Bible Question

Eddi said:

I have recently started reading The Bible

Today I finished the Gospel of John

Which I was advised to read first

What books should I read next?

There are so many to choose from!

If someone could give me a list I would be most greatful

Click to expand...

It's great you started reading the Bible. Some like to read the gospels starting from Matthew, then on through John. But you already read John. I might suggest you read the other 3 gospels, then go to Genesis which gives you a pretty good description of how it all started.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Ecclesiastes is my favourite book of the Bible, being the most honest. Song of Solomon is essentially erotic poetry, so that's kind of nice, too. The worst books are Job and Revelation. They epitomize the rank injustice of the God they try to represent.

Click to expand...

I think Revelation is a fabulous, wonderful book. And Job is instructive.

Eddi said:

I have decided

Next I will read Matthew

Click to expand...

Very good! There is so much to learn and investigate, leading imo to wonderful conclusions.

Eddi said:

Within Christianity, The Gospel of John's function is to say that "Jesus is God"

It does this by documenting his various signs and also his various "I am" statements, in which he claimed to be God

It ended rather abruptly I thought

And it was somewhat repetitive:

Jesus repeated himself quite a bit, but this means that any Christian who wants to claim Jesus is divine therefore has a wealth of quotes to choose from, not just one, which would strengthen a theological case for him being divine - in rhetoric several quotes is better than one or two

Click to expand...

It's an interesting discussion referencing grammar and understanding of who God is and what the word 'god' means. So don't get confused. Jesus was given all authority but then the Bible says he will turn that over to his God and Father. Keep praying, ask for wisdom and understanding. Matthew 28:18-20 helps to understand this:
"Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. "
So that all authority has been given Jesus shows that someone had the power to give Jesus that authority. He did not grab it or seize it. It was given to him from the One who has the power to give him that authority. And later he will turn everything over to his God and Father. Keep praying, ask for wisdom and help from God.

Eddi said:

I was thinking this:

Luke
Acts
Romans

Click to expand...

All good starts.

Eddi said:

I have recently started reading The Bible

Today I finished the Gospel of John

Which I was advised to read first

What books should I read next?

There are so many to choose from!

If someone could give me a list I would be most greatful

Click to expand...

When I was a Christian, I regularly read the Bible through, Genesis-Revelation (and on occasion, reading with the Apocrypha in there) each year (that takes about 15-20 minutes of reading a day). The difficulty in this approach is many get bogged down in the genealogies or intricacies of priestly laws.

If you want a good overview of Christian belief, I think John is an excellent start, then followed by Romans. Hebrews is a great one to read to connect the Old Testament with the New Testament in a Christian perspective.

In the Old Testament, reading through Genesis and Exodus is a great start--you can skip Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy I found fascinating, but again there's some law to get bogged down by, but some of Moses' discourses really set the stage for what comes next--reading through Joshua through 2 Kings.

Isaiah is huge, but really important to see the context of the various prophecies that are frequently quoted...Jeremiah, too (who actually I find very applicable to our current situation). And the Psalms really can give a flavor of how the ancient people praised God--it's not necessarily how modern Churches worship, but it *was* the "hymnbook" of Jesus and the early Church.

You can also try a purely chronological approach--I've done that a few times, and it helps to put the prophets in historical context, for example. You can google many different plans; find one that's workable for you.

exchemist said:

I would read one of the synoptic gospels next. St John was written later and has more worked out theological ideas in it, but if you want to just get the story of the life and works of Christ in your head, without embellishments, one of these others might be good to read. I would avoid St. Paul's epistles like the plague, at least until much later. He's full of convoluted and difficult stuff, some of it apparently biased by his own rather questionable prejudices.

Genesis and Exodus have to be read early too, as they lay the groundwork for everything else, really.

(But I find St John's gospel the most moving: things like the magical, mysterious prologue and my favourite story of the woman taken in adultery.)

Click to expand...

