Your Favorite Gospel

[Achilles6129]

Which gospel is your favorite and why?

Personally, my favorite gospel is Mark. I like John as well, but Mark just seems to be very enigmatic and has many different elements in it that address a wide array of aspects in Christ's ministry. Also, Mark seems to be very primitive, whereas Matthew/Luke seem to be more polished. If I had to rank the gospels by preference, it would be:

1) Mark
2) John
3) Matthew
4) Luke

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I like the Gospel of John.
Chapters 14-17 are my favorite chapters of it and is the longest discourse by Jesus in the NT............I have a thread on those chapts if any are interested

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/john-chapts-14-thru-17-verse-by-verse.7337743/

John 14:1
No let be being troubled!/tarassesqw <5015> (5744) of ye the heart.
Be ye believing! into the God, and into Me be ye believing!

Textus Rec.) John 14:1
mh tarassesqw umwn h kardia pisteuete eiV ton qeon kai eiV eme pisteuete

5015. tarasso tar-as'-so of uncertain affinity; to stir or agitate (roil water):--trouble.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes, chapters 14-17 are definitely very good. One great thing about John is that it contains more of Christ's last words than any other gospel.

John used to be my favorite, but after studying/ reading Mark it became my favorite because of its primitive, enigmatic qualities and because it covers so many different elements of Christ's ministry.

 

[Wgw]

I myself used to be interested in this question, however, I came to feel that I should try and enjoy each gospel equally and on the basis of its individual qualities. They should be regarded in the same manner we might regard four different courses in a splendid meal.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Although I highly value all four, I find John to be my favorite of the four.

 

[Strong in Him]

If I were being pedantic I'd say that there is only ONE Gospel, so THE Gospel is my favourite.

But I know what you mean.
I like Mark's account because it is short, to the point and spoke to me in a special way when I was training as a preacher. But there is no doubt that my favourite passages, which all teach who Jesus IS - the Good Shepherd, the vine, the bread of life and so on - are all in John. That is John's main purpose; to show who Jesus IS so that we may believe and have life in him.

 

[A greater Hope]

The Gospel according to John Nevertheless yes there is but one gospel and all are true and edifying but I love Johns account.

 

[Monachikos Lykos]

John. It covers the divinity and brilliance of Jesus like no other. It also goes into great detail regarding the Eucharist.

Next would be Luke, followed by Mark, followed by Matthew.

 

[Neochristian]

Thomas!

 

[Monachikos Lykos]

Thomas!

That's not a gospel.

This forum is for orthodox Christianity.

 

[Achilles6129]

Right, the gospel of Thomas is apocryphal.

 

[Wgw]

That's not a gospel.

This forum is for orthodox Christianity.

I highly agree, however, I do not believe that it is prohibited for someone to accept apocryphal books provided they adhere to the Statement of Faith.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia managed to quote an apocryphal Gnostic gospel in The Orthodox Way without confusing the Orthodox message of his work; that said, I do strongly recommend against relying on the Gnostic gospels for anything.

 

[Neochristian]

My mistake. I'm on a cell phone. I thought it was "controversial theology." But, I did learn in university, that the original canon of the four gospels was put together with the understanding, "We read these four gospels, whatever else we read," which means the originals saw absolutely nothing wrong with these other gospels. Can gospels be considered apocrypha? I have no idea, lol. Oh, but you must read Thomas! It is almost exactly like the synoptic gospels only more in depth:

No one can serve two masters, nor string two bows, nor ride two horses.

Do not cast your pearls before swine, nor give what is holy to dogs, lest they drag them through a dung pile.

When two make peace inside one house, they will say to the mountain, move, and it shall move (here Jesus is talking about becoming a 'new creation' after the mountain of your heart is baptized in the water, after you turn to Him and become healthy and wholesome).

For Jesus said, "Tell me what I am like." The first disciple said, "You are like a righteous angel." The second disciple said, "You are like a wise philosopher." The third disciple said, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly incapable of saying what you are like." Then Jesus said to the third disciple, "I am no longer your teacher, for you have drunk from the waters I have tended."' (Living Waters, also note the similarity to whoever receives me as a righteous man receives a righteous man's reward in private, whoever receives me as a prophet receives a prophet's reward in private, and whoever receives me as I AM receives the one who sent me.')

Note Proverbs 10:11 the mouth of a righteous one is a fountain of life & Thomas 108 Jesus said, whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me, and I myself shall become that person, and the mysteries of the kingdom within shall come forth and be comprhended by the new person (remember how St. Paul said 'It is not me who lives, but Christ lives within me').

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you know yourself, you know everything.

When you understand yourselves, then you will be understood, and you will know you are the children of the living father. But if you do not understand yourselves, then you dwell in poverty, and you are that poverty.

Whoever has found the world has found a corpse, and the world is not worthy of that person.

