Col 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Apollos new reply in green �

I decided to open a new thread concerning the discussion about the apparent connection (as per the Christians) between Matthew 2 and Hosea 11, so as to not mix up with other issues. 

This is a response to Apollos:

"I realize that the followers of Jesus were Jews � that is why I said the Bible is a Jewish book."

The point I was making was that since the followers of Jesus were Jews, their use of the Old Testament would be based upon their understanding of it, the Jewish understanding, not a non-Jewish one.  The appeal to Hosea therefore is questionable since there is no Jewish claim that it was a reference to the Messiah as well as Israel.  The following is taken directly from a Jewish website:

Excuse me but Matthew was Jewish and he made the claim. Maybe it was a new claim or maybe it echoed what other Jews believed. That is a separate aspect.

"Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of Israelite history.

What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner." http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=360 - 1

So, according to this Jewish perspective, there is 1) no prophecy being made and 2) no dual meanings.  If there was a dual meaning, as you claim, and Hosea 11 is referring both to Israel and the Messiah, then the obvious conclusion would be that the Messiah, like Israel, would be sinful, even to the point of worshipping pagan gods! 

I agree that Hosea is not a reference to a literal prophecy-prediction as you keep trying to imagine. But you have ignored what I explained about prophetic patterns and types. Just as analogies and parables are limited to the aspects the speaker or writer tells us they are focusing on, so a pattern or type is limited and not to be expanded beyond the quotes parts as you have done.

"As for examples, I can give you many examples that are consistent with this perspective but the Bible doesn�t say: �pattern is prophecy�. Just as Hebrew poetry uses repetition instead of word rhymes. The Bible doesn�t say �use repetition instead of homonyms in your poetry�. These are cultural factors that existed not commandments from God. If one doesn�t keep these things in mind, they may end up reading in their own cultural perspective into the passages and it is just as reasonable to ask: Why do you think prophecy should be merely prediction and fulfillment?"

It sounds to me like you, a non-Jew, is trying to interpret the Bible, a Jewish book, through your own understanding, something you have warned me against doing. 

The aspects of Hebrew poetry I mention are obvious to anyone who studies the Bible. If you think this is interpretation, you don�t know much about Hebrew or Judaism. I caution you against reading in your non-Jewish views on the Bible for just this reason. I understand very well what past and Jewish thoughts are on much of the Bible and I don�t purport to speak for them in areas I am not studied in.

"When you claim that the mentioned verse in Hosea does not have a dual meaning, you are just stating your opinion. If one has to choose between you o Matthew, I will take Matthew�s. He at least was Jew. "

I just showed you the opinion of a Jew who disagrees with you.  Regarding Matthew (or whoever actually wrote the Gospel), he clearly did not look at the Bible from a traditional, Jewish perspective.  I may dare say that he was even unfamiliar with the scripture, since he was appealing to verses which were not even predictions and turning them into the fulfillment of his Christian understanding.

As I said before, I agree that the context of Hosea is to a past event. The question is � could it also be a pattern prophecy statement? Matthew says yes and some Jews say no.

"Paul explains his Jewish perspective to Gentile believers � feast, foods and Sabbath days are types or shadows of the Messiah:

Col 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Col 2:17  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Paul basically annulled the law, something Jesus did not do.  Jesus kept all the commandments.  He prayed, he fasted, he kept the Sabbath.  There were things that  Paul, upon his conversion, annulled.  I fail to see the dual meaning here.  Please clarify.

It doesn�t matter what you think about Paul. He was a Jew and he documents that his view of certain OT commandments were as patterns, types or fore shadows. The dual meaning is the immediate literal meaning  and the fulfillment by Jesus � Passover for example.

"God through Isaiah speaks against the King of Babylon and the Lucifer (Satan) simultaneously (dual meanings):

I saw no dual meaning.  Isaiah first speaks about the king of Babylon and then Satan in a different verse.  This is not like Hosea, who only mentioned Israel and not the Messiah.

The context is a judgment  against the King of Babylon. It starts and concludes the passage without any transition to the verses that refer to Satan and you can�t separate which verses apply to the King of Babylon or to Satan as they all can refer to both. Some don�t make sense if they are applied to literally to Satan and some don�t make sense if they are applied to literally to the King � hence the dual meanings.

Of course this is different than the Hosea passage as I am trying to show you clear examples of dual meanings � where the different entities are spelled out for us. I realize they aren�t spelled out in Hosea and there are other passages where dual meanings are likely but not spelled out in the passage itself. You asked for examples of dual meanings and that is what I am showing you.

