What's your favourite?For me, it's Mark
>>18251732All Jewish nonsense.
>>18251732John > Mark > Luke > MatthewMark is probably the most well written out of the gospels, but I like John more for its divine framing.
My dick getting slobbered by two asian milves.
>>18251732For me, it’s probably the Gospel of Luke. It’s such a peaceful collection of reflections that really puts my mind at ease.
Samet. former christian
>>18251732Luke and Mark are both solid. Matthew is decent. John is trash.
>>18251732Luke, because it exposes that it was copied from Marcion. Which also pushes John into the middle of the 2nd century as well, at the very least.It also makes the idea of Mark and Matthew being 1st century as total nonsense.
>>18253358Except Acts is primarily attributed to the same author of Luke, and Acts operates under Paul's letters, which was late 1st century. Your whole basis is flawed.
>>18253365You haven't followed the scholarship at all.Acts is 2nd century and so are Paul's Letters.The assumption of Luke writing Acts is purely Christian cope. Marcion wrote what gets called Luke, then the author of Acts edited the start/end of Marcion and some bits along the way.
>>18253502>Acts is 2nd century and so are Paul's Letters.This isn't the majority scholarship view, and you're a moron for trying to pass it off as such, as if nobody would call you on your shit.
>>18251732Matthew for the Sermon on the Mount
EL DE JUAN ES MI EVANGELIO PREDILECTO.
>>18253358>>18253502>The Gospel of Marcion, called by its adherents the Gospel of the Lord, or more commonly the Gospel (Evangelion), was a text used by the mid-2nd-century Christian teacher Marcion of Sinope to the exclusion of the other gospels. The majority of scholars agree that this gospel was a later revised version of the Gospel of Luke,[2] Anon...
I like whichever one has the most detailed description of Yeshua' s time in the wilderness along with Mark's terseness
>>18253685The handful of Marcion specialists like Jason BeDuhn and Matthias Klinghardt who have have attempted to reconstruct the Gospel of the Lord and/or Apostolikon from Patristic quotes have found that either both Luke and Marcion edited a proto-Luke, or that "proto-Luke" was practically indistinguishable from the gospel used by Marcion, i.e. Luke retracted GLord.It doesn't really matter if a hundred or a thousand scholars specializing in other areas of NT studies say that "I've never looked into the topic of Marcion vs Luke, but I'll defer to the 20th century consensus I learned during my PhD studies and not rock the boat", what matters is the opinion of current 21st century scholarship by topic experts.
>>18253353I have a cross that looks identical to that one. Never could tell how old it was
