Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context pt 3

Here is part 3 of my request to thegrandverbalizer's post on "quote mining".

(Matthew 2:23)“He shall be called a Nazorean”.

23

¹² He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."

Again a person can search their Bible from Genesis to Malachi until the day of judgment and you will find no such thing.

Again people will say Matthew says it was 'spoken' or 'said' not written. This argument does not work because this is the way that Matthew (or whomever) style of writing is. Next one is so amazing about a prophecy spoken or said that may not have ever been spoken or said. Again you just have to take it at face value which makes me all the more inspired to write my own Gospel as well.

More amazing is that it was supposed to be spoken through the prophet(s) plural. Yet we have not one shred of evidence either through the written or oral traditions about any such thing.

Again what does the foot note #12 say from the quote above? This is what the Christians say,

¹² [23] Nazareth . . . he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus' residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the fore announced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there.The vague expression "through the prophets" may be due to Matthew's seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Isaiah 11:1where the Davidic king of the future is called "a bud" (neser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nazir) to God.

Source taken from (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm)

This is even worse than quote mining because here we have someone quoting something we have absolutely no proof of.

I agree trying to monkey around with history is a poor explanation. One that just say that that Matthew was quoting an oral tradition just does not work. This i sn't an example of quote mining because there is no statement like this in the Old Testament. I like this explanation better:

It seems, then, that Matthew was not at all "mistaken" in this Old Testament reference, although he was certainly not exegeting Isaiah. He was identifying the obscure Galilean town of Nazareth in which Jesus grew up with the OT reference to a netzer God would raise up to bring justice and righteousness and peace to His people. In other words, this was the means Matthew used to identify Jesus, even as a child returning to an obscure town in remote Galilee ("can any good thing come from Nazareth?" -John 1:47), as the "King" from the line of David whom God had finally raised up to restore His people.

It is no coincidence that it is Matthew more than the other Gospels in which the idea of the Kingdom of God and the reign of God through His King finds particular prominence. This is Matthew’s way of confessing Jesus to be the Messiah (the Christ)! But he is not doing it historically, or geographically, as we so often assume, nor is he simply connecting predictive prophecy with its later fulfillment. He is doing it theologically, by using the similarity in sound between a word in Hebrew and a word in Aramaic, as he is (probably) writing in Greek! He is not interpreting Isaiah directly; He is bearing witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Branch!

Nazareth and The Branch Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old Testament

To give you another example that proves that the idea of a double application fulfillment is bogus but simply that Matthew (if that is who it was) made factual errors in the text that cannot and should be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Where is the example?

Now a very adept Christian could turn around and say well doesn't your Qur'an do the exact same thing? It quote mines from the previous revelations and you accept this as true?

First I want to say that I am not aware of any place the Qur'an ever quotes the previous scriptures ad verbatim. What this comes down to is a presupposition by both the Muslim and the Christian that their respective text or revelation is true. However as we will see in this next context you have Matthew again quote mining and this time making a huge flaw when doing so.

The Greek Septuagint the Holy Spirit's favorite Translation and Quote Mining.

To realize how big a problem these issues are have you not considered why apologist James White is slowly backing away in subtle ways from the issue of rather the Bible is inerrant?

Please see my full article here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/james-white-backs-away-from-biblical.html

Any how this is a rather interesting quote from apologist James White

“Consider the example of the New Testament. Did the New Testament writers display a modernistic view the validity and transmission of the Old Testament text?”

Well James that would be hard to ascertain considering that you quoted from N.T Wright in a recent debate with Shabir Allay here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html that we don't even know who the New Testament writers are and it doesn't matter!

So how are you going to ascertain the view of someone you don't even know? Is FBI scale forensics really necessary for the common person to have faith in the word of God?

I'm confused is he saying that Dr. James R. white does nto agree that the New Testament writers are known to us? I read the king James Only Controversy and therein Dr. White said no such thing but the opposite. You don't know Muhammad. You don't know what he was like when he was happy. Or when he was sad. You can't say you know him or any of the men that memorized and/or transcribed the Qur'an. By your thinking...how do you know you can trust them?

