> > i have realized that the Divine Feminine is far more than we can > ever imagine.

You can start by understanding the Universe and > Quantum mechanics, and the Consciousness behind it. i have only > taken a few steps and am already silenced by its awesome Grandeur, > immense Beauty and unfathomable Intelligence. How can we even think > of imposing even a single rule, ritual or leader for that > realization of the Divine? > "In 1930 Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, a prominent leader in the American Jewish community of New York, fired off a telegram to Albert Einstein. The rabbi did not waste words: `Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.' `The telegram was prompted by a public altercation that had arisen when Einstein published a statement that, to the consternation of some of his fellow scientists, he always referred to himself as `religious.' He had written: The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly; this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.[1] As some recent writers busily exhume the worn-out scientific arguments against religion that were marshaled so energetically in the nineteenth century, it is useful to note that the greatest physicist of the twentieth century had quite different ideas on the subject. Einstein, it seems, considered himself to be a devoutly religious man. He recognized both the strengths and the limitations of science. And he also recognized the place of mystery in human life. Still, it is also important not to consign the discoverer of E=mc2 to the conventional religious camp either. I doubt that Einsteins answer satisfied Rabbi Goldstein. Using even fewer than the 50 words allotted him, he told the rabbi that he leaned toward the kind of God Spinoza describes, `who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists.' He did not, however, believe in a God `who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.[2] Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith, New York: HarperOne, 2009, pp. 21-3
1. Quoted in Walter Isaacson, Einstein and Faith, Time, April 16, 2007, p. 47; the article features excerpts from Issacsons book Einstein (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007). 2. Issacson, Eistein and Faith. Texts extolling the Mahadevi contain many examples of her identification with the world or the cosmos. The Mahadevi is often identified with prakrti, primordial matter or nature. The

stuff of creation, the basic matter of the world, is affirmed to be a divine being. In the Devimahatmya the world is said to be filled by her (11.5); she is said to constitute every created thing (11.6). In the Devi-bhagavata-purana she is said to be present everywhere in the universe, from Brahma to each blade of grass (1.9.31-32). The Devi herself proclaims to Visnu that everything that is seen is she (1.15.52). At the time of the dissolution the Devi is said to withdraw the world into her womb and then to exist as the seed of the universe until the next creation, when she grows and blossoms forth (3.3.54-55). She is said to appear in the form of the universe. As a spider weaves its web, the Devi creates the universe out of her own body (3.4.41; 4.19.10). In the Lalita-sahasranama she is called she whose form is all (Sarvamayi, 203), she whose body is matter (Ksetrasvarupa, 341), she who is the world (Jadatmika, 419), she whose womb contains the universe (Visvagarbha, 637), and she whose form is all existing things (Bhumarupa, 666). She is also called Mahi (718) and Dhara (955), two common names for earth. David R. Kinsley, Hindu goddesses: visions of the divine feminine in the Hindu religious tradition University of California Press; 1 edition (July 19, 1988) , Pages 179

"The Great Serpent Mound has been classified with a large collection of North American prehistoric earthen mounds extending from the East Coast to the Mississippi and beyond. This particular work, however, is distinguished from the countless other mounds and earthen structures throughout the eastern United States in that its design can be dated to a period about 5,000 years ago. Only Watson Brake, a group of mounds in Louisiana discovered in the last decade of the twentieth century, can rival its antiquity. But to my knowledge, nothing in the Americas compares with the Serpent Mound in terms of the precise astronomic, arithmetic, geometric, and spiritual knowledge it embodies... The Great Serpent Mound is situated in southwestern Ohio's Adams County, not far from the Ohio River. It is on the western edge of an elevated plateau overlooking Brush Creek, one of the last unpolluted streams in the entire state. Owning three features, the Serpent's complete body, uncoiled and stretched out, would measure more than a quarter of a mile tip to tail. Its height varies from the perhaps less than ten inches at the end of the tail's helix to several feet at the opposite end. The earthwork appears to be a serpent attempting to swallow, regurgitate, or simply be in association with an object archaeologists refer to as "the oval feature," or the Great Oval. At the very western end of the Serpent is the smallest feature, a triangular mound measuring approximately 31.6 feet along its east base. The earthwork is aligned exactingly to the north. Numerous other features show that its builders oriented it to astronomical phenomena in a startlingly rich and detailed fashion and built it in accord with precise principles of geometry and arithmetic. Many other prehistoric earthworks and stonework also show astronomical and mathematical connections, but it is one of the aims of this book to demonstrate how the Great Serpent Mound is unique in the sheer number and complexity of these connections. In this regard it exceeds even the Great Pyramid of ancient Egypt or the Parthenon of Greece. Truly, it is a wonder of the prehistoric world... The mystery of the Serpent Mound boils down to the questions of who designed it, who constructed it, and why. It is probably beyond our capacities to determine exactly what our Serpent was signifying. In the opinion of some, it is a "manitou," a Native American tem for "spiritual entity." I would take this notion a step further, being now convinced that our Serpent is "Gitche Manitou," which is to say, the "Great Spirit" and ancestral guardian of the ancient people. Yet while the Great Serpent has long been believed to be a treasure indigenous to North America, there are undeniable connections in its design to distant regions of the ancient world... Our Great Serpent, showpiece of the world's ancient architectural forms, may once have been perceived as the representation of an extensive body of knowledge that could be wisely described as a philosophical masterpiece, a magnum opus. Constructed to demonstrate the

