Virgin Birth questioned: the research

Timotheist · 05-23-2015, 11:59 AM

My Method for Researching the Four Gospels

At the risk of repeating myself, here is the way that I approach the gospels when I am in research mode:

1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it.

The Events before the Baptism

Using this approach, the opening chapters of both Matthew and Luke are all subject to question, for the elder manuscripts of John and Mark start their narratives with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, and neither author concerned himself with any events preceding that event.

In perusing the posts on the AltVws thread, I noted that there are some of you who have already questioned the Virgin Birth, and have pointed out that Paul never mentioned it in his epistles. I welcome your collective inputs. This is important because it is pretty clear that Paul’s epistles predate the gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke.

Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?

05-23-2015, 11:59 AM	#2
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the research My Method for Researching the Four Gospels At the risk of repeating myself, here is the way that I approach the gospels when I am in research mode: 1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get. 2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example.) 3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect. 4) Suspect material must be analyzed using both the Old Testament and Paul’s epistles to look for evidence that either confirms the passage or serves to help disprove it. The Events before the Baptism Using this approach, the opening chapters of both Matthew and Luke are all subject to question, for the elder manuscripts of John and Mark start their narratives with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, and neither author concerned himself with any events preceding that event. In perusing the posts on the AltVws thread, I noted that there are some of you who have already questioned the Virgin Birth, and have pointed out that Paul never mentioned it in his epistles. I welcome your collective inputs. This is important because it is pretty clear that Paul’s epistles predate the gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke. Did Paul simply fail to mention Christ’s birth in his gospels, albeit aware of Mary’s virginity? I find that incredible, especially given the epistle to the Romans, in which Paul’s theology is thoroughly covered. The book of Acts, which is another very old document, also makes no mention of a miraculous birth. Are we to take these facts alone as evidence that the Virgin Birth did not happen?