I do not. Where do I disagree with the Bible? Please come up with some argument.

You are free to answer the error in Matthew 2:17-18 if you like. Then we can move on to the other 500 contradictions in the New Testament. In fact you do not post any evidence whatsoever, and it tells me that you have not really studied your faith, I question if you have even read the Bible cover to cover. You did not respond to anything that I said and I took quite some time to respond to all of your objections. I made solid arguments against yours.

You are free to believe in the NT as you wish I am just pointing out that the NT is contradictory to much of the theology of the Old Testament, and even within itself it is contradictory and full of errors. And I really am interested in your response to the error in Matthew chapter 2. Perhaps you can ask your pastor about it, because I have found no answer on the web - even defending inerrancy has no answer, and the other answers are unsatisfactory. I know why; because there are no satisfactory answer to this obvious theft and twisting of a prophecy.

On answersingenesis.com they give this response, so blatantly false:

With this degree of intellectual dishonesty (which apologetics utilize in desperate attempts to defend their beliefs against justified criticism) I could any text from the Old Testament and turn it into a fulfilled prophecy about basically everything; I could travel down to Rama today and wait for a tragedy and then claim this was prophecied by Jeremiah.

The prophecy by Jeremiah clearly had to with the extreme suffering of the Jews during captivity, and the blessing of G-d when he restored them in their homeland.
Earlier in chapter 2 Matthew talks about the wise men using astrology (which was FORBIDDEN by G-d and punished with death) in order to reveal the birth of Jesus.

Matthew 2:15 quotes Hosea 11:1: "When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (talking about the Exodus, and Israel was many times called G-d's son in the OT). The verse in Hosea has nothing to do with Jesus. But Matthew tries to render the verse as if was about Jesus, when it clearly concerned the nation of Israel, i.e. the Jewish people.

Then he goes on to say that G-d visited Joseph in a dream, saying that it was the Holy Ghost who had made Mary pregnant. Later in the gospels Joseph and Mary (whom he also had appeared to in a dream about Jesus) thinks that Jesus had become insane. Very weird.

The last verse talks about some prophecy nowhere found in the OT saying, "He shall be called a nazarene". Apologetics claim that Matthew was referring to a prophet that had not left writings. But even if this would be true, which it probably is not, it would make no sense whatsoever to include it in the text, and thus make it impossible to verify it.

And I will happily wait for your answer on the contradiction on the genealogy of Jesus; because Matthew 1 and Luke 3 differ; the only answer I have found is the attempt on the part of the apologetics to make the account of Luke 3 about Mary's genealogy, when in fact Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 - read for yourself. Page after page, contradictions. In almost every chapter there is at least one or two contradictions.

I very much would like you to respond to this; because if you can convince me I might take a step closer to confessing Jesus Christ as my savior.

I shall do this when I have more time. My answer will come within the next few days. In the meantime I shall investigate and demand an satisfactory answer from what the New Testament has claimed. Stay tuned.

In the meantime I will call the Rabbi so that we can prepare your conversion to Judaism.

Good luck!

Does it include penis mutilation for life ?

As long as the heart is circumcised it is fine.

idk man, God usually gets pissed when you don't follow his laws

circumsising is a desert adaptation. deal with it

so here in Romania, we have lots of glasses. You sacrifice your eyes. It's an adaptation.

Weak af, don’t you realise this guy needs saving?

Let's take a really close look at Jeremiah 31. In the context of Jeremiah 31, the speaking of future events is clear. Let's look at the future tense verbs in versus 4 and 5. ("I will build thee", "thou shalt again be adorned"), ("Thou shalt yet plant", "shall eat"). Verse 6 speaks of a day in the future when Israel will return to the land. Verse 7 talks about the remnants of Israel, compare that to Romans 11:1-5 where in both passages God promises that there will always be a remnant of Israel.

It goes without saying that the children in Jeremiah 31 would die in captivity, while the descendants would return to Israel. This captivity lasted 70 years and very few would return. Matthew's use of Jeremiah 31:15 does speak of children dying. The children that returned were descendants.

Carefully reading the passage reveals Matthew's intentions. How was Herod's slaughter of the babies a 'fulfillment' of Jeremiah 31:15? Jeremiah pointed to an Old Testament deportation of children from a town that was north of Jerusalem; Matthew used the passage to explain the New Testament slaughter of children in a village that was south of Jerusalem. The answer here lies in Matthew's use of the word 'fulfilled'.