highest possible esoteric concepts, our Serpent Mound is the remnant of an ancient philosophical transmission... Whatever its origin, properly understood, the symbolism of the stellar serpent contained in the Great serpent Mound may be viewed as a golden thread running through all the great religious systems of the world and potentially functioning as a key to their secrets. The serpent image itself is a compacted seed of light, a bearer of all knowledge. Like the worm of the mythical phoenix, the shape is which is familiar yet forgotten, the Great Serpents destiny is to be recognized as a harbinger of light, ultimately to be reinstated to its true fullness of form, dominating the landscape and politics of the human race. It would be the first of the apocalyptic seals to be opened, aptly called the Great Seal.; these auguring a time when peace and prosperity will once again rule the Earth. Though we now have begun to see that the patterns contained in some of the earthworks are actually alignments pertaining to the stars and to the paths of the sun and moon along the horizon, we are also at the dawn of a more far-reaching illumination. So profound in meaning and broad in scope is this revelation that it may well test the general populace to the rational limits of its mental horizon ... the focus of a multi-dimensional scheme of the genius of a distant golden age" xiii-xvi

For Martin Luther (1483-1546) the Gospel of John was the main Gospel, because it proclaimed Christ so clearly. In recent times, however, this Gospel has become more and more the puzzle of the NT, both historically and literally, in theology and in the history of religion. This is also true for its eschatological outlook. It replaces the eschatological terms of the synoptics with its own terminology. The standard synoptic term the kingdom of God is only used twice in John, and the term this aeon is replaced by this cosmos, the future aeon by the eternal life, and the end of the aeon by in the last day, to list just a few changes. It is also the only Gospel that talks about the ruler of this cosmos, and it has no specific apocalyptic passages in contrast to the synoptic Gospels (Mark 13; Matt. 24; Luke 17 and 21). In the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about my Fathers house instead of about heaven (John 14:2), and he says he will come again (14:3), a phrase not used in the synoptic Gospels. On the other hand, he assures those who believe in the One who sent him that they already have eternal life (5:24). They will not come into judgment, but have passed from death to life. When Martha says about her dead brother, I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day, Jesus replies in a similar way, I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die (11:2426). Does this mean that the now is so decisive as to devalue the future? Or do we already have eternal life now and nothing else is to come? It would be a serious misunderstanding to assume that John eliminated all future eschatology and concentrated strictly on the present as the time of salvation. It is true that according to John, salvation is a present reality for the believer. While this presence of salvation has to be continually actualized, it is presupposed that there is a dimension of salvation after death in the life to come. But the true future is actualized. John wants to demonstrate that in Jesus Christ the exclusive opposition between God and the world is bridged. Jesus is the incarnate Word of God (1:14). One can see, by the authority Jesus claims and through the actions he performs, that God himself speaks and acts in and through him (14:9-11). In Jesus the opposition between the present life and the life beyond is bridged. Therefore the opposition between life and death, between time and eternity, and between present, past, and the future is only a relative one. Even the law of gravity is suspended when confronted with Jesus Christ (6:19). Because of the coming of the divine into the sphere of the created, the boundaries of this world have only a relative, but

not irrelevant, character. The main task is accomplished; the ruler of this world is already judged (16:11). While in Jesus Christ the opposition between this life and the future one is bridged, for the believer a new dichotomy emerges. Jesus was not the Messiah everybody expected. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him (1:11). The Gospel of John is the Gospel of great misunderstandings. In fascinating style the Gospel writer managed to point out that unbelievers are confronted when Jesus like a color-blind person is confronted with traffic lights. One may know everything about it, but in the decisive moment one cannot grasp the exact meaning. Unbelievers constantly misunderstand Jesus. They exclude themselves from participation in the real future, because only believers can discern that Jesus opens up the real future for us. Believers have the promise of the Comforter, or the Holy Spirit (14:16-17, 25-26; 16:4b-11, 12-15), whom Jesus Christ will send to guide them into all truth. The Comforter bridges the gulf between the historical Jesus who is no longer among them and the proclamation of the gospel. Hans Schwarz,