"God through Ezekiel speaks against the King of Tyre and Satan simultaneously (dual meanings):"

Again, I see no dual meaning.  Where is the reference to Satan.  What I took away from the verses was that the king of Tyre was being warned about his sinful ways.  I tried to look for a Jewish commentary on Ezekiel 28, but all I found were Christian ones, which I would expect would not be reliable, since we have to look at the Old Testament from the Jewish perspective, not non-Jewish ones.  Can you provide a Jewish commentary on this chapter?

I could but I am trying to show you examples that don�t need a Rabbi to explain. The �anointed cherub who covereth�, the one who �walked in the Garden of Eden� refers to Satan � certainly not the King of Tyre who is said to be addressed. It obviously refers to the King and the evil power behind the King � Satan. Two obvious meanings or applications in one passage.

"After Abraham performed the drama of offering his son as a sacrifice, he declares that this was a pattern or foreshadow of what God would do in the future:

Gen 22:14  And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh (Jehovah Will See): as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. "

Regarding the name of the place, what version of the Bible are you using?  According to the NIV, the place was called "The Lord will provide." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2022:14;&version=31; -   This changes a lot of what you are claiming.  And even if there were a dual meaning here, it certainly is up to interpretation as to what the second meaning is.  You don't sound too sure.

The NIV is not as accurate � universally. This said, even the NIV version confirms that Abraham was referring to something that would happen � not the events that had happened.  A clear example of two meanings or a prophetic pattern.

The moral of the story was that God was testing Abraham, to see if he would do whatever was asked of him.  The angel even says "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.'" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:12;&version=31; - 3  

The moral of the story is a separate issue from the prophetic meaning. And if you try to reduce it to a mere moral drama, you will find bigger problems. Why would God ask Abraham to do what was immoral? Why would Abraham lie to Isaac? Why would Abraham declare that because of these things God will do something on the Mount?

"There are many other similar examples. In each case it is the prophet of God who writes the message or a later prophet who informs us what their message means. It is not for you to decide."

I think you should practice what you preach.  By the way, Matthew was not a prophet.

You are ignoring the fact that Jesus authorized and super-naturally empowered Matthew and the other disciples to be his witnesses. In this way Matthew is a prophet and even if he wasn�t, he records the words of Jesus who was a prophet.  It is likely that Jesus told Matthew that the passage in Hosea was a fulfillment of events in His early life so I accept Matthew�s statement as a prophet�s statement not just a scribe.  

What I believe you are missing in all this is:

1.    You are looking at current non-Messianic Jewish opinions to prove what you think the Jewish opinion was at the time of Jesus. This is a flawed approach since it ignores the Messianic Jews of today and it ignores the Jews who originally followed Jesus. You should be referring to Targums, etc. from before Jesus to get an unbiased Jewish opinion for this.

2.    You are ignoring the fact that Matthew was a Jew and wrote his account for Jews. If his reference to Hosea did not resonate with his Jewish readers in the way I have described � as a pattern or foreshadow � his Gospel account would have been rejected by the Jews of his time. The fact that some did proves that some Jews viewed Matthew�s reference and commentary as legitimate.

3.    You are ignoring the fact that some of the things Jesus said, some of the things He told His disciples and some of the things they said � were �new� comments or interpretations on the Old Testament (TANACH). They were �new� in that these things had been missed or misunderstood by Jews up to that time and they needed to be brought to their attention. Just because a Jew � then or now � doesn�t agree with Jesus or His disciples does not mean the Jew is automatically correct.

Apollos

You have clarified some things so let me do likewise.

I do not believe the Hosea passage � or some other passages alluded to in a similar way � can be justified by a simple literal reading of the original passage. I thought that by giving you examples of other dual meaning passages that explain themselves might help you see how there can be different meanings to TANACH passages. Apparently you only want me to �prove� this specific statement in Hosea is prophetic without any appeal to Jesus or Matthew. I will try to do this at the end of this post but I will need to appeal to Targums and multiple meanings so let me explain the basis for these first.

I would also like to clarify that you have misunderstood or miss-stated my comments about pre-Jesus Jewish thought. There was not complete consensus among Jews concerning TANACH during Jesus� day. Consider the Sadducees for example who did not believe in an after-life yet they claimed they believed in what TANACH said. So if we find a quote from a Sadducee on a passage in Hosea, should we treat that view as �the Jewish view�? I think not. But even that type of Jew is a better example of the Jew Matthew was writing to in his account � than the modern day Jew that you want to quote. If you want to second-guess Matthew�s statements from a Jewish perspective, you should do so based on the Jews of his time not ours. And when you decide that the Jews of that day who rejected Jesus were automatically the true Jews, on what basis do you do this? Should we automatically consider those who rejected Mohammed�s message as the true believers?

One of the sources we have for early and pre-Jesus Jewish thought are Targums - ancient Aramaic translations, plus comments, of the Old Testament. The older the better but even those completed after the time of Jesus generally reflect pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs. (Some think Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is pre-Christian already). In using these sources, one can make the case that the Hosea passage and others were understood by Jewish sages the same as Matthew does.

