John was my favorite Gospel when I was a fundamentalist. Now it's my least favorite; it should never have been included in the Bible.
I was an atheist for two decades, and because of that experience I have a fresh perspective on the Bible. I'm not limited by any preconceived notions; there are no "givens." The Bible is certainly not a cohesive "book" by any means. It is a loose collection of writings from dozens of authors over a period of several centuries, and well over half of it was stolen from the Jewish religion and has nothing to do with Jesus. Also, there were dozens of gospels in the two centuries following Jesus, so the "four" Gospels is just a random number. It was a bunch of Roman politicians in the 4th century that, for political reasons, invented this "sacred book" called the Bible. Jesus certainly had no Bible, and when he referred to scripture (i.e. Jewish writings) he often contradicted it (e.g. Matthew 5).
So, if you look at the "four Gospels" with no preconceived notions, you will notice that John is radically different. The other three narrate events and have lots of miracles and parables of the humble servant Jesus. In John we have an arrogant Jesus who keeps saying "I Am this or that", even equating himself with God. And, of course, the first chapter of John is pure Gnosticism (nothing against Gnosticism, but many other potential books of the Bible were rejected on grounds of having Gnostic influence).
Yes, I'm a heretic. But I love Jesus (who also was a heretic who started a new religion).