Question about gospels

[ditzi]

I was just wondering why either Matthew or John are always recommended as the best gospels to start with when reading the bible (at least, based on personal experience ), and why Luke and Mark never are. What makes them better? Or is it just that they are easier to understand, and therefore make more sense to use as a starting point? Probably a daft question, but it just popped into my head

d xx

 

[HypnoToad]

Not daft at all, there are specific reasons.

For John, he is basically seen as the simplest. It contains the passage known as "the Gospel in a nutshell" - John 3:16.

Matthew is recommended first probably because, of the 4 Gospels, he has the strongest connection to the Old Testament - a strong emphasis on how Christ is the fulfillment of the OT - naturally a decent place to start. (Also why his is the first Gospel in the NT.)

They aren't "better" then the other Gospels - their style just makes them good starting points for people studying the NT for the first time.

 

[Aceybee]

I think another part to it was that they were written to different groups. John was written for a not-so-jewish audience, so the significance of many of the things other gospels might have emphasised mightn't have made any sense to someone outside the culture. Because we are also outside the culture, he's a good one to start with. He's also a good storyteller, and speaks as someone who knows what it is to love and to be loved by Jesus. Matthew is often seen as the 'standard' gospel, but I'd almost say to go to Luke. He wasn't an eyewitness, but he did the research, and undertook to create somewhat of a biography, and explain to a (greek?) "Theophilus" (we suspect an important person) what this Christianity he was hearing about was about, and what started it. Acts follows on from Luke, with what happened after Jesus left.
I think a lot of it, is just to do with how the different authors explain things in different styles, some of which are more meaningful to a different culture than others.

 

[Adstar]

I was just wondering why either Matthew or John are always recommended as the best gospels to start with when reading the bible (at least, based on personal experience ), and why Luke and Mark never are. What makes them better? Or is it just that they are easier to understand, and therefore make more sense to use as a starting point? Probably a daft question, but it just popped into my head

d xx

Well different people find different righting styles more appealing.

Matthew is very detailed of all the gospels i think it covers the most ground.

John to me is very deep spiritually more emotional in a way. I find it hard to put my finger on how to describe it accurately.

I like them both but i will more often than not quote Matthew when giving answers to seekers.

I guess it has to do with peoples personality what Gospel they prefer.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[MikeMcK]

I was just wondering why either Matthew or John are always recommended as the best gospels to start with when reading the bible (at least, based on personal experience ), and why Luke and Mark never are. What makes them better? Or is it just that they are easier to understand, and therefore make more sense to use as a starting point? Probably a daft question, but it just popped into my head

d xx

John seems to contain the clearest and most concise presentation of the Gospel, of the four Gospel accounts.

However, if you're just starting to read the Bible and want to understand the relationship of God and man, and God's plan to provide a savior for mankind, then I would recommend reading Romans 5-7 first.

 

[CaDan]

I'm completely out of step, I guess.

I generally recommend people read Mark--out loud if possible, since that was the way it was meant to be understood.

 

[ebia]

I was just wondering why either Matthew or John are always recommended as the best gospels to start with when reading the bible (at least, based on personal experience ), and why Luke and Mark never are. What makes them better? Or is it just that they are easier to understand, and therefore make more sense to use as a starting point? Probably a daft question, but it just popped into my head

d xx

Mark is the gospel I've seen most frequently suggested as a starting point - mostly because it's brief and cuts to the point.

John is fine too.

Matthew seems to me far and away the least appropriate because it requires a background knowledge of the Old Testament and is written assuming it's audience have that background knowledge. I suspect it's chosen by people who don't really get the idea of starting people from where they are. A desire that somebody should get all the important points straight away overides the common sense of starting someone off on something they stand a chance of understanding.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

For John, he is basically seen as the simplest. It contains the passage known as "the Gospel in a nutshell" - John 3:16..

One of our Pastors likens "John 3:16 = the gospel" to pointing a rookie to a plane and saying - go fly.

John 3:16 doesn't explain what it means to believe in Jesus . . .fortunately Jesus has just explained the need to be born of the Spirit and how you will know when this happens (John 3v5-8)

Acts describes people receiving salvation so if someone asks me what book to read first I point them to Acts - that's about people like you being presented with salvation. (Acts 2, 8, 10 . . .)

You cannot understand most of what Jesus says in Matthew - John until you have the Life he is talking about.

 

[HypnoToad]

One of our Pastors likens "John 3:16 = the gospel" to pointing a rookie to a plane and saying - go fly.