Matthew did indeed use the word fulfilled to record an Old Testament prediction in Matthew 21:4-5. In Matthew 2:17-18, he used the word 'fulfilled' to indicate that the full potential of something in the Old Testament had been realized. (You can also check Matthew 3:15 and 5:17 to see the use of the word fulfill). In those instances there is no prophetic significance to the word 'fulfill', which is how Matthew used the word to associate the slaughter in Bethlehem with the sadness in Ramah.

Matthew used Jeremiah 31:15 to explain the sadness of the mothers in Bethlehem. Imagine the pain of the mothers in Ramah who watched their children being carried into exile. This found its full potential in the cries of the mothers of Bethlehem who cradled their sons' lifeless bodies in their arms.

Matthew did not use the word fulfill to indicate a detailed prediction but he used it as a sense of completion.



Deuteronomy 18:10-14 - Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so.

Isaiah 47:13-14 - All the counsel you have received has only worn you out!
Let your astrologers come forward,
those stargazers who make predictions month by month,
let them save you from what is coming upon you.
Surely they are like stubble;
the fire will burn them up.
They cannot even save themselves
from the power of the flame.
These are not coals for warmth;
this is not a fire to sit by.

So here we have God forbidding the use of astrology to make predictions month by month. God does not forbid the study of stars. God says what the stars are used for in Genesis 1:14 -

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,"

In 2 Kings 17:16-17 - They forsook all the commands of the Lord their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

When we read Matthew 2:1-12 we read that the Magi were seeking God. They probably would have lived in the midst of pagans and idol worship and yet they wanted to know God and seek after him.

The star remained ever before them because God was using it as a directional device to lead the Magi to Jesus Christ. The star was not a sign that was to be “read” and “interpreted” by the Magi. The star was an indicator (like a sign on a highway). The star was not a revelation from God. It was just the device that led to the revelation from God. God’s message was communicated through the angel directly to the Magi. The angel was the one who told them to take a different road home avoiding king Herod.

https://moldovacrestina.md/en/magi-astrology-bible-sin/
https://www.gotquestions.org/astrology-Bible.html



The verse in context speaks about God's relationship with the nation of Israel. As we all know, God loved Israel and rescued them from slavery under Pharaoh to bring them to the Promised Land. (Exodus 4:22-23) Here we have God as the father and Israel as the child.

It is important to understand that God's supernatural power served as the basis of Israel's freedom from Egypt and escape to a new land. The parallelism is that that Israel is the child and is loved and called. God is initiating the action.

Now when we get to Matthew 2:13-15, he is using Hosea's statement to show that the coming of the Messiah is an extension of God's love to his people. To be clear, Matthew did not say that Hosea was thinking about Jesus, Matthew is saying that the experience of Jesus matched what Hosea had written about Israel.

We know that Jesus is God's Son and He made a trip from Egypt to the land of Israel. What Matthew is doing is showing that Jesus completed what began with the exodus and thus connecting Jesus with the promise of Abraham and the leadership of Moses.

To be clear, Hosea 11:1 is not a Messianic prophecy, it is rather a pictorial prophecy. There are similarities in the Old Testament passage to a New Testament truth about Christ. This is known as a 'biblical typology'. We see that Matthew 2:15 can be seen as an analogy as he is providing a connection between Jesus and God's people of promise.

We can conclude that Matthew finds it important to point out the similarities between Israel and their Messiah, the one to fulfill the Prophets.

https://www.gotquestions.org/typology-Biblical.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Hosea-11-1-Messianic.html



Let's read it shall we? Matthew 2:19 - "After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt"

In Matthew 2:23 he is not quoting a prophecy directly. There are three major options for interpreting this verse. First, Matthew could be associating the word Nazarene with the Hebrew word netser which means branch or sprout. The branch is a common term for the Messiah much like in Isaiah 11:1 - A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. Matthew's point could be that Jesus was sprouting up from an obscure village in Galilee and Jesus was the Branch predicted by the prophets and the name of the town He grew up in happens to sound just like the prophets' word for branch.

Matthew could also be citing a prophecy not found in the Old Testament but from another source. Matthew could have referred to a prophecy known to his original audience but is not known to us today. This is unlikely however.

