Which is your favorite Gospel?

[Arjuna Durden]

Another easy question: Which is your favorite Gospel?

[Graeme]

Thomas is not one of the accepted gospels. I found your question odd. The gospels are not a bag of laughs or well written literature or spiritual. I like the story of the Samaratan woman at the well and her many men none of whom she had married. A very modern woman.

[Milesian]

Although not technically a gospel nor recognised by any mainstream Christian denomination, tThe Gospel of St Thomas is recognised by Gnostics.
I assume it was chosen because Arjuna Durden states he is a "gnostic" in his profile.

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Thomas is not one of the accepted gospels.

It is a non-cannonical gospel, indeed. This does not mean it is the devil's work, but man's, like Mark's or Luke's. What is cannon and what is not, is also a man's decision, not God's. However, I have nothing against Catholic Cannons (I don't know the Orthodox ones). BTW, my favorite Gospel is John's.

Originally Posted by Graeme

I found your question odd.

Believe it or not, I did not intend my question as a provocation. And I don't see the oddity in it, because it does not imply a negation of the validity of the Cannons nor of the concept of Cannon itself

Originally Posted by Graeme

The gospels are not a bag of laughs or well written literature or spiritual.

No they're not. You're right. I have never laughed at the Gospels nor would I dare do so in the future.

Originally Posted by Graeme

I like the story of the Samaratan woman at the well and her many men none of whom she had married. A very modern woman.

and I like Mathew's account of how Jesus descends from Abraham and Moses and David and ... <irony>... well, nope, not really. I'm afraid each Gospel has good and less good things. A good way to see this is they complement each other, for example.

[Perun]

I prefer the Wisdom books of the Old Testament(Pslams, Proverbs, Book of Songs).

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

and I like Mathew's account of how Jesus descends from Abraham and Moses and David and ... <irony>... well, nope, not really. I'm afraid each Gospel has good and less good things. A good way to see this is they complement each other, for example.

I actually read recently in a Catholic article that Jesus had Gentile blood as well, mostly from Cannanites.

[Perun]

Here it is:

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/disp...onalism.html#4

Jesus also had Gentile Blood, too, as a quick glance at His genealogy will show. His forebears include, for example: Tamar, a Gentile Canaanite prostitute; Rahab, another Gentile prostitute; Ruth, a Moabite; Bathsheba, who may have been Gentile, etc.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

Another easy question: Which is your favorite Gospel?

on the contrary Arjuna Durden, i don't find this an easy question.

Generally, "the Gospels" are defined as the first four books of the New Testament. A rather vague definition.

These writings are not the exact historical records of the life of Jesus. They cannot be read looking for a factual interpretation of time and place. The Gospels are meant to convey the theological message of the historical fact of Jesus' life.

Another point to consider when reading the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is to understand whom they were written for. One must understand the intended audience of the works in order to fully understand the writer's different purposes.

Mark is believed to have been written around 70 A.D. by a western Roman Christian and associate of Peter. Mark was written in the western boundaries of Rome for mostly Roman Christians.

Matthew was written a little later between 80-90 A.D. for the Diaspora Jewish Christians, a more worldly audience than Mark's. Matthew tried to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish Scripture.

Luke is thought to have been written around 90 A.D. by a Gentile Christian. Luke was written for Gentiles in a time when Christianity had become a religion in itself and was no longer considered a sect of Judaism. Luke tries to show Jesus' relevance for all people.

These different evangelists, all writing for different audiences at different times and under different circumstances, bring us to what became known as The Synoptic Problem.

The first three Gospels from the New Testament, Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos - seen together). This is because when they are put side by side for comparison and seen together, it becomes immediately clear that all three share extensive parallels in structure, content and words. Furthermore, many of the stories can actually be placed side by side and aligned, word for word.

In view of the above differences, i tend to agree with Perun, and prefer the Old Testament, particularly the psalms.

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

on the contrary Arjuna Durden, i don't find this an easy question.

Generally, "the Gospels" are defined as the first four books of the New Testament. A rather vague definition.

These writings are not the exact historical records of the life of Jesus. They cannot be read looking for a factual interpretation of time and place. The Gospels are meant to convey the theological message of the historical fact of Jesus' life.

Another point to consider when reading the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is to understand whom they were written for. One must understand the intended audience of the works in order to fully understand the writer's different purposes.

Mark is believed to have been written around 70 A.D. by a western Roman Christian and associate of Peter. Mark was written in the western boundaries of Rome for mostly Roman Christians.

Matthew was written a little later between 80-90 A.D. for the Diaspora Jewish Christians, a more worldly audience than Mark's. Matthew tried to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish Scripture.

Luke is thought to have been written around 90 A.D. by a Gentile Christian. Luke was written for Gentiles in a time when Christianity had become a religion in itself and was no longer considered a sect of Judaism. Luke tries to show Jesus' relevance for all people.