Eschatology

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (January 31, 2001), pgs. 88-90

...................................................... At the end of the foot washing, Jesus has commanded the disciples to love one another (13:34). In verse 15, love and commandment are again linked. The one who loves Jesus keeps his commandments. The call to remember and keep the commandments is a familiar aspect of Moses farewell discourse (see Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 11:1-8, 13). Jesus likewise calls on his disciples to keep his commandments: most specifically, the disciple is to love as Jesus loved. The discourse will return to the topics of love and commandment in verse 21. The intervening verses introduce a new topic, the Paraclete or Spirit. As the reader will learn throughout the farewell discourse, the coming of the Paraclete plays a role in the believers ability to remember and to keep the commandments of Jesus after his departure. One of the Paracletes roles is to remind you of all that I have said to you (v. 26). The first mention of the Paraclete is found within the context of Jesus words bout keeping his commandment to love. Verse 16 is the first reference to the Advocate or Paraclete (Greek, parakletos) (see also 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-11; 16:12-15). The Greek word has a wide range of meanings, which are reflected in its many English translations: Comforter, Advocate, Counselor, Helper. The Spirit (Paraclete) plays a larger role in the teaching of Jesus in John than in any of the other Gospels. The Paraclete is key to Jesus preparation of his disciples for their life after his return to God. The prominence of the Paraclete addresses a key set of theological questions. If Jesus as the incarnate Word brings a distinctive revelation of God to the community, what happens when the incarnation ends? Was the revelation of God in Jesus available only for those who had firsthand experience of the historical Jesus and his ministry? Is Jesus revelation of God limited to one moment in history, or does it have a future beyond its particular historical moment? The farewell discourse positions the Paraclete as the link between the historical ministry of Jesus and the future ... Two central roles of the Paraclete emerge from the five Paraclete passages (14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11; 16;12-15) as ways of extending the revelation of God in Jesus into the future: the Paraclete as the ongoing