To substantiate the things I have said about the general Jewish interpretation of TANACH I offer you the following references from Wikipedia - so you don�t think this is a Christian notion.

 ï¿½Most Orthodox Jews study the text of the Torah on four levels as described in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar#Pardes_and_Biblical_exegesis - Zohar :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshat - Peshat , the plain (simple) or literal reading;
• Remez, the allegorical reading through text's hint or allusion
• Derash, the metaphorical reading through a (rabbinic sermon's) comparison/illustration ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash - midrash )
• Sod, the hidden meaning reading through text's secret or mystery ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah - Kabbalah ).

The initial letters of the words Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod, forming together the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language - Hebrew word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_%28Jewish_exegesis%29 - (also meaning "orchard"), became the designation for the four-way method of studying Torah, in which the mystical sense given in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah - Kabbalah was the highest point.�

"I do not believe the Hosea passage � or some other passages alluded to in a similar way � can be justified by a simple literal reading of the original passage. I thought that by giving you examples of other dual meaning passages that explain themselves might help you see how there can be different meanings to TANACH passages. Apparently you only want me to �prove� this specific statement in Hosea is prophetic without any appeal to Jesus or Matthew. I will try to do this at the end of this post but I will need to appeal to Targums and multiple meanings so let me explain the basis for these first."

Well, don't you think that it would be appropriate to prove that the verse in Hosea 11 has some sort hidden meaning behind it, since that is the topic of this thread?  My initial question to the Christians on this forum was precisely why Hosea 11 was regarded as a prophecy about the Messiah, when it clearly referred only to Israel. 

Reply by Apollos:

The question at hand is does the Hosea 11 statement have more than just a literal reading meaning. I have shown where is could and you simply said it doesn�t. If you ask a Jew of today what it means, they will undoubtedly say it refers only to Israel but they will also reject many of the conclusions of ancient Jews regarding passages that the Apostles of Jesus cited. Since the Apostles wrote to those ancient Jews, they are the ones you must cite to draw a conclusion about whether the Apostles interpreted TANACH passages correctly.

And let me repeat for the 3rd time now: even if there was a dual meaning in Hosea 11, and the chapter is talking about both Israel and the Messiah, then in the context of the entire chapter, the Messiah, like Israel, is criticized by God for sinning, for worshiping idols, etc.  How then can Christians insist that the chapter is also referring to the Messiah, who was supposedly sinless?  I don't know why you keep ignoring this important point.

Reply by Apollos:

I answered this before so please don�t say I keep ignoring this. I have plainly said that patterns and types are like analogies � they are not to be �fulfilled� in the same way that a predictive prophecy is. Matthew knew that the Jews had been taken out of Egypt so he would have to be an idiot to refer to the Peshat aspect of this verse. Clearly he was not an idiot for his writing reflects more than an idiot could accomplish. It therefore follows that Matthew was referring to the Remez and/or Derash aspect of Hosea 11 and one should not expect these to be fulfilled in the literal ways you claim.

"I would also like to clarify that you have misunderstood or miss-stated my comments about pre-Jesus Jewish thought. There was not complete consensus among Jews concerning TANACH during Jesus� day."

I agree.  I don't think there was consensus even before Jesus' time.  However, you would have to prove that one of the interpretations that did exist in those times revolves around the kind espoused by "Matthew".  To do that, you would have to show primary sources from that time, Jewish ones, which support that claim.  In addition to that, you would have to prove somehow that that interpretation was the correct one.  Honestly, I don't know how you, a non-Jew, could do that. 

Reply by Apollos:

So why is it that I must prove Matthew�s interpretation is the correct one when you refuse to prove a contrary view based on the same type of sources?

Thus far, all you have done is interpret the text according to your own understanding, the Christian one.  And when you did cite sources (which you only did in your last post), they were always Christian sources.  That is disappointing, considering that you have been telling me to look at the text from the Jewish perspective, which I believe I have done.

Reply by Apollos:

It is true that I can prove Matthew�s interpretation correct by referring to the writings of other Jewish Christians and I have a disadvantage if you won�t accept anyone who claimed to be a Christian. But your criteria is subjective and illogical. If someone believed Matthew was accurate � here and elsewhere � they probably became Christians and you want to dismiss them. That�s handy. If they didn�t accept his general message about Jesus, they would have a vested interest in rejecting his interpretations even if previous Jews agreed with Matthew�s interpretations but you think these are the ones we should look to for the correct view.

