Matthew > John > Luke > Mark
Matthew > John > Luke > Mark
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
I'd put John above Matthew, but that might just be my mystical inclinations showing.
>all this Mark bullying
Luke > John > Matthew > Mark
>John above Matthew
Catholic detected. Everyone knows John is less accurate because it was written way later than the other three.
Aesthetics: Matthew
Historical truth: Mark
Written one hundred years after the fact as a piece of fan fiction trying to tear down Gnostic gospels: John
Here is a theme song for John supporters:
Mark > Matthew > Luke
John doesn't even deserve to be canon
Matthew has the god-tier Sermon on the Mount though
Matthew is literally the worst. It's Mark with added boring preaching.
Luke is an engaging narrative about Jesus' life
John is a brilliant explanation of the mystical side of Jesus
Mark is a perfect introduction that you can finish in one sitting.
Luke = John > Mark > Matthew
What is Christ without the preaching though? That's the jumping-off point for all of Christian doctrine
Mark and Luke get all his salient points across very well. Matthew is like "here's a ton of extra preaching which repeats what you already know".
Just my personal preference, I know a lot of people like Matthew.
Matthew and John are apples and oranges, but they both go on top. They're the best at dealing with Jesus' humanity and his divinity, respectively. Also Matthew ties the OT and NT together wonderfully
>Mark
The Michael Bay of evangelists: all action. Maybe his brevity has its merits (cf. )
i agree with this guys list
John is very dogmatic and is where Jesus=God comes from.
hahahaha no
Matthew is a bitter motherfucker who can't stop sperging about his eschatology.
John > all
I'm a former far right Nieztsche reading sperg. I'm still on the alt-right, getting back into Christianity, which gospel is the most antisemitic?
Jesus was a jew
John is very anti-jewish
You're gonna be dissapointed with the other gospels though, Matthew is especially big on Jesus' jewish character and his relation to the jewish scriptures.
John>Paul>George>Ringo
John first, then Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Anyone who says otherwise is just an edgy contrarian.
Paul>George>John>Ringo
Fuck you guys Octopus's Garden is GOAT
Anyone who says John first has become a glutton for kool-aid
Sorry but it gets topped by Maxwell's Silver Hammer
;-)
Anyone who doesn't say John first probably denies the divinity of our Lord and Savior.
Luke's account of the Passion is my favourite
Peter > Judas > Mary > Thomas > Thomas Infancy > Luke (Marcion's version) > Joseph Smith–Matthew
It does say the blood of Jesus is on the Jews' hands and stuff, however.
The only one Jesus would smile to and say "Don't you forget some?"
Before dropping them breakbeatkaos beats:
youtube.com
...
>George anywhere but first
Pleb identified
Absolutely agree about Matthew. I like Mark's terseness and candour though. I guess my personal ranking is John=Mark>Luke>Matthew. Although I feel kind of bad for Luke now. Ok, let's make it John=Mark>Luke>>>Matthew.
Mark is the earliest Gospel written, right? The one written in the 50s or the 70s AD?
Atheism>God>Matthew > John > Luke > Mark
ITT: ideological posturing
>the blood of Jesus is on the Jews' hands
This is something remarkable after digging past the surface, knee-jerk anti-Jewish interpretation of this statement. For one thing, sacrifice was the means for atonement for the Jews of the OT. Second, being a sacrifice was exactly the reason Jesus came.
tl;dr: having Jesus' blood on us is, in the grand scheme of thins, a very good thing.
And apropos of that, blessed Holy Week
John's book was my fave, the amount of passion dripping from every chapter of that book makes me want to be there with them
>50s
Thats Paul and MAYBE James. Mark was probably written around 69 as he seemed aware of the roman war but not the destruction of the temple.