presence of Jesus in the post resurrection community and the Paraclete as teacher and witness. As the ongoing presence of Jesus, the Paraclete abides with the disciples and is not seen or known by the world (14:16-17). As teacher and witness, the Spirit continues to speak as Jesus has spoken and aids the disciples interpretation of the events of Jesus life (14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14). Gail R. O'Day, Susan Hylen, John pgs. 147-8 ---------------------------------------------An unsettling point, yet ever more relevant to believers in later ages of faith, is that the experience of God happens in the midst of intense, defiant, counter-cultural confrontations. Losing face in the prevailing culture seems to be a condition for experiencing the reality of the only true God (17:3). The dynamics of human glory and reputation (5:41-44; 7:18), the cultivation of the ruler of this world, the power of human respect (8:15; 12:43), the culture of violence and hatred, the idolatrous subservience to imperial authority (19:15), all are heart-numbing realities that make faith in the Son and obedience to the Father impossible (5:37b). The Paraclete comes to contend against these self-justifying mundane forces (16:8-11). The promised opened heaven (1:15) of communion and dwelling in God, of mutual love, and the gifts of truth, joy, peace, and life to the full (14:15-27) are in stark contrast to the way of the world (1 John 2:15-18). Nonetheless, as will be seen as our investigation unfolds, the pressure of false gods of the dominant culture is intense. Believers come to know the one true God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24) only when they are prepared to make a stand of practical adoration in the face of the powers ranged against them. God is known in the ongoing struggle of the believers to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). While the great arc of Johannine theology stretches all the way from what was in the beginning (1.1) to Jesus return to the glory that was his before the foundation of the world (17:5, 24; 20:17), it dips into the depths of where believers find themselves: in the world (17:14-26). However exalted the reach and sweep of Johns vision, it is always grounded in the actuality of our worldly existence. While it ends in glory (17:24), it never ceases to engage the darkness, ambiguity, conflict, and scandal of our present being-in-the-world. Whatever splendor of divine revelation, it has allowed for rejection, betrayal, scandal, hatred, and violent killing. Yet the deadly effects of rejection and unbelief play their part in the drama of divine design. The glory of the Father is revealed in the Son. He is lifted up on the cross (8:27-29) to draw all to himself (12:32)not only despite, but from within, the influence of what is anti-Christ and anti-God at work in the human heart and society. The communitys faith in the true God will continue to demand great courage in the face of a huge antagonistic resistance. The impetus to appropriate the original experience of God is generated in the Gospel by difficulties that arise from outside the community. In the Letters, the conflict and divisions occurring within the community with the passage of time demanded a radical recentering of that communitys faith. In both cases, a communitys problems are resolved only by turning to God. Experiencing God in the Gospel of John Anthony Kelly, Francis J. Moloney, pgs. 13-14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THE GOD OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN Jesus is distinguished not only from ancient worthies who were denied a vision of God face to face, but also from his disciples, for they also fall under the rubric initially of those who have not seen God. Although they have seen Jesus, the Son, they do not see the Father as Jesus does. That is, their vision of the Father is of a different sort than that which the Son has, for only the Son sees the Father directly. The unique character of the Sons vision is underscored rather than undercut by a passage that might at first glance indicate that the disciples have indeed seen God. Philip requests that Jesus show them the Father. This request rests on the assumption that God can bee seen, even if such a vision is not frequently granted to human beings. Philip assumes that Jesus could fulfill the request. Philips request is not a ludicrous entreaty to see an invisible God but rather a request that Jesus somehow grant to them a vision of the unseen God. Jesus response to Philip, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father, means not that the Father and Jesus are identical but that the Son so fully embodies the Word, glory, and life of the Father that to see the Son is to see the Father. There need be no journeys to heaven, no practice of mystical techniques, in order to gain a vision of the Father, for the Son incarnates the Fathers glory and hence makes the Father known. The Father-Son relationship is crucial to seeing the Father, for it is a relationship in which the very identity of the one depends upon the relationship to the other. Inasmuch as the Father and Son cannot simply be collapsed into each other and always maintain their distinct identities, the vision that the disciples have of the Father is not identical to the vision that Jesus has. Jesus sees God; but all others see Jesus, or God as manifested in and through Jesus. Only the Son has seen the Father. In this sense, the Jews and the disciples are on equal footing. As we shall discover, however, it is the perception of the Sons relationship to and unity with the father that allows the disciples to see the Father in the Son. Hence, their seeing will also be distinguished from that of the Jews. Even so, the Sons vision of the Father remains unique... Precisely because others cannot see the glory of Jesus in the same way as his disciples did, they must be assured of his presence with them in other ways. Jesus thus assures them that their prayers will be heard and answered, a promise of his faithfulness to his own in spite of his absence, the specter of which causes fear and anxiety. Jesus seeks to quell these fears and anxieties throughout the Farewell Discourses. First, the Gospel seeks to assure those who have the written word rather than the Incarnate Word present among them that their faith is in no way second best of inferior to that of the eyewitnesses. The written word, by recounting the signs and words that Jesus did and said, puts one in the position of :seeing the signs and hearing the words of Jesus, and so of coming to faith (20:30-31). Second, a primary function of the Spirit-Paraclete is to make real on the ongoing presence of the Father and the Son. The Spirit calls the past to mind (14:26; 16:14), reveals the future and teaches the disciples (14:26; 16:13), and bears witness to Jesus (15:26-27). The written word and the Spirit are necessary precisely because the Son is now absent from the sight of his followers. Since the Son can no longer be seen in the same way, neither can God be seen in exactly the same way. Third, the promise of continued hearing spans, at least in part, the distance between Jesus and his own created by Jesus departure from them. Their prayers will be heard, in spite of Jesus absence.

There remains in Johannine theology the hope and promise that the believers will again be granted a vision of God, and it will be the same vision of God that the Son has. In anticipating this reality, those who never saw Jesus are in precisely the same situation as those who did. Although the hope of seeing God is asserted most explicitly in 1 John, it is nevertheless implied in the Gospels as well, as in Jesus promise that he will take the disciples to be with him, that is, in the presence of the Father (14:3). Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (October 2001), pgs. 113-6

