Biblical Logic Geometry

The one who comes from above is above all.
The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things.
But the one who comes from heaven is above all.
He testifies to what he has seen and heard,
but no one accepts his testimony.
Whoever does accept his testimony certifies that God is trustworthy.
For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God.
He does not ration his gift of the Spirit.
The Father loves the Son and has given everything over to him.
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,
but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life,
but the wrath of God remains upon him. - Jn 3:31-36


The Gospel is John is today's Gospel reading for the day, and I have to admit, it's not always one of my favorites to read. John is metaphysical, confusing, and tends to speak in logical circles. In fact, whenever I read a passage like this one, I feel like someone is trying to blindside me with a verbose narrative. But basically, this is what I got out of it: The things of this world speak only of this world. But the things of heaven speak of heavenly things. The one sent from heaven is sent from God, and speaks of things from God. Whoever believes in the one from God therefore believes in God. Whoever does not believe in the one from God also rejects God, and therefore loses eternal life.

It sounds pretty direct, but I struggle with it. Does this passage simply mean that Jesus is the one and only One sent from God? Does Jesus solely point the way to God? If someone does not follow Jesus, but believes that they are following God...are they mistaken? Are they condemned?

"The one whom God sent speaks the words of God." So, that would include Jesus, obviously. But what about the OT prophets? They spoke the words of God, or so they believed. Is the Jewish belief in the prophets less valid than our belief in Jesus? Can they both be valid? I feel like we can't reject OT prophets because they are a pretty integral part of how we have evolved as Christians. Okay, so the OT prophets are valid because they spoke the words of God. What about Muhammad? He was almost killed because he insisted on belief in the One God, Allah. He's considered "the last prophet" because he finished up the picture that Judaism and Christianity were painting with the prophets and Jesus. He sincerely believed that he was also speaking the words of God, and his followers believed that, too. So, are Muslims sorely mistaken because they followed a false prophet? Or was Muhammad preaching the same message that the OT prophets preached about loyalty to the One God? Even Jesus said it: "You have but One Father..." They seem like pretty consistent claims.

Now, I know that Muhammad also preached that he was the final prophet, and that the stories of the OT prophets and Christianity are incomplete, which definitely goes against the first two faiths. But with so many Christians interpreting this passage as referring solely to Jesus...it seems that it's a bit of a gross generalization. I'm not saying that all religious claims are 100% valid, nor am I equating the three monotheistic faiths as holding the exact same beliefs. I'm just saying that maybe there have been people throughout history who have "spoken the words of God" who weren't just Jesus, and they they, too, spoke truths. So, with that logic, wouldn't it be true that the followers of those "prophets" (for lack of a better term) are also eligible for eternal life with God?

This is all well and good until the last part of the passage, which speaks about those not believing in the Son and their eternal punishment. I read that and my skeptical mind immediately just sees that as a product of interpretation and belief bias. Of course the writer of the Gospel would say that: he was a Christian! He believed it to be true, so he wrote it. I believe that the Gospel writers had sincere hearts and attempted to repaint the picture of Jesus in an accurate way, but John was written nearly 70 years after the Crucifixion. The original 12 weren't even alive by the time it was finally put on paper (or parchment, whatever.) So we have to assume that there's some in-discrepancy when it comes to the interpretation of Jesus' words, since they're not coming from a firsthand source. I'm not saying that the words weren't inspired by God, but I am saying that they were written by a human being with an agenda, which is only natural. But it makes me wonder what Jesus actually said and what was simply written down to strengthen the case of Christianity.

I would like to believe that several faiths hold eternal truths, and that Christianity is more like looking at a piece of the larger puzzle. Who are we to assume that we hold the entire Eternal Truth in our dinky little faith? That seems to be more in the business of being God, and we do much better being humans. I don't know the answers, and actually, neither do you. But it's just some food for thought.

Peace.