Ironically the works of Paul were the oldest pieces in the New Testament. They predate the Gospels. John was the last of the Gospels written and your favorite story dates even later. It is acknowledged in most Bibles that that story was not in the original. If you do not trust me trust your Bible. It will probably confirm my claim (check the footnotes). If it does not I can provide links.

Subduction Zone said:

Ironically the works of Paul were the oldest pieces in the New Testament. They predate the Gospels. John was the last of the Gospels written and your favorite story dates even later. It is acknowledged in most Bibles that that story was not in the original. If you do not trust me trust your Bible. It will probably confirm my claim (check the footnotes). If it does not I can provide links.

Click to expand...

James might be earlier than Paul...given the interplay between the positions outlined in Galatians, Romans and James--as well as some of the accounts in Acts--it's difficult to tell which one was written in response to which (although it's possible that they arose independently--but the parallels would suggest otherwise).

At any rate, yes, Paul and the Synoptics (and some of the General Epistles) were written before John. John may, in fact, be the last book of the New Testament written. And Paul's writings are older than any of the gospels. (Which is also interesting, in that he quotes Jesus so little.)

bartdanr said:

James might be earlier than Paul...given the interplay between the positions outlined in Galatians, Romans and James--as well as some of the accounts in Acts--it's difficult to tell which one was written in response to which (although it's possible that they arose independently--but the parallels would suggest otherwise).

At any rate, yes, Paul and the Synoptics (and some of the General Epistles) were written before John. John may, in fact, be the last book of the New Testament written. And Paul's writings are older than any of the gospels. (Which is also interesting, in that he quotes Jesus so little.)

Click to expand...

Yes, hard to tell on that one when it was written or even whether it was written by a James (a common name back then) or if it was in response to Paul or not.

Epistle of James - Wikipedia

Subduction Zone said:

Ironically the works of Paul were the oldest pieces in the New Testament. They predate the Gospels. John was the last of the Gospels written and your favorite story dates even later. It is acknowledged in most Bibles that that story was not in the original. If you do not trust me trust your Bible. It will probably confirm my claim (check the footnotes). If it does not I can provide links.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. However the question I was trying to address is where to start, which obviously must be with the gospels, i.e. the story of the life and teaching of Christ.

exchemist said:

Yes, of course. However the question I was trying to address is where to start, which obviously must be with the gospels, i.e. the story of the life and teaching of Christ.

Click to expand...

And I agree. At least the New Testament is laid out as it is for good reasons. One cannot go to terribly wrong reading it in order, with the minor exception that perhaps one should start with Mark since that appears to be the first Gospel written.

Subduction Zone said:

And I agree. At least the New Testament is laid out as it is for good reasons. One cannot go to terribly wrong reading it in order, with the minor exception that perhaps one should start with Mark since that appears to be the first Gospel written.

Click to expand...

It's arguable. But I see no special reason for trying to do anything in chronological order, if the object is to get an understanding of the teaching of Christianity, as opposed to tracing its evolution, which is a different quest.

The tradition I was brought up in (Catholic) has always believed Christianity is a living thing that evolves with new insights - God continuing to speak to his church, if you like, down the centuries - not just something constructed from a fixed set of scripture from some ancient date in the past. With that perspective, starting with St. John makes sense, as that is where the theology has been worked out more than in the synoptic gospels. But I realise the sola scriptura Protestants probably would not share that view.

exchemist said:

It's arguable. But I see no special reason for trying to do anything in chronological order, if the object is to get an understanding of the teaching of Christianity, as opposed to tracing its evolution, which is a different quest.

The tradition I was brought up in (Catholic) has always believed Christianity is a living thing that evolves with new insights - God continuing to speak to his church, if you like, down the centuries - not just something constructed from a fixed set of scripture from some ancient date in the past. With that perspective, starting with St. John makes sense, as that is where the theology has been worked out more than in the synoptic gospels. But I realise the sola scriptura Protestants probably would not share that view.

Click to expand...

