2007-02-26 05:52:23 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ack, someone mentioned Isaiah, and that's a mistranslation!
The word in Hebrew is almah, which means young woman, not virgin!
But, I digress.. don't you think that the fact that two of them mentioned it is enough? how many times did they need to repeat themselves?
2007-02-26 06:00:19 · answer #1 · answered by Kallan 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Gospels of Mark and John do not record the birth of Jesus at all. Their target audience was mostly Gentiles to whom the virgin birth would not have mattered as much as it would to the Jews. The book of Acts' full title is the Acts of the Apostles and is a continuation of the book of Luke(read the first few verses in each book to see). The two books that bear Peter's name are letters to a church and address specific topics, they are not Gospels. There are no books in the Bible called Paul, but the many letters that he wrote were to churches and addressed specific issues just like Peter's letters.
2007-02-26 06:03:12 · answer #2 · answered by real illuminati(Matt) 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even in todays generation be it in books or movies on a biography - the author or director choses where to begin the story.
Someone doing a movie might start with the birth of John Lennon. Another might start with the John Lennon's life from the point of where he just become famous.
The authors of the Gospels and the letters chose to cover what they covered be what they felt was most essential, and usually at the unction of the Holy Spirit - unlike the secular example above.
And by the way - its evident that you don't really read the Bible or at least not very much. There is no book or epistle in the Bible called Paul. Not even one called Gospel of Paul.
2007-02-26 06:55:51 · answer #3 · answered by Victor ious 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
possibly because Mark and John knew that Jesus' birth was already written else where and they wanted to start with His baptism instead and then go straight to His missions.
There are no Gospels of Peter nor Paul. And Acts is a continuation of Jesus' teachings and the church that He gave authority over and sent the Holy Spirit to protect.
The virgin birth only needs to be mentioned once in order for us to know about it and believe it.
2007-02-26 05:59:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, there are no books of Peter or Paul, just letters.
Acts was written by Luke, almost as a sequel to his gospel. I guess he figured he didn't have to mention it twice.
It was, however, mentioned in Isaiah, which was written 700 years before Christ. Does that count? Or does it need to be mentioned in every single book for it to be true?
2007-02-26 05:58:51 · answer #5 · answered by irish_giant 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The virgin birth is mentioned both in the O.T. and N.T. several times. I think the point was made clearly, why would it be brought up again and again? Nobody had a problem with it.
2007-02-26 05:59:46 · answer #6 · answered by JohnC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many times does it take before you get it
2007-02-26 05:55:17 · answer #7 · answered by newheartin03 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How many times did you want it written in the bible?
2007-02-26 05:59:27 · answer #8 · answered by Java Chip 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
because the other books were for different teachings as the bible is our life manual...
2007-02-26 05:56:10 · answer #9 · answered by Pastor Biker 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible doesn't wanna be repetitive, I guess.
2007-02-26 05:54:35 · answer #10 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