The Christian bible, their New Testament (NT), opens with the alleged birth of a baby-god, called Jesus, starting with Matthew 1:18. What makes this very curious is that Mark is generally regarded by modern Christian bible scholarship as the very first gospel written. Why then, is Matthew placed first in the NT? [NOTE: Scripture references are from the 398 year old King James Version Christian standard bible.]
First a little background on Matthew, Mark and the other virgin birth writer, Luke. Matthew Slick, a Christian apologetics and research ministry writes:
“... Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel ... Matthew ... may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure. The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D.... Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50. 1
“Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. “Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter.” Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70. 2
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ’s life. 3
Now, back to my
question; why then, is Matthew placed first in the NT? The answer is very
elementary; Mark does not contain a virgin-birth
Wow you say! Yes, it is strange that the first gospel is totally silent about this supposedly miraculous event. And even more so when you consider what the Catholics write about this gospel called Mark.
Gospel, like the other two Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry
of Christ, and the events of the last week at
Whoa, not so fast
here, someone is pulling a slick one on unsuspecting and trusting Christians.
What? arranging the events in Jesus life,
but forgetting the very first event ― his birth. A big oops for Mark’s so-called
chronology; let alone being inspired by the “holy ghost” as Christians claim.
Ask yourself, why did Mark completely ignore the birth story? One thing is
sure, Mark never celebrated Christmas!
So, now you know why the first gospel is placed second in the NT. The Christian bible “has to” open with the origin, virgin birth of their man/child-god. Further scrutiny reveals that Mark does not mention Joseph, Jesus step-father; not even the word “virgin” or “birth.” There is only one scant mention of Mary, in a round-about way.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3)
The son of Mary; like the brother of Juda, big deal huh! That Mark doesn’t even see fit to mention the carpenter (Joseph, Jesus’ father), is especially strange considering Matthew’s claims Joseph had angelic visions about the immaculate conception. Let’s see what Matthew wrote about Joseph:
“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:20)
And this Mark
didn’t mention? Ask yourself, why not? If you were writing a gospel, would you
have forgotten this? NO!
Compounding the problem of Mark’s omission of a man/child-god birth is the generally accepted Christian notion that Mark was recording what Peter (supposedly a disciple) revealed to him of Jesus and his life. The Catholics claim (the same as Matthew Slick above):
“St. Mark wrote a work based upon St. Peter’s preaching.” 5
So now you have
both Mark and Peter, neither knowing anything of a virgin birth; three wise
men; Herod’s slaughter and all the other hoopla surrounding this myth.
Oddly enough, the Christian’s man-god never wrote anything for posterity. And now we find out the “holy ghost” did nothing to ensure the gospels were true.
Of the rest of the Christian NT, only Luke has any account of the myth of the virgin and birth; and that differs entirely from Matthew’s story. Then there is the no small matter of the deafening silence by the rest of the NT books and authors. John? ─ Nothing! Paul, the author of 56% of the NT books ─ Nada, nil, zero, zip, zilch! And so on, through the rest of the NT ─ SILENCE!
One more small point, in all the red-letter quotes of Jesus in the NT, Jesus himself, never mentions his conception or birth; nor did he even hint at it.
By now, one should
realize that the early Christians were only creating their religion from the
stories of mythological Gods from ancient Asia Minor ─ Assyria,
Attis: Born of the Virgin Nana on
December 25th. 6
Mithras: Every year in
Buddha: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th, announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs 8
Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, placed in a manger 9
Heracles: Born at the winter solstice of a virgin who refrained from sex with her until her God-begotten child was born. 10
Osiris: Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men. 12
Zoroaster: Born of a virgin. 13
The bottom line is
that this virgin birth, child-god story is just that ─ a story, fiction! And with this deceitful start,
the Christian theologians, clergy and subsequent apologists rolled out their
little book of lies, the New Testament with the equally fictitious Old
Testament placed in front for some sort of authority. As is said so often in
the real world; “Caveat Emptor.”
As that great American sage, George Constanza, once said: “Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if you really believe it’s true.”
1. Matthew J. Slick, “When were the gospels written and by whom?;”[ http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm ]
4. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, 1910, by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm ]
6. The Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, [ http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ ]