do think that makes God quite sad.) Jesus came to fulfill the law (since we are utterly and hopelessly unable to live up to its standards) and yes, absolutely, anyone is free to come to “the table”. But to say that He came to “free [us] to follow [our] hearts” is well, a bit soft and fuzzy, to say the least. Read Luke 12:49-53, Matt. 10:32-39 – “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent Me.” Wow, huh? Jesus is not soft and fuzzy. He is very clear (as recorded throughout the New Testament). Look, I’ll skip the rest of my notes and thoughts and wrap up with this: Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is or you don’t. There’s no middle ground with Christ. He can’t just be a “prophet” or an “example how to live” or “a good man.” He says He is the One True Son of God. If that’s not the case, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, He’s either a liar or a lunatic. Christ came to provide THE way for man to regain his right relationship with God, the Father. And the Bible is the inerrant Word of God that, in part, shows us the way and helps keep us in the right relationship. (I once heard someone say that the Bible is God’s love letter to us. I like that.) Of course, you can quibble and argue all day – and that’s fine; it’s your choice and I will respect that, truly – but I believe God’s Word (the Bible) was delivered just as He wanted it delivered (all 66 books by 44 writers over hundreds of years). Otherwise, He’s not in control and the Bible then just becomes a salad bar for picking and choosing. In closing: Yes, Jesus taught, first and foremost, that we should love our Lord with all or heart and all our soul and all our strength. But second, it’s not as you’ve said (“we must have humility and tolerance to all”) but, rather, it is to love your neighbor as thyself. I would urge you to go back and re-read the Gospel of John… one of Christ’s closest disciples and to whom he gave the Revelation. Uh-oh, here comes more dialogue!! I welcome it and thank you for listening.
 

If you’re interested in historical views of Jesus and the early Christians, could I suggest, The Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey. Twelve Ordinary Men (about the original disciples) by John MacArthur is good, also.
 

By the way, you said your first (favorite?) gospel is Mark's; well, it's really Peter's gospel, too, since he was Mark's amanuensis. ; )