These different evangelists, all writing for different audiences at different times and under different circumstances, bring us to what became known as The Synoptic Problem.

The first three Gospels from the New Testament, Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos - seen together). This is because when they are put side by side for comparison and seen together, it becomes immediately clear that all three share extensive parallels in structure, content and words. Furthermore, many of the stories can actually be placed side by side and aligned, word for word.

In view of the above differences, i tend to agree with Perun, and prefer the Old Testament, particularly the psalms.

<Arji Durden speaks possessed by Yoda: > indeed some wisdom you have, thanks to you for the lesson I say

<Arji Durden speaking> All of the encyclopedic sum up quoted by you above does not necessarily imply that the question in itself is not easy: "Which one is your favorite?"

One thing is the question I put to the "Stirpators" here and another thing is the question you reply to, which would read as "what are the gospels?"

I am more or less aware what the gospels are, when speaking of them as documents. What builds my renewed interest in them is a) what they really say and b) how other Christians see them and like them.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

<Arji Durden speaks possessed by Yoda: > indeed some wisdom you have, thanks to you for the lesson I say

<Arji Durden speaking> All of the encyclopedic sum up quoted by you above does not necessarily imply that the question in itself is not easy: "Which one is your favorite?"

One thing is the question I put to the "Stirpators" here and another thing is the question you reply to, which would read as "what are the gospels?"

I am more or less aware what the gospels are, when speaking of them as documents. What builds my renewed interest in them is a) what they really say and b) how other Christians see them and like them.

"All of the encyclopedic sum up quoted by you......." please be informed that when i quote, i give source/s. the above was actually part of an assignment i had written many years ago as part of my degree in theology.

having studied christianity as part of theology, i stand by what i said in that i prefer the old testament to the new, and don't have any preference for any of the gospels.

quite frankly if i wanted to learn about the life of jesus, i would rather read Nolan's account of Jesus before christianity, rather than any of the gospels. I found it far more interesting.

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

"All of the encyclopedic sum up quoted by you......." please be informed that when i quote, i give source/s. the above was actually part of an assignment i had written many years ago as part of my degree in theology.

congratulatio (for the degree). But, I was not questioning your sources. Again off the track in your answer. Just curiosity, are you a scholar?

Originally Posted by etoile noir

having studied christianity as part of theology, i stand by what i said in that i prefer the old testament to the new, and don't have any preference for any of the gospels.

That's the answer to the thread's question. I agree with you in that, surely, the gospels should not be the only source of Christian knowledge, wisdom and revelation.

Originally Posted by etoile noir

quite frankly if i wanted to learn about the life of jesus, i would rather read Nolan's account of Jesus before christianity, rather than any of the gospels. I found it far more interesting.

That's indeed very interesting! and it's a great favour you do to me. Thanks, I'll be getting this Nolan the very next month. Can your recommend me more of the like, please, about Jesus' Life and early Christianity. I guess you are the ideal person for this question.

Thank your very much in advance!

[Arjuna Durden]

Originally Posted by Perun

Here it is:

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/disp...onalism.html#4

Jesus also had Gentile Blood, too, as a quick glance at His genealogy will show. His forebears include, for example: Tamar, a Gentile Canaanite prostitute; Rahab, another Gentile prostitute; Ruth, a Moabite; Bathsheba, who may have been Gentile, etc.

Thanks for the link! I've the article and the site quite interesting.

Even if Jesus, meaning his person, were a Jew, which it is not necessarily true, I would just say God has a supreme sense of humour

[Breydel]

I don't have a favorite gospel, but i enjoyd reading the book of acts and the letter to the romans.

[etoile noir]

[quote=Arjuna Durden]congratulatio (for the degree). But, I was not questioning your sources. Again off the track in your answer. Just curiosity, are you a scholar?
That's indeed very interesting! and it's a great favour you do to me. Thanks, I'll be getting this Nolan the very next month. Can your recommend me more of the like, please, about Jesus' Life and early Christianity. I guess you are the ideal person for this question. [quote]

Me a scholar? i'm a working mother with various interests. what's a scholar?

As to books i'd recommend for you to read, well there are plenty, and i wouldnt like to turn this forum, nor this thread, into a theology thread [don't want to get kicked out!]

however my personal favourites are:
on inspiration & nature of inspiration - Zanecchia, Divina inspiratio Sacrae Scripturae (Rome, 1898);
Sanday, The oracles of God (London, 1891);


Farrar, The Bible, Its meaning and Supremacy (London, 1897);

in general - definitely, anything by Soren Kierkegaard
moral theology - Bernard Haring.

if you need any more assistance, i suggest we do this via PM so as not to bother the other members of Stirpes.

enjoy your evening