Matthew > John > Luke > Mark

>>9366731
I'd put John above Matthew, but that might just be my mystical inclinations showing.

File: 53b4ce7d04cf2f398881f5b1f8f26345.jpg (32KB, 510x408px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 510x408px

>all this Mark bullying

File: 1454562839387.png (60KB, 204x190px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 204x190px

Luke > John > Matthew > Mark

>>9366752
>John above Matthew
Catholic detected. Everyone knows John is less accurate because it was written way later than the other three.

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiTF7oIdWSoaMCHqJr4Piu2VMS_OOah78sJljsl1PJ0M1xMfsn.jpg (64KB, 467x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 467x720px

>>9366731
Aesthetics: Matthew
Historical truth: Mark

Written one hundred years after the fact as a piece of fan fiction trying to tear down Gnostic gospels: John

>>9366828
Here is a theme song for John supporters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF2lwwxoQNU

Mark > Matthew > Luke

John doesn't even deserve to be canon

>>9366962
Matthew has the god-tier Sermon on the Mount though

>>9366731
Matthew is literally the worst. It's Mark with added boring preaching.

Luke is an engaging narrative about Jesus' life

John is a brilliant explanation of the mystical side of Jesus

Mark is a perfect introduction that you can finish in one sitting.

Luke = John > Mark > Matthew

>>9367138
What is Christ without the preaching though? That's the jumping-off point for all of Christian doctrine

>>9367152
Mark and Luke get all his salient points across very well. Matthew is like "here's a ton of extra preaching which repeats what you already know".

Just my personal preference, I know a lot of people like Matthew.

>>9366731
Matthew and John are apples and oranges, but they both go on top. They're the best at dealing with Jesus' humanity and his divinity, respectively. Also Matthew ties the OT and NT together wonderfully

>>9366759
>>9366962
>Mark
The Michael Bay of evangelists: all action. Maybe his brevity has its merits (cf. >>9367138)

>>9366752
i agree with this guys list

John is very dogmatic and is where Jesus=God comes from.

>>9366731
hahahaha no

Matthew is a bitter motherfucker who can't stop sperging about his eschatology.

John > all

>>9366731
I'm a former far right Nieztsche reading sperg. I'm still on the alt-right, getting back into Christianity, which gospel is the most antisemitic?

>>9367585
Jesus was a jew

>>9367585
John is very anti-jewish

You're gonna be dissapointed with the other gospels though, Matthew is especially big on Jesus' jewish character and his relation to the jewish scriptures.

>>9366731
John>Paul>George>Ringo

John first, then Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Anyone who says otherwise is just an edgy contrarian.

>>9367644
Paul>George>John>Ringo

>>9367644
>>9367660
Fuck you guys Octopus's Garden is GOAT

>>9367650
Anyone who says John first has become a glutton for kool-aid

>>9367711
Sorry but it gets topped by Maxwell's Silver Hammer
;-)

>>9367715
Anyone who doesn't say John first probably denies the divinity of our Lord and Savior.

Luke's account of the Passion is my favourite

Peter > Judas > Mary > Thomas > Thomas Infancy > Luke (Marcion's version) > Joseph Smith–Matthew

>>9367623
It does say the blood of Jesus is on the Jews' hands and stuff, however.

>>9367786
The only one Jesus would smile to and say "Don't you forget some?"
Before dropping them breakbeatkaos beats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zENtEumtyBI

File: piero.jpg (24KB, 486x449px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 486x449px

>>9367644

>>9367644
>George anywhere but first
Pleb identified

>>9367138
Absolutely agree about Matthew. I like Mark's terseness and candour though. I guess my personal ranking is John=Mark>Luke>Matthew. Although I feel kind of bad for Luke now. Ok, let's make it John=Mark>Luke>>>Matthew.

Mark is the earliest Gospel written, right? The one written in the 50s or the 70s AD?

Atheism>God>Matthew > John > Luke > Mark

ITT: ideological posturing

>>9367833
>the blood of Jesus is on the Jews' hands

This is something remarkable after digging past the surface, knee-jerk anti-Jewish interpretation of this statement. For one thing, sacrifice was the means for atonement for the Jews of the OT. Second, being a sacrifice was exactly the reason Jesus came.

tl;dr: having Jesus' blood on us is, in the grand scheme of thins, a very good thing.

And apropos of that, blessed Holy Week

John's book was my fave, the amount of passion dripping from every chapter of that book makes me want to be there with them

>>9368405
>50s
Thats Paul and MAYBE James. Mark was probably written around 69 as he seemed aware of the roman war but not the destruction of the temple.