In my opinion it helps a bit because the Gospels of Luke and Matthew copy extensively from Mark. This is not a case of "sola scriptura" because some of the additions appear to be mythical, such as the two nativity stories. I do not think that a sola scriptura advocate would agree with that.

Subduction Zone said:

In my opinion it helps a bit because the Gospels of Luke and Matthew copy extensively from Mark. This is not a case of "sola scriptura" because some of the additions appear to be mythical, such as the two nativity stories. I do not think that a sola scriptura advocate would agree with that.

Click to expand...

Again, you are speaking in terms of tracing the evolution of the ideas, rather than getting a grasp of what Christianity teaches. For your purposes no doubt you are right. For my purposes, it does not necessarily follow.

Eddi said:

I have recently started reading The Bible

Today I finished the Gospel of John

Which I was advised to read first

What books should I read next?

There are so many to choose from!

If someone could give me a list I would be most greatful

Click to expand...

The apostles are eyewitnesses of what Jesus did and said. The gospel of John is a later witness as by then John can go more theological than other apostles. Luke on the other hand, recorded more thoroughly about what Jesus did and said, without much theological stuff. Besides Jesus' deeds, John would like to address more on who Jesus actually is, while Luke is more on recording what Jesus did.

Hawkins said:

The apostles are eyewitnesses of what Jesus did and said. The gospel of John is a later witness as by then John can go more theological than other apostles. Luke on the other hand, recorded more thoroughly about what Jesus did and said, without much theological stuff. Besides Jesus' deeds, John would like to address more on who Jesus actually is, while Luke is more on recording what Jesus did.

Click to expand...

All of the Gospels are anonymous. "Luke" may have been written by Luke but none of it appears to be an eyewitness account. You may be misinterpreting the opening lines. There are good reasons to think that none of the accounts are eyewitness accounts.

Subduction Zone said:

All of the Gospels are anonymous. "Luke" may have been written by Luke but none of it appears to be an eyewitness account. You may be misinterpreting the opening lines. There are good reasons to think that none of the accounts are eyewitness accounts.

Click to expand...

If you read history, you can say the same. That remains your baseless opinion. Chinese has 5000 years of history. None of which you can trace back to the point it happened. Authors are less clear as claimed as the original documents are on bamboo piece which humans are incapable to keep. This includes the famous book of Sun Tsu Tactics! Is Sun Tsu Tactics truly written by Sun Tsu? Get a clue!

More often Chinese history happened 3000 years ago, is written by a person living 1000 or 2000 years ago. It is so because that's how human testimonies work. Writtings are gathered by a historian who believes that those historical pieces are from eyewitness accounts. If you choose to deny it, you have no history! That's the nature of what history is, especially ancient history!

Hawkins said:

If you read history, you can say the same. That remains your baseless opinion. Chinese has 5000 years of history. None of which you can trace back to the point it happened. Authors are less clear as claimed as the original documents are on bamboo piece which humans are incapable to keep. This includes the famous book of Sun Tsu Tactics! Is Sun Tsu Tactics truly written by Sun Tsu? Get a clue!

More often Chinese history happened 3000 years ago, is written by a person living 1000 or 2000 years ago. It is so because that's how human testimonies work. Writtings are gathered by a historian who believes that those historical pieces are from eyewitness accounts. If you choose to deny it, you have no history! That's the nature of what history is, especially ancient history!

Click to expand...

No, don't accuse others of what are probably your flaws. I tend to see what the scholars say and why. That is not baseless. Trusting the Bible because it is the Bible is arguably baseless.

The Gospels appear to be largely a writing down of what was the oral tradition as written in Mark and then altered a bit in Luke and Matthew. They are not history. That is a mistake that many Christians make. They are a collection of Christian beliefs.

vulcanlogician said:

Dunno why someone said to read John first.

Click to expand...

Something a trinitarian would say to do.

I suggest Mark first because it is
probably the first and the least embellished gospel.

"The Way Of Love" - 1 Corinthians 13

Ecclesiastes - favourite book for atheists and agnostics. Honestly about meaning of life.