The third option is that Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is despised and rejected. Nazareth was a small town about 55 miles north of Jerusalem which had a negative reputation among the Jews. Galilee was generally looked was looked down upon by Judeans. You can read John 1:46 to verify that. If this is what Matthew was emphasizing then the prophecies Matthew had in mind could include two passages concerning the Messiah:

Psalm 22:6-7 “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads”. The Nazarenes were scorned by everyone so you can see this messianic prophecy as an allusion to Jesus' hometown of Nazareth.

Isaiah 53:3 - “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem”. Since the Nazarenes were despised and rejected, Isaiah's prophecy could be viewed as an indirect reference to Jesus' background as the supposed son of a carpenter from Nazareth.

Let's say that Psalm 22:6-7 and Isaiah 53:3 are the prophecies that Matthew had in mind. If so then the meaning of "he shall be called a Nazarene" is something akin to "He shall be despised and mocked by His own people." Not only did Jesus identify with humanity by coming to our world but He also identified with the lowly of this world. Jesus identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth when he encountered Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:7-8). Later on, Paul mentions Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9). One of the names of the early Christians was Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) and the term Nasara, which means Nazarene is still used today by Muslims to identify a Christian.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthew-2-23-Jesus-Nazarene.html



In Matthew 1 he traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Whereas Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. At first glance it looks like a stuffup, however upon further investigation we find that there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies.

Matthew says that Joseph's father was Jacob while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli. Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan.

Given that the Jews were meticulous record keepers, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. The reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It is normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (See Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary, otherwise known as biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of 'levirate marriage'. This means if a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man's name. Melchi and Matthan were married at different times to the same woman. This in turn makes Heli and Jacob half-brothers. Heli died without a son and so his half-brother Jacob married Heli's widow who gave birth to Joseph. This in turn would make Joseph the son of Heli legally and the son of Jacob biologically. Therefore Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Another alternative is that Luke is recording Mary's genealogy while Matthew is recording Joseph's. Matthew is following the line of Joseph through David's son Solomon while Luke is following the line of Mary through David's son Nathan. Through either Mary's or Joseph's line, Jesus is a descendant of David and is therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Read carefully or you will miss it. Luke's explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, "so it was thought" (Luke 3:23).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html



Is that what you said in the Christian Fellowship forum to get that 10% warn?

With all due respect, you are not being intellectually honest right now. Everyone knows what is meant by a fulfilled prophecy. What is clear from Matthew 2 is that he trying to convince the reader that these prophecies concerned Jesus, and was about him. Jeremiah 31 is about the Jewish people coming back to the land of Israel after captivity. That is the plain meaning of the text. I cannot travel to that place today, then wait around for years until a tragedy happens that would be similar to the one Jeremiah is describing, and then say "here we have a fulfilled prophecy". That prophecy had nothing to do with the events described in Matthew 2, and you would know it if your eyes were open to the truth. You are using an extreme bias. With your standard you could say that everything ever written was fulfilled prophecies. Full potential of what? We are talking about two separate events, not the same event. If I make a prediction now, today, and I say that you will eat eggs and bacon for breakfast tomorrow, and it is fulfilled. Can then Tom come around two thousand years later and eat bacon and eggs, and then say that my prophecy was "fulfilled to its full potential"? That is exactly what you are saying. I knew you would come up with something absurd because there is literally nothing that can excuse Matthew's obvious mistake. Exactly in what way did Matthew indicate to use the word "fulfilled" (this is definitely a word you Christians seem to have a very hard time attaching a clear definite meaning to) as mere "fulfillment of potential"?

Matthew could have said this; "And their pain was as the pain of the mothers in Rama of that time which Jeremiah the prophet was speaking of", but he did not. Because his intent was to create a new religion, and he needed the Old Testament for it.I will never buy that explanation and I do not think that anyone unbiased would either. A book that claims to be breathed out by G-d himself contains no such obscurities in my opinion.



Astrology is prohibited by Mosaic Law, and it is not merely the prohibition of "month by month" predictions, as if week by week predictions would be acceptable. The trust of Israel was to be in G-d and no one else and nothing else. Astrology is divination. G-d said that when he was speaking, he would appear in a dream or a vision. He did not say that he would send a star, or a sign, but it was always a vision or a dream. If you read the books of the prophets you can see this also. No one of them were called to duty by signs, or by mysterious hints, but always visions and/or dreams. The reason for this is probably because G-d does not want to be misunderstood; when he speaks, he speaks clearly.



G-d does not forbid the study of stars but he forbids us to try to get information about the future from them; and these men in Matthew 2 had clearly done so.