--------------------------------------------------John's wisdom: a commentary on the Fourth Gospel By Ben Witherington, page 251 ---------------------------------Jesus promises to send to his disciples one called in the Greek parakletos, and more to the point is said to be another parakletos, which intimates that Jesus was the first one. The meaning of this Greek term in this context has been much debated, with suggestions ranging from Counselor to Comforter to Advocate. Whatever it means about the Sprit it must mean in the case of Jesus as well, otherwise the comparison another parakletos would be meaningless. It suggests that the Spirit will have the same agenda and functions and power that Jesus previously had, at least in some respects. It is at this point that we remember the language and agency that appears over and over again in this Gospel and is applied to Jesus. Here, this same sort of language is applied to the Spirit, and it will in somewhat similar fashion be applied to the disciples as Jesus missionaries in 15:18-27. If we examine all the passages in the farewell discourses in which the Spirit is referred to, we see that the Spirit has in the main a threefold task: (1) to indwell the believer and convey the divine presence and peace, including Jesus presence to the believer (14:17-20, 27); (2) to teach the believer and to guide the believer into all truth and to testify to the believer about and on behalf of Jesus (14:26; 15:26); (3) to enable the disciples to testify about Jesus to the world and by means of the Spirits guidance and power convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment (15:26-27; 16:8-11). The language of agency is used quite clearly of the Spirit and of Jesus ... The Spirit is Jesus agent on earth, just as Jesus has been the Fathers agent. The Spirit will equip the disciple with the presence of Jesus, and the understanding of Jesus teaching, as well as with the power to convict and convert when witnessing to the world, not to mention equipping the disciple to face whatever persecution or trials or expulsions ... the disciple may face in the course of his or her mission work... the ultimate goal of the Spirit is salvific, involving the sanctification of the believer in the truth and salvation of at least some from the dark world.

The disciples are indeed being comforted with the knowledge that when Jesus departs, the divine presence will not be withdrawn from them but will return to them in the form of the Advocate, the Holy Spirit. But comfort and consolation are not the Spirits only, or perhaps primary, role, as a reading of all the Paraclete sayings together will show. The Spirit empowers the disciple with the presence, knowledge, and authority of Christ to do even greater works of mission than Christ was able to do. The Spirit becomes Advocate both for Christ and of the disciple in the witnessing situation, attempting to convict the world of sin, or defend the disciple if necessary when the disciple is under fire. The Spirit is basically not an innovator; rather, the Spirit leads the disciples into the truth the Son has already conveyed, by reminding them of Jesus teaching (14:26)... The Spirit, however, does not only speak about the past but also conveys the message of Jesus about the future (16:13), presumably the disciples future. Thus the Spirit is seen as a source of continuous revelation for the disciples, but that revelation is seen as ultimately going back to the exalted Jesus and is not confused with the role of reminding the disciples what Jesus has said during his earthly ministry. The words of the exalted Jesus are basically not conveyed in the farewell discourses, they are only promised as something the Spirit will bring when the Spirit comes... The discourse closes with the command, Rise, let us be on our way (14:31), and one senses it is time to go to Gethsemane (cf. 18:1ff.) In conclusion, Segovia is right to suggest about this last section of the first farewell discourse that the description of Jesus departure as both act of love for the Father and an encounter with the ruler of the world again introduces the possibility of a similar encounter with the world and its ruler on the part of the disciples in the course of their own mission in and to the world.... Such veiled warnings provide a counterbalance to both the didactic and consolatory functions of the unit. Ben Witherington, John's wisdom: a commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Westminster John Knox Press; 1st edition (January 1, 1995), pgs. 251-4 ---------------------------------------------------------Jesus comments on Nicodemus failure to grasp his teaching: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (v. 6). To be born of the flesh means to be content with what one can observe and control. Living in the flesh means making judgments on the basis of what one senses (cf. 7:24; 8:15). Birth in the Spirit leads into a different way of seeing and understanding but Jesus turns directly to Nicodemus, urging him not to marvel at his word (v. 7: me thaumases hoti eipon soi) that rebirth must take place through a gift from above (anothen). Misunderstanding should cease, and to guide Nicodemus Jesus resorts to a brief parable on the wind/the Spirit (v. 8). The same Greek word (to pneuma) can be used for the wind and the Spirit. Making a play on this word, Jesus starts with a reflection on the everyday experience of the wind. The wind (to pneuma) is a mystery; one can experience it; it is part of life. But one can never claim to have discovered and explained where it comes from or where it is going. On the basis of this observable truth about the wind (to pneuma), Jesus affirms that it is also thus with those born of the Spirit (to pneuma). The Spirit, like the wind, is entirely beyond both the control and the comprehension of man; it breathes into this world from another (Barrett, Gospel 211). One can never determine its origin and destiny. Nicodemus limited response would be overcome if he could recognize that he is