“Or did they recognize that God had preserved the text in such a way that they could quote from the Greek Septuagint (the text known to their target audience) and still identify this translation as the Word of God?Surely, their use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament raises all sorts of challenging, difficult questions.”

I'm gonna assume that this quote is also from Dr. White.

I'll give one example to show just how difficult and challenging the questions raise can be. (Matthew 21:1-11)

1

¹ When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,

2

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³ Untie them and bring them here to me.

3

And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, 'The master has need of them.' Then he will send themat once."

4

⁴ This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:

5

"Say to daughter Zion, 'Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

6

The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them.

7

⁵ They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.

8

⁶ The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road.

9

The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: "Hosanna ⁷ to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest."

10

And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken ⁸ and asked, "Who is this?"

11

And the crowds replied, "This is Jesus the prophet, ⁹ from Nazareth in Galilee."

Once again Matthew was quote mining and this time it was disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Who ever wrote the gospel of Matthew misunderstood the original Hebrew text. Instead the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!

Again look what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.

⁴ [4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts,Isaiah 62:11(Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

⁵ [7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy.

The source is from: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm)

What misunderstanding? Are we to believe that his misunderstanding is divinely inspired? Did the Holy Spirit inspire this misunderstanding?

No problem here. Jesus was riding the colt and the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt. This was standard in that day for a colt that had never been ridden. Matthew was not wrong. The Septuagint is not wrong. The Hebrew is not wrong.

Not only that but did Jesus really say the following:

“Jesus sent two disciples,

2

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³ Untie them and bring them here to me.”

Since it is shown that Matthew (or whom ever wrote this) made such a huge error do Christians really expect us Muslims to believe that the above conversation really took place? Is not literary imagination at work here?

I've just shown that Matthew is not wrong. And anyone including Muslims should believe the text.

Since this is an obvious case of a person (Matthew?) quote mining and making a huge mistake in the process it makes one wonder. How many other instances are words put in the mouth of Jesus?

Did Jesus really say the following? (Matthew 28:19-20)

¹¹ Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19

Go, therefore, ¹² and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

20

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you ¹³ And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

On what consistent basis do we accept that Matthew makes a mistake in one area of his 'inspired' Gospel but is completely trustworthy in other areas?

This why Biblical inerrancy is important. If any part is wrong we should throw the whole thing out. However you have failed to demonstrate error.

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
even a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

Conclusion: You have seen me quote the Bible and quote from Christian scholars to prove my point. I have not used Muslim scholars who quote Christian sources and than selectively pick and choose.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon the craft of Christians who have mastered the art of quote mining the Old Testament to give Christianity a feel of legitimacy and air of freshness to it.

Nice try. But those are not errors.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon literary imagination and oral traditions which have no chains of transmission in them. The fact that these problems rest with in the most ancient Greek text the Christians possess is also further evidence that there is no escaping any of the points raised.

Most of the so called 'prophecies' that Christians like to talk about were not even prophecies in their original context to begin with. This whole idea of a 'double application fulfillment is also a ruse invented by Christian apologist who can see the problems presented above.

I have answer each of the points you have raised without using "double application". Do you have anymore? There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament. I'm more than willing to one-by-one if you are.

As apologist James White has told Christians time and time again and I quote,

“if you’re asking the gospels to be an MP3 recording than your using a very unrealistic example of what should be there.” Source:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html

As we all know the only thing you would expect from an Mp3 recording is the exact recording of what you recorded. However, as we have seen Christianity is the product of ingenious minds who were masters of their craft.

The edifice of Christianity stands or falls upon the art of quote mining.

An attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort itsintended meaning

I agree with the Quote from Dr. White, but I don't understand how you get from him saying that the the New Testament was never meant to be a record on the same level as a an digital recording to accusing the New Testament writers of being spin doctor??!! How does the at work? Do you really think that is what Dr. White was saying? Having listening to him on this subject in context many times I can tell you he doesn't mean that at all.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context