Bible Stories Never Preached in Church…Part Two
By: Tim Zeak
Tags: Bible, Christianity, Atheism, Apologetics, Mythology

* Many preachers make it sound like the virgin birth is clearly taught in the Bible without including the following relevant facts. First, like most of what are said to be Old Testament prophecies about Jesus, any honest reading of Isaiah 7:10–16 has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, its word for “virgin” is usually translated as “young maiden.” A reading of Isaiah 7 will show it was directed at King Ahaz and actually fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3–4. The only way to make it fit was having the apologists invent a new hermeneutical rule from thin air called “dual prophecy.”

Second, it is not mentioned at all by Paul; the earliest New Testament writings. Only Matthew and Luke mention it but in contradictory accounts. John does not allude to it at all other than to dispute it by saying that Joseph was in fact the father of Jesus. In Mark 3:20–22 , the earliest Gospel by all accounts, he indicates that His family thought Jesus was crazy and tried to take custody of Him. Mark 3:31 confirms that His mother was part of those who thought He “lost His senses.” This shows that the earliest writings did not view Him at all as having any type of unusual birth or His Mother would not have responded the way she did. She also seemed to have forgotten it in Luke 2:41–52 when He disappeared from the family at age 12.

Third, virgin births were frequent in mythology and with powerful kings and pharaohs, long before the New Testament was written. Few scholars dispute that it was added to Jesus’ biography many years after Paul and Mark. It did not become an “orthodox doctrine” until centuries later.

It just seems that honest preachers would at least tell their followers that it is in no way clear cut and certainly not like some of them, who warn that unless you believe that the virgin birth is true, salvation is not possible.

* That takes us naturally to the genealogies of Jesus which many hear every Christmas season about His birth. But again, many vital details are completely ignored. The Bible lists two genealogies that have many differences between them. They are found in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38.

Matthew lists 28 generations between David and Jesus while Luke tells us there were actually 43. You can count them for yourself if you wish.

From which of David’s sons was Jesus descended? Matthew states it was Solomon, but Luke 3 says no, it was from Nathan. Read it very carefully as the apologists lie when they try to suggest that one of these were Mary’s genealogy as both clearly and specifically state that it is Joseph who is the father of Jesus.

The two lists contain some names that are the same, while each has names that the other one does not. In fact, Matthew states that the father of Joseph was Jacob while Luke tells us it was Heli.

If Jesus did not have a father, what is the point of tracing the line of men? Suggesting one line is from His mother, is just not an honest reading of it.

As a side note, if Jesus did not have a father, would “He” not have had two X chromosomes, if, He had DNA at all. Obviously, to be human requires DNA from both parents and egg cells carry only the X chromosomes.

* Many sermons are preached about the wonderful power of God in delivering His children from 400 years of Egyptian slavery, yet skips over, or at least minimizes the fact that God killed all the first born of whom many were babies. All first born animals too. He had to harden the heart of Pharaoh several times, because Pharaoh was going to free them on his own. WHY? Exodus 9:14 tells us: For this time, I am going to send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.

They never mention the absurdity of how 2,500,000 slaves outran the Egyptian military who were chasing them with horses and chariots, nor how they lived 40 years in a desert without water or material to build shelter. They never disclose the fact that despite numerous and vast attempts by archeologists to find evidence, never has a shred of evidence been found. They then sum up how God gave them the promised land, but without including the details that said gift involved cold blooded murder, massive rapes of young girls and the cruel enslavement of many human beings.

Deuteronomy 21:10–13: ”When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her (that means to rape her) and be her husband and she shall be your wife.” (Rape and kidnapping were not only approved by the Bible, but they were expressly authorized as part of God’s Law)

In other genocides, their instructions were different. 1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go and strike Amalek and completely destroy everything that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Apologists claim that all the foreigners killed were evil. Not so. First, God never tried to reach them, as the Israelites were the only people that His promise was made to. Second, babies and animals are not evil, and third, the Bible tells us exactly why they were killed; so that the Israelites would not be tempted to worship other gods nor to have sex and marriages with foreigners. Read it word for word in Exodus 34:11–16.

Genocides, rapes, and slavery for the foreigners so that God’s favorite people would not be tempted to have sex and party with them. For more about why the Exodus and conquest never occurred, click here. For more showing that the Bible is not pro-life, click here.

Is it not deception when just part of a story is told while intentionally concealing details which would negate the point you tried to make? Especially when people are staking their entire life on what is being told to them.