summoned into the realm of God, where those born of the Spirit have their origin and destiny in the mystery of God. Nicodemus remains nonplussed. His response to Jesus teaching is not one of refusal or rejection. However, it is a stunned confession, reflecting his inability to move away from his own categories into the mysterious life in the Spirit that Jesus is offering: How can this be? (v. 9). There is weakness in this response, and Jesus chides as he reminds him that he is a teacher of Israel (v. 10a). He should have been able to grasp some of the meaning of Jesus teaching. The idea of a life in the Spirit that transcends the human spirit and understanding was not new in Israel. It was part of its religious tradition (cf. Exod 15:8; Isa 40:7; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Joel 28:29; Job 34:14; Pss 18:15; 51:10; Wis 9:16-18; IQS 3:13-4:26), and Jesus will shortly refer to such teachings as earthly things (v. 12: ta epigeia)... What has been said so far comes from the best of Israels tradition, but these truths are described as earthly things (v. 12a: ta epigeia). If Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a teacher of Israel, is unable to believe these things, how much more difficult will the Jews have in believing Jesus further revelation of the heavenly things (v. 12b: ta epourania). Jesus, however, will not be deterred. He has shared the richness of ta epigeia with Nicodemus in vv. 1-10; he will now proceed to tell of ta epourania in vv. 1321. The point of vv. 11-12 is not so much to show that Judaism is wrong, but to tell those who might be happy to settle for Israels religious traditions (earthly things) that more is necessary (heavenly things) for salvation. A newness is made possible because of the revelation that comes from above. What follows is a synthesis of the Gospel message on Jesus as the heavenly revealer (vv. 13-15) and the subsequent salvation or condemnation that flows from an acceptance or refusal of this revelation (vv. 16-21). The revelation of the heavenly (vv. 13-15). Jesus affirms the uniqueness of the revelation of the Son of Man by means of a strong contradiction (oudeis) of any suggestion that the great revealers of Israel had been to heaven, seen the heavenly secrets, and returned to reveal them. No one has ever ascended into heaven (v. 13a). There is only one who can authoritatively reveal the heavenly things: the Son of Man who has come down from heaven (v. 13b). This is the basis for his earlier words to Nicodemus. He knows what he is saying and he has seen that to which he bears witness (v. 11). Jesus proclaims what has already been said in the Prologue: No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is turned toward the Father, he has made him known (1:18). This second reference to the Son of Man also catches up the earlier promise made to the first disciples: greater faith will produce greater sight. They will see the revelation of the heavenly in the Son of Man (1:51). Only Jesus, the word become flesh (1:14), the Son of God (1:18), the Son of Man (1:51, 3:13) reveals the heavenly things. The Gospel of John Francis J. Moloney, Daniel J. Harrington, Liturgical Press (April 1998), pgs. 93-5

The Paraclete

A group of five unique sayings are found in the upper room discourse (chs. 14-16), having to do with the coming of the Holy Spirit, who is called the Paraclete. The essential meaning of parakltos is vigorously debated. Some derive the Greek word and find its meaning in the verb paraklaleo, while others deny this possibility. The translation of the AV, comforter, goes back to Wycliffes early English translation (fourteenth century) when the word, coming from the Latin confortare, meant to make strong or to fortify. Few contemporary scholars find much of the idea of comfort in the paraclete sayings. The Greek word has an unambiguous meaning, advocate, in the forensic sense, and is applied in this sense in 1 John 2:1 to Jesus, who is the advocate before the Father in heaven for the disciples on earth. These are the only places in the New Testament where the word occurs. The Paraclete in the Gospel does indeed exercise a forensic ministry in convincing the world, but it is the word of the prosecuting advocate (16:8) rather than a defending advocate. The linguistic problem is found in the fact that the Johannine Paraclete is primarily a teacher to instruct and lead the disciples rather than a advocate to defend them... The Nature of the Paraclete Jesus spoke of the Spirits coming as another (allon) Paraclete (14:16). This implies that Jesus has already been a paraclete with his disciples, and that the Spirit will come to take his place and continue his ministry with the disciples. This fact is strikingly evident inthe similarity of language used of the Spirit and Jesus. The Paracletewill come; so also has Jesus come into the world (5:43; 16:28; 18:37). The Paraclete comes forth from the Father; so did Jesus come forth (16:27-28) from the Father. The Father will give the Paraclete at Jesus request; so also the Father gave the Son (3:16). The Father will send the Paraclete; so also Jesus was sent by the Father (3:17). The Paraclete will be sent in Jesus name; so also Jesus came in the Fathers name (5:43). In many ways the Paraclete is to Jesus as Jesus is to the Father. 32 If the Paraclete is the Spirit of Truth, Jesus is the Truth (14:6). If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, Jesus is the Holy One of God (6:69). As another Paraclete, the Paraclete is, as it were, another Jesus. 33 Jesus has been with the disciples but a short time; the Paraclete will come to be with them forever (14:16). A theology of the New Testament George Eldon Ladd, pg. 329 32. R. E. Brown, The Paraclete, NTS 13 (1967), 126 33. Ibid., 128 34. E. Schweizer, Pneuma, TDNT 6:443. Others think this is a promised of reunion after the resurrection (C. K. Barrett, John, 387). The promise that you will see me (v. 19) does not militate against this interpretation, for the same verb can be used for seeing death (8:51) and for seeing God himself (12:54). Note:"There are some Christian groups who teach that the Holy Spirit is feminine, or has feminine aspects. Most are based on the genders of the verbs in the original Bible languages where the Holy Spirit is the subject. In Hebrew the word for spirit (ruach) is feminine. In Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter, and in Aramaic, the language which is generally considered to have been spoken by Jesus, the word is feminine. This is not