If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. If you do not know yourself, you know nothing.

If you do not fast from the world, you will not bring forth the kingdom within. If you do not hold the sabbath time as a sabbath time, you will not discover the Father.

 

[Wgw]

My mistake. I'm on a cell phone. I thought it was "controversial theology." But, I did learn in university, that the original canon of the four gospels was put together with the understanding, "We read these four gospels, whatever else we read," which means the originals saw absolutely nothing wrong with these other gospels. Can gospels be considered apocrypha? I have no idea, lol. Oh, but you must read Thomas! It is almost exactly like the synoptic gospels only more in depth:

No one can serve two masters, nor string two bows, nor ride two horses.

Do not cast your pearls before swine, nor give what is holy to dogs, lest they drag them through a dung pile.

When two make peace inside one house, they will say to the mountain, move, and it shall move (here Jesus is talking about becoming a 'new creation' after the mountain of your heart is baptized in the water, after you turn to Him and become healthy and wholesome).

For Jesus said, "Tell me what I am like." The first disciple said, "You are like a righteous angel." The second disciple said, "You are like a wise philosopher." The third disciple said, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly incapable of saying what you are like." Then Jesus said to the third disciple, "I am no longer your teacher, for you have drunk from the waters I have tended."' (Living Waters, also note the similarity to whoever receives me as a righteous man receives a righteous man's reward in private, whoever receives me as a prophet receives a prophet's reward in private, and whoever receives me as I AM receives the one who sent me.')

Note Proverbs 10:11 the mouth of a righteous one is a fountain of life & Thomas 108 Jesus said, whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me, and I myself shall become that person, and the mysteries of the kingdom within shall come forth and be comprhended by the new person (remember how St. Paul said 'It is not me who lives, but Christ lives within me').

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you know yourself, you know everything.

When you understand yourselves, then you will be understood, and you will know you are the children of the living father. But if you do not understand yourselves, then you dwell in poverty, and you are that poverty.

Whoever has found the world has found a corpse, and the world is not worthy of that person.

If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. If you do not know yourself, you know nothing.

If you do not fast from the world, you will not bring forth the kingdom within. If you do not hold the sabbath time as a sabbath time, you will not discover the Father.

In fact, with his 39th Paschal Encyclical, St. Athanasius did prohibit within the Church of Alexandria the use of Gnostic material. Interestingly the Gospel of Thomas and other texts in the Nag Hammadi library appear to have been sealed away around that time.

Now, in my opinion, St. Athanasius was justified. However, there are members of this forum who disagree and believe these Gnostic gospels are of value.

 

[Neochristian]

Someone who didn't establish the canon. The establisher(s) of the canon said the others, which later became known as gnostic and apocryphal, if memory serves, were considered fine.

 

[Neochristian]

Someone who didn't establish the canon. The establisher(s) of the canon said the non-canonical books were fine. They only later became known as gnostic and apocryphal, if memory serves.

 

[Neochristian]

Sorry, I don't know how to delete a post.

The point is: the establisher(s) of the canon said the non-canonical books were fine.

 

[Achilles6129]

Sorry, I don't know how to delete a post.

The point is: the establisher(s) of the canon said the non-canonical books were fine.

Where did they say that?

 

[Wgw]

Someone who didn't establish the canon. The establisher(s) of the canon said the others, which later became known as gnostic and apocryphal, if memory serves, were considered fine.

Our current NT canon was first enumerated by St. Athanasius the Great in his 39th Paschal Encyclical. The final paragraph of it:

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

In addition, the Decretum Gelasianum, which one could view as a late Roman equivalent of the 39th Paschal Encyclical, which had the effect of setting the canon in the Roman church using the canon St. Athanasius had preciously used in Alexandria, enumerates "The Gospel of Thomas the Manichaeans use" as apocryphal, and concludes with a rather exceedingly harsh anathema.

 

[KingCrimson250]

My mistake. I'm on a cell phone. I thought it was "controversial theology." But, I did learn in university, that the original canon of the four gospels was put together with the understanding, "We read these four gospels, whatever else we read," which means the originals saw absolutely nothing wrong with these other gospels. Can gospels be considered apocrypha? I have no idea, lol. Oh, but you must read Thomas! It is almost exactly like the synoptic gospels only more in depth

Thomas is nothing like the four gospels. It may express similar sentiments (well, sometimes), but it is structurally and thematically almost completely different.

Like, a gospel is a unique genre of literature that is essentially an account of the Passion, with stories from Christ's ministry added in to both provide context and to demonstrate how we as Christians ought to live. Thomas is essentially "Proverbs, except by Jesus." Even disregarding the theological content of Thomas, it can't rightly be called a gospel based on genre alone.

You get what I'm saying? Even if every word in Thomas were true and inspired by God and included in the NT canon, it still wouldn't be a gospel.