Gospel of Mark
The Gospel According to Mark, also known as The Gospel of Mark, is one of the four canonical Gospels. It was most likely the earliest of the four to be written. Being the earliest, it provides evidence of how religious belief evolved in the early church. The Gospel has no story of the birth of Jesus, no virgin birth, no mention of Joseph. Early manuscripts have no specific details of the resurrection, no post resurrection appearances of Jesus and no messianic blood line.  The claim that Jesus was "the son of God" in Mark 1:1 is also a later addition not present in the Codex Sinaiticus. 
Authorship and significance
Mark was written by an anonymous author. Scholars typically estimate it was written between 70CE and 90CE.
The Gospel of Mark is quite significant because it was the first Gospel that "strung the pearls"  i.e. was the first to bring together sayings, teachings and stories of Jesus to create a Gospel. The later gospels of Matthew, Luke were heavily influenced by Mark and reused much of the text. For example, Mark was written about 70 CE whereas Matthew was written in 80-85 CE. There are two prevalent theories for as to where the gospel story comes from in Matthew. First is the 2 source theory which states that the gospel of Matthew is derived from Mark and another source, Q. Second is the 4 source theory which states that the gospel of Matthew is derived from things unique to Matthew, things from the gospel of Luke, Mark, and this other source Q. In both of these suggestions the gospel of Mark is a predominant figure with regards to understanding Matthew. This holds true with the other two gospels, although John is a little more intricate (cf. the Perrin Suggestion).
In 1972, paleographer Jose O'Callaghan claimed to have found a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that could be dated no later than 50 A.D. However, this claim was based on only a few letters worth of legible text. Most scholars see O'Callaghan's claim as insufficient reason to date Mark earlier than what is currently accepted.
Here Jesus is portrayed making it clear that he is not God, and that he is not even good. This conflicts with belief in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, which were later inventions.
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Jesus does not claim to be God in the Gospel of Mark.  Claiming to be the son of God is something quite distinct, particularly because the doctrine of the Trinity (which is also not mentioned) had not been formulated when the Gospel was written.
Jesus apparently can't do miracles around disbelievers, which contradicts his supposed omnipotence:
"And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them."
- — Mark 6:5
Jesus claims that no signs from heaven will be given to that generation Mark 8:12 , which contradicts Jesus being an incarnation of God, the voice from heaven at his baptism Matthew 3:16-17 , the transfiguration and his own resurrection.
In Mark 9:1 , Jesus says to his followers:
- "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
Ignorance of Jewish culture
There is a lack of understanding of Jewish culture by the author of the Gospel of Mark, showing he could not have been an eye witness or a Jew. These errors were revised by the author of the Gospel of Matthew 
- "Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea 'bought a linen cloth.' Matthew drops the idea of a Jew buying something on the Sabbath. No Jew could have made that mistake. "
In the original manuscripts, Mark has no post resurrection appearances of Jesus.  The Gospel originally ended with women discovering the empty tomb Mark 16:1-8 . The resurrection story found in Mark 16:9-20 , the so-called Longer ending, is found in the King James bible. However, most historians and theologians believe that it is a later addition intended to bring Mark into line with the other Gospels.
The Gospel briefly fortells Jesus's resurrection Mark 10:32-34 , Mark 16:7 but it does not explicitly describe its nature. Many scholars have argued that Mark (and letters of Paul) considered the resurrection of Jesus to be spiritual or ghost-like, not bodily. 
If the resurrection of Jesus was the single most important fact in Christianity, it seems odd that it is hardly mentioned in Mark, being the first and most historical Gospel, and that it was the subject of a clear forgery. Only the later Gospels have Jesus eating, drinking and displaying his wounds. The idea of a bodily resurrection was therefore a later invention.
- ↑ 
- ↑ 
- ↑ 
- ↑ 
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 
- ↑ James Tabor, The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference, 02/02/2015
- ↑ James Tabor a “Spiritual” Resurrection is the Only Sensible Option, May 4, 2014
- ↑ Richard Carrier, Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story, (6th ed., 2006)
- ↑ R. C. Symes, "The resurrection myths about Jesus;" a Progressive Christian interpretation, 2008-MAR-05
- Vexen Crabtree, Gospel of Mark, 2006
- R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993)
- V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan & Co., 1953)
- D.M. Smith, John among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1992)