thought by most linguists to have significance for the gender of the person given that name. There are biblical cases where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contradiction of the gender of the word for spirit (John 16:13). The Syriac language, which was in common use around 300AD, is derived from Aramaic. In documents produced in Syriac by the early Miaphysite church (which later became the Syrian Orthodox Church) the feminine gender of the word for spirit gave rise to a theology in which the Holy Spirit was considered feminine." Wikipedia -------------------------------------------------------------Resurrection The teaching of the resurrection in the Fourth Gospel involves both a future objective eschatological event and a present spiritual reality. We find a reiterated emphasis upon the bodily resurrection at the last day when the dead shall be raised in the fullness of eternal life; but we also find that the life that pertains to the resurrection has reached back into the present age and has become available to people in the spiritual realm. This present anticipatory enjoyment of the resurrection is due to the

A theology of the New Testament By George Eldon Ladd, page 341 The Mission of the Spirit to the World If the primary function of the Spirit-Paraclete to believers is that of teacher and interpreter, She* is to the world an accuser. And when she comes, she will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged (16:8-11). Jesus here is describing how the Holy Spirit will work through the ministry of Her disciples in the world as they proclaim the truth as it is in Jesus. Of themselves, their word is only a human word; but empowered by the Spirit, it will have convicting power. She will convict them that Jesus was indeed the righteous one, as God is righteous (17:25). Although He was condemned by the Jews as a blasphemer and crucified by Pilate ostensibly on the grounds of political sedition, His resurrection and ascension will vindicate His claim to be the Holy One of God (6:69). * "There are some Christian groups who teach that the Holy Spirit is feminine, or has feminine aspects. Most are based on the genders of the verbs in the original Bible languages where the Holy Spirit is the subject. In Hebrew the word for spirit (ruach) is feminine. In Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter, and in Aramaic, the language which is generally considered to have been spoken by Jesus, the word is feminine. This is not thought by most linguists to have significance for the gender of the person given that name. There are biblical cases where the pronoun used for the Holy Spirit is masculine, in contradiction of the gender of the word for spirit (John 16:13). The Syriac language, which was in common use around 300AD, is derived from Aramaic. In documents produced in Syriac by the early Miaphysite church (which later became the Syrian

Orthodox Church) the feminine gender of the word for spirit gave rise to a theology in which the Holy Spirit was considered feminine." Wikipedia

Sergius Bulgakovs The Comforter is the most comprehensive and profound book about the Holy Spirit ever written by a Russian theologian, and perhaps one of the most profound books about the Holy Spirit ever written. Bulgakovs stated goal in this book is to continue the work of St. Athanasius, who investigated the christological aspect of the Divine-humanity, interpreting the latter as the dyadic action of the Son and the Holy Spirit. In The Comforter, Bulgakov extends Athanasius conception into an inquiry into Divine-humanity as the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit, who in their indivisible dyad, reveal the Father. The Holy Spirit is often referred to as the Paraclete, in Greek: parakletos. Raymond E. Brown has written the following: In its root meaning the Greek term means called [kltos] alongside [para]; and like its Latin equivalent advocatus (called [vocatus] to [ad]), it has a forensic or legal use. When people are in trouble, they call in a lawyer or counsellor or advocate to stand beside them in court. The legal context fits the Johannine history I have described wherein the members of the community had to defend themselves for their christological views. Their help and surety was the Paraclete-Spirit dwelling within them who interpreted correctly the significance of Jesus. ... Another reason for which the Spirit is called alongside is consolation at times of trouble, whence the Consoler or Holy Comforter. In the context of the Last Supper Jesus is going away. Although this makes the hearts of his disciples sorrowful, it is better that he goes away; for then the Paraclete comes (John 16:6-7), and they have the consolation of one who more than makes up for Jesus departure. Although Bulgakov does discuss the activity of the Holy Spirit as Advocate, he clearly emphasizes the function of the Holy Spirit as Consoler or Comforter, the One who has been sent to comfort those Christ has left behind: I will not leave you comfortless (John 14:18). The Comforter by Sergius Bulgakov and Boris Jakim (Paperback - Jun 2004) Pages vii-viii -------------------------------------------------------------There is a clear link between origin and future. But it does not consist of trying to return to a lost golden age. Some Pentecostals believe they are reviving the church described in Acts of the Apostles, complete with healing, miracles, and speaking in tongues. New age groups often assert they are drawing on secret or suppressed esoteric lore. Catholics appeal to apostolic succession, a straight line of authority from Jesus to Peter and down through the popes to the present one. Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians claim their forms of church administration are identical with those of the New Testament. But there is no road back to the primitive church some Protestants long for, or to the splendid medieval synthesis many Catholics dream of, or to the old-time

