|
| |
| The Gospel of Mark Never Mentioned The
Virgin Birth |
|
By Greg Vanden Berge 12/16/2011
|
The Gospel of Mark, according to most historians and scholars, was the
first Gospel written. They believe it could have been written between 40
and 60 C.E..
The next two gospels were Matthew and Luke, followed by John. So what…
why do we need to know when these gospels were written and which ones
were written, before the others?
Well, this brings me to my next tip of the day, for Christians and
anyone else who's interested in studying the life of Jesus. Get ready,
because this information might make you think and thinking Christians
usually start asking questions and this isn't good, for Christianity.
The reason why I mentioned the order, the gospels were written in is
because most scholars and historians believe, the Book of Mark, heavily
influenced both the Book of Luke and the Book of Matthew. As a matter of
fact, there’s more than one verse, in all three of these books that
provide us with the exact or similar message.
With that said, let's get back to the reason why I wrote this article. I
was reading a book called, “How Did Christianity Began,” by Michael Bird
and James Crossley.
James brought up a good point, when he said on page 34, “Yet still the
big problem will not go away: why is the Virgin birth not in the
earliest Gospel, Mark's Gospel?”
If the authors of Matthew and Luke, both read the Gospel of Mark and
used it as a template, for writing their own gospels, then why wasn’t
the Virgin birth, mentioned?
Did the authors of Matthew and Luke have information, Mark didn't
have?
Were there any eyewitnesses, who could validate the conception of Jesus,
besides his mother?
If Matthew and Luke are providing us with the absolute truth, then where
did they get their information from and why wasn't it noted?
The possibilities are endless, for answering this question, but will any
it, make any sense.
I don't think it will, but that isn't why you’re reading the article,
you're looking for something else, possibly my opinion. Then I won't
keep you waiting any longer, but remember, like most of the information
you’ve read in the past, unless it can rationally be validated, it will
always be an opinion.
I think the Virgin birth wasn't mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, because
the author didn't have access, to this information. Now for the bad
news, if the authors of Matthew and Luke didn't have access to this
information, then it probably didn't happen.
Now here's another thing I've thought about, maybe the Gospel of Matthew
was influenced by the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke was
influenced by the Gospel of Matthew.
If the author of Luke didn't have access to the book of Mark, then it
would make sense, for this individual, to mention the Virgin birth.
However, even if the author of Luke actually had access to the Gospel of
Mark, he still could have chosen to put the story in and even added to
it.
I don't know if it's going to make a difference, but you need to
understand, we don't have the original copies, from the original
author’s. As a matter of fact, we don't know for sure, beyond a shadow
of a doubt, who the original authors were.
So to make a long story short, the Virgin birth, might have been, in the
Gospel of Mark, but was removed later. That's a possibility, but there’s
also another one, maybe the Virgin birth wasn't in all three of these
gospels, but was added later, to Matthew and Luke.
Even though we aren't any closer to solving the problem, we should be
able to agree on one thing, whether you're a Christian, agnostic or
atheist. There is one thing for sure, the question,” Why wasn't the
Virgin birth, in the Gospel of Mark,” makes us wonder why it's in the
Gospel of Luke and Matthew.Back To -
Questions And Answers About Christianity
|
|
