Replies

There was no need for the Holy Spirit to rehash this issue, as He'd already inspired Matthew and Luke to detail exhaustively in their writings with with the virgin birth.

Since Mark is the earliest gospel, exactly how would the writings of Matthew and/or Luke be 'rehashes', since the subject had not yet come up in Mark? Not only is your assumption illogical, but it's just too easy a way out of the problem without really addressing it.

It's clear by your arguments that you've entered in with a faulty premise. "That being"--- that the Bible is NOT inspired of God, but entirely man made.

How, precisely, is that a faulty premise, and how did you arrive at the assumed conclusion that that accurately reflects my position?

Since Mark is the earliest gospel, exactly how would the writings of Matthew and/or Luke be 'rehashes', since the subject had not yet come up in Mark?

Even the most liberal of scholars will place the date of the writing of Matthew at around A.D.61 (more likely A.D. 37). Even at the latest dating of Matthew, that put's it 2 to 5 years ahead of Mark, Which most scholars hold to have been penned between 63 to 66, but before the desolation. Luke, being penned around A.D. 63, still predates the inspired gospel of Mark.

That being said, it really doesn't matter much how you date those writings. The covenant in incomplete with out each accompanying book.

I Cor 13:8-11

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Perfection (telios), completion came when the Revelation (which followed the 4 gospels, Acts and 21 other epistles) was circulated among the churches.

How, precisely, is that a faulty premise, and how did you arrive at the assumed conclusion that that accurately reflects my position?

Very simply, one could deduce that you doubt the inspiration of Mark's words, by squarely placing blame on his shoulders for neglectiung to detail the virgin birth. How could one avoid that conclusion? That would seem to be a human inadequacy and one that would lack divinity.