John 3:16 doesn't explain what it means to believe in Jesus . . .fortunately Jesus has just explained the need to be born of the Spirit and how you will know when this happens (John 3v5-8)

Acts describes people receiving salvation so if someone asks me what book to read first I point them to Acts - that's about people like you being presented with salvation. (Acts 2, 8, 10 . . .)

You cannot understand most of what Jesus says in Matthew - John until you have the Life he is talking about.

Ok, I didn't say it EQUALS the Gospel, I said "in a nutshell" - it's a simple summation, it's never intended to "replace" the entirety of the NT; that's simply not what that expression means.

 

[heron]

I think of John as more intuitive... focusing on teachings, a higher balance of concepts-to-events, where Luke is more fact oriented.

Luke was a physican. Col 4:14 Each writer would approach observations differently according to their strengths and personalities. Ha ha, God praticing cognitive learning theories.

I sometimes don't suggest Matthew just because the first chapter the newcomer reads is geneology.

 

[MikeMcK]

Not daft at all, there are specific reasons.

For John, he is basically seen as the simplest. It contains the passage known as "the Gospel in a nutshell" - John 3:16.

It does and it doesn't.

To take John 3:16 by itself, as Christians often do isn't wrong, but it is incomplete.

It doesn't answer the question of why Jesus had to die. It doesn't address the question of why man needs a Savior. It doesn't say anything about why Jesus is the only available means of salvation.

I consider it more a verse of encouragement to Christians, than a presentation of the Gospel.

It's a fine verse, but when I share the Gospel, it wouldn't even occur to use it.

 

[HeatherJay]

I think John is an excellent place to start simply because it offers, IMO, the clearest picture of who Jesus is. It gives such a clear picture of His true nature, both physically upon this earth and also spiritually. And I think that knowing Jesus is the foundation upon which the rest of your spiritual life should be built.

 

[ebia]

I think of John as more intuitive... focusing on teachings, a higher balance of concepts-to-events, where Luke is more fact oriented.

Luke was a physican. Col 4:14 Each writer would approach observations differently according to their strengths and personalities. Ha ha, God praticing cognitive learning theories.

It's always interesting to compare how God teaches to how we (try to) teach in schools

I sometimes don't suggest Matthew just because the first chapter the newcomer reads is geneology.

Another good reason. I think it's a great shame that when the Gideons hand out new testaments in schools, the first page the kids read is (to our culture) amongst the most boring in the N.T. I can think of plenty (including myself at that age) who put it down assuming the whole bible was that boring to read.

It would probably be more productive to give them a single one of the other three gospels - less of a boring start and much less daunting.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

. . . I think that knowing Jesus is the foundation upon which the rest of your spiritual life should be built.

Reading John does not enable you to know Jesus because all that he is is as far as the heaven is from the earth from natural man.
His power, his love his peace etc are unknown to natural man.
Reading John can make you believe that he spoke the truth and there is someone there . . .
which is good, but you cannot know that person and fulfil what he says until you receive the same Spirit he spoke of.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." (2 Cor.5:16)

 

[heron]

It would probably be more productive to give them a single one of the other three gospels - less of a boring start and much less daunting.

I know this is fluffy, but I think it's helpful to give
new readers a promise book -- those topical lists of supportive verses. It gets people over that hurdle of imagining that God is out to get them, and draws from a broad range of scriptures.

 

[HeatherJay]

Reading John does not enable you to know Jesus because all that he is is as far as the heaven is from the earth from natural man.
His power, his love his peace etc are unknown to natural man.
Reading John can make you believe that he spoke the truth and there is someone there . . .
which is good, but you cannot know that person and fulfil what he says until you receive the same Spirit he spoke of.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." (2 Cor.5:16)

Read my post. I did not say that reading John is all that's needed to fully know Jesus.

I said that John gives us a wonderful, clear picture of the nature of both Jesus as man and Jesus as God. And until you begin to understand the true nature of Who it is that we as Christians worship and adore, then it's rather a hollow faith that's being built.

Knowing Jesus, having a deep and profound relationship with Jesus, is the foundation of a strong and enduring faith.

But this thread is meant to address the question of the OP...not to challenge the opinions and thoughts of others.

 

[ContentInHim]

I like beginning at the beginning - Genesis. And that's what I usually recommend. Without the OT we can't begin to understand how much we need a Messiah! And many people are reassured that what torments them has tormented people "from the beginning".

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

Without the OT we can't begin to understand how much we need a Messiah! . . .

Even with the Old Testament the Jews didn't (and generally still don't) realise what their need for the Messiah is.

Saul (Paul) zealously kept the OT & he needed special intervention by God to understand.

What's need3ed to make people see is a living example in front of their face.

That's where Christians come in.