And the quote from Genesis you took is actually mistranslated. The stars were not to serve as signs to mark sacred times, but for seasons, years, and days. But once again G-d said that if he was going to speak to a prophet, he would appear in a dream or in a vision:



The meaning is that G-d would speak so that there would be no doubt - he does not send signs, or mysterious hints... The most probable view is, as astrology was popular among the Greeks and the Romans, that the pagan influence creeped into the New Testament.


Yes and Israel is throughout the New Testament referred to as G-d's son:

The only child that G-d is ever speaking about him having is Israel. Ephraim originally belonged to the tribe of Joseph, which was separated into two and then Ephraim became to constitute the northern kingdom, and was often a name for Israel, Israel/Judah was divided.



No he did not, he said that a prophecy was fulfilled when Hosea 11:1 is not even a prophecy; it is in fact, the very opposite; G-d is in Hosea 11:1 speaking about the past, about the history of the Jews. The point G-d is making in Hosea 11 is to show that he was their G-d since the land of Egypt. Nothing at all to do with a future prophecy about either the Jews coming out of Egypt from captivity, or any future son of G-d coming out of Egypt. Nothing. Matthew just clumsily picked up a verse that he could "fulfill". He could instead have said something like this: "And just like G-d brought Israel out of Egypt, so did G-d bring Jesus out of Egypt". That would at least make sense. Matthew was too eager to fulfill what he understood as prophecies (but which for the most part was not even intended to be read as prophecies in the OT).



You do not see the problem. Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy, nothing had to be completed, or "fulfilled".



No it is not. It is simply G-d giving Israel a history lesson, reminding them that he was their G-d, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt. The book of Hosea is my favorite book in the Bible actually. It is a very negative book, very judgmental against Israel, condemning them for their sins, especially the sin of idolatry. And the point G-d is making is that their sin was so grievous because he was their G-d, who had done so many wonders for them, saved them so many times, blessed them, given them the land of Israel, washed away their shame, made a real nation of them, etc. You have got to stretch that verse ad infinitum if you want to make it a "pictorial prophecy" or analogy of some kind. G-d is simply saying to sinful Israel (read the proceeding chapters and the context of Hosea and you will understand) that he is their father, their G-d, so as to call attention to their wickedness. There is nothing mysterious, symbolic or esoteric about that particular verse.



"We can conclude"... Hah You cannot be serious. No we can certainly not conclude that this is the case. He is not merely pointing out similarities between the history of Israel to the life of the Messiah, so as to demonstrate some kind of symbolism, but he is trying hard to demonstrate to his audience that not only is Jesus the Messiah, but that the Old Testament is in support of it.



My mistake.


Still not the same word. And a typo I could tolerate, Matthew 2:23 is not a very big deal; I find the apologetics explanation more absurd.



Actually the branch is not talking about a Messiah. Let us read Isaiah 11:



Isaiah 11 was probably fulfilled long before Jesus walked on this earth. Because as you can see this text also talks about the Jews returning from exile. Strongly symbolic language is often used, but it is a fact that the Gentiles often sought the Jews throughout history, as they do today in religious matters. There were many converts, and many believed in One G-d. You can read ancient history, even in ancient Greece there were pagans who abandoned their beliefs in idols and even celebrated sabbath etc. I believe Isaiah 11 already has been fulfilled.



Well okay then, I still think it is quite dubious but I get your point.



Yea please explain to me how Joseph could have two different fathers.

This issue was the most embarassing problem for the Church throughout the ages and Rabbis sent letters to the Vatican demanding of the Pope to solve the issue, which he could not, and which Christians cannot do today.



Yes how come? He could not have had two different fathers.



So then, according to these apologetics, it would be impossible to make any errors whatsoever in a genealogy, because it could all be explained away by referring to legal respectively biological parents. I mean how far must one go in order to defend something which obviously is erronous? Why did not the New Testament authors just say so? And beside there would been a lot of levirate marriages then because they differ not only on their fathers but on different names as well. Read for yourself.



This is not an alternative, as Mary is not mentioned. Look the verse:



What makes this whole genealogy all the more hilarious is that Joseph was not even Jesus' father... Since Jesus was conceived by a virgin... This they forgot, when they desperately tried to prove Joseph's linkage to King David.

And no... if Jesus was adopted by Joseph that does not make him "the seed of King David" by Joseph's patrilineally.

:P :P :P

Matthew simply was too eager to prove his points.

This post was edited by Tjo on May 29 2018 01:26am