religion American revivalists sing about. Much of this attempt to revert to the way it was is based on fanciful reconstructions of some previous period. Still, it advocates have a point. Despite the imaginary pasts they sometimes contrive, all these denominations agree on one thing. What Christianity should be doing today and tomorrow must continue what Jesus and those who immediately followed him were doing; otherwise it has become something different. Looking backward in order to move forward can be confusing and contradictory. But it is not frivolous. Unlike Hinduism, whose beginnings merge in the mists of primeval legend, there was a real historical time when there was no Christianity; then suddenly there it was. It is understandable, therefore, that Christians periodically revisit Jesus and the first few Christian generations to remind themselves what the original movement was about at its onset. Knowing about the past is vital not to return to it, but to learn from it, both from its mistakes and its successes. The past, as someone has said, is not forgotten; it isnt even past. Our past shackles us, especially when we dont realize it. But it can also liberate us. Understanding our past can reopen roads that might have been taken, but were not. This is why it is so imperative that we have both the most accurate picture of the origins of Christianity possible and the clearest grasp of the sweep and dynamism of the new global Christianity. Pgs. 56-7 -----------------------Divine instruction in Early Christianity, Volume 246 Stephen E. Witmer, pgs. 106-7 By Stephen E. Witmer December 2008 Mohr Siebeck

-------------------

-------------------------

The Greek parakletos (16), often transliterated Paraclete, is a term that is unique to John in the New Testament. Four of the five Spirit promises in the discourse include this title (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:17; only 16:12-14 leaves it out). A fifth (and final) use occurs in 1 John 2:1 where Jesus is called a Paraclete. Extensive scholarly debate as well as every commentary on John tries to probe the meaning of the term. The word comes from a verbal root that describes someone called alongside and it occurs in secular Greek literature for an advocate in a court of law who comes alongside a person, speaking in

his/her defense and providing counsel. The Greek term became popular in the first century and was even a loan-word in Hebrew and Aramaic for a similar judicial setting (P. Aboth, 4:11). It seems that the best translation is Advocate (NRSV), pointing to the Spirits judicial or legal service (see on 15:18-27; 16:7-11)... The ongoing work of the Spirit will be a continuation of the work of Jesus enjoyed during the disciples lifetime. This serves Johns judicial framework for the gospel (see on John 5): Jesus has been on trial and like an advocate he has produced evidence and witnesses for the truth about God. The Paraclete then will pick up where Jesus leaves off. It is no surprise that [the Paraclete]* is also called the Spirit of Truth (17; also 15:26, 16:13). [The Paraclete]* communicates the truth about God which is the essence of Gods work in Christ (1:17; 4:24; 5:33; 8:32, 40). Moreover we know that Jesus is the truth (14:6) and inasmuch as the Spirit duplicates Jesus work, [the Paraclete]* will continue to defend the truth of Jesus.

The Bible knowledge background commentary: John's Gospel, Hebrews-Revelation

By Craig A. Evans, pgs. 128

* [the Paraclete] emphasis ours. Jesus Return to His Disciples (18-24) Despite what Jesus has told the disciples about his return to them and the co ing of the Holy Spirit, the present croisis still weighs heavily onthem. In the near term, what comofrt will Jesus give in light of his imminent death? It is fine for Jesus to promise the Spirit, but it s Jesus that they will miss. I will come to you means that Jesus will not leave them desolate (18). Subtle clues suggest that this promise refers to the coming of the resurrection on Easter. The toime frame (a little

The Bible knowledge background commentary: John's Gospel, Hebrews-Revelation

By Craig A. Evans, pgs. 129-