Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why aren't we just reading one Gospel? What's the point of reading them all?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.You mean like the gospels of Thomas, Marcion, Basilides, Truth (Valentinian), the Four Heavenly Realms, Mary, Judas, the Egyptians, Philip etc. or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc.
I'm just referring to those. Feel free to contribute whatever opinion you might have on the subject.So you only accept the gospels blessed and promoted by the early Roman Catholic church??
It's a good question. And if I can add a related question. Why do you think they were written? I mean if the Gospel of Mark was already written and it was "inspired by God", why would somebody write another Gospel?Why aren't we just reading one Gospel? What's the point of reading them all?
Good point. And no two biographies ever agree on all points. And they all contain errors.Truly great men often have multiple biographers, even today.
It is a problem when they contradict. It is fine, for my own reading, because I'll just choose the version that suits my beliefs. But if someone presents conflicting narrative, and says it doesn't conflict, there is an issue.That's why its of benefit to have multiple sources. One source only rarely shows the whole picture, but to really get the whole picture of Jesus, you have to go well outside the Biblical gospels and see the gospels that were considered heretical by the Roman Catholics as well, although the Catholics tried to burn all the other gospels, quite a few have survived, even the Catholic church was known to keep at least on copy each of the banned scriptures in its secret library.
Interestingly, you are touching on a very important topic. Many argue that there are sects of Christianity that do just that. That is, they create an agenda or theme and then read into scripture to support said agenda.It is a problem when they contradict. It is fine, for my own reading, because I'll just choose the version that suits my beliefs. But if someone presents conflicting narrative, and says it doesn't conflict, there is an issue.
One problem with your idea, is that, at that point, why even have Scripture; we can just make up our own beliefs from the 'choices' presented?
The Bible is a test, it tells you the deception comes after Yeshua...So first establish a foundation amongst the disciples; where clearly John wasn't one.Mat 18:16 said:But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Each account gives a complementary view of Jesus Life and ministry, and together the four gospels present a fuller picture of Christ's life and teachings than just one perspective can. Each gospel provides accounts not mentioned by the other gospel writers. Further, we have the assurance that "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)Why aren't we just reading one Gospel? What's the point of reading them all?
But Mark and Luke were?The Bible is a test, it tells you the deception comes after Yeshua...So first establish a foundation amongst the disciples; where clearly John wasn't one.
Why aren't we just reading one Gospel? What's the point of reading them all?
My guess is Mark, is John-Mark the fisherman.... As in Mark it contains the best account of the Transfiguration, where as it isn't even mentioned in the gospel of John. Thus possibly implying that the author of Mark was a possible eye witness, as he describes it 'as white as snow'; thus why give a graphical reference, unless you're describing an event you saw.But Mark and Luke were?
I don't see any value in this "guess".My guess is ...