As I mentioned previously, if the Jews of Matthew�s day believed as you think they did, his message would have been dismissed and rejected by every Jew that read or heard his account. In the Toledoth-Jesu and other anti-Jesus documents we would expect to find arguments against such references but we don�t. Instead, we know that many Jews accepted what he said and the idea that Matthew miss-quoted or miss-applied passages from the TANACH did not arise for many many years later. This means Matthew�s comments were in keeping with Jewish beliefs of his day or at least not contrary to Jewish beliefs of his day.

"Consider the Sadducees for example who did not believe in an after-life yet they claimed they believed in what TANACH said. So if we find a quote from a Sadducee on a passage in Hosea, should we treat that view as �the Jewish view�?"

So, do me and yourself a favor and show us the "true Jewish view".    

Reply by Apollos:

The true Jewish view is the one Jesus espoused. He corrected the Sadducees for example on the issue of the after-life and in this way endorsed what the Pharisees believed about this. He confounded them on the question of how the Messiah could be David�s son and David�s Lord at the same time. Jesus is the one who determines what the Jew should believe and all indications are that He instructed Matthew to write what he did about His early days.

"I think not. But even that type of Jew is a better example of the Jew Matthew was writing to in his account � than the modern day Jew that you want to quote. If you want to second-guess Matthew�s statements from a Jewish perspective, you should do so based on the Jews of his time not ours."

With all due respect, I think even a modern Jewish interpretation is better than a non-Jewish understanding, which is the only you have brought thus far.

Reply by Apollos:

Again you want to dismiss Jews who became Christians from the sources we have. To say Matthew, Paul, John and others were non-Jews is clearly wrong.

"And when you decide that the Jews of that day who rejected Jesus were automatically the true Jews, on what basis do you do this? Should we automatically consider those who rejected Mohammed�s message as the true believers?"

I never said that.  I merely said that the Christian appeal to Hosea 11 to justify the their beliefs was incorrect.  Can you show me any Jewish texts that time which explicitly state that Hosea 11 could be interpreted as referring to both Israel and the Messiah?  The Gospel of Matthew, a Christian text, seems to be the only text we know of that makes that claim. 

Reply by Apollos:

To my knowledge you may be correct. But that does not mean it is incorrect. As I have shown, I have not seen a contrary interpretation on this passage � from ancient Jews.

"One of the sources we have for early and pre-Jesus Jewish thought are Targums - ancient Aramaic translations, plus comments, of the Old Testament. The older the better but even those completed after the time of Jesus generally reflect pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs. (Some think Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is pre-Christian already). In using these sources, one can make the case that the Hosea passage and others were understood by Jewish sages the same as Matthew does."

Sounds great.  Now all you have to do is back your claim up with sources.  Which Jewish sages believed Hosea could have been a prophecy of the Messiah?  Josephus?  Philo? 

Reply by Apollos:

You apparently don�t know about the Targums. As I have said, the Targums are silent on this verse � to my knowledge. Josephus and Philo have nothing to do with them.

"Even without including Jewish Kabbalah � which many Jews hold to, it is clear that an orthodox Jewish reading of Torah includes more than simply Peshat. Do an internet search for the above words and you will confirm these things as well known Jewish interpretations of Torah."

This is all well and good. I am not contending any of this. I still fail to see how "Matthew" was right to use Hosea 11 as a reference to the Messiah. 

Reply by Apollos:

If you aren�t contending that there are 4 orthodox ways of interpreting the Torah including allegory, metaphor and mystery, why do you then say Matthew was not correct in using one of these approaches?

"In the Targum on Isaiah 9:5-6, the child is seen as the Messiah. It is generally agreed that the child of Isaiah 7:14 is the same child as Isaiah 9:5 and therefore not Hezekiah - or Hezekiah and the Messiah with dual meanings involved. The point is � when a prophet speaks of God saying �my son�, the ancient Jews immediately suspected a reference to the Messiah or a dual meaning including the Messiah. (There are many other examples but I am trying to be concise.)"

Where are your sources?  By whom is it "...agreed that the child of Isaiah 7:14 is the same child as Isaiah 9:5 and therefore not Hezekiah..."?  Where is it stated that when God said "my son", the ancient Jews knew he was referring to the Messiah?

Reply by Apollos:

In the Targums. There are numerous examples but I am not about to spend the time showing you something that you will simply dismiss.

"It is also likely that Matthew was quoting from a Targum in his statement because the specific wording is slightly different in the Greek than the Septuagint. I offer some references on this if you want to study the details. http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05n.html -

http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05.html -

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtappa.htm -
Once again, a Christian source...Why is it so difficult to bring a Jewish source?  Every source you have referenced has echoed the same non-Jewish interpretation, and yet not once has a Jewish interpretation been offered.  I appreciate your efforts but you have failed to prove your point. 

Reply by Apollos:

I don�t believe some of the people who wrote the articles I referenced are Christians at all but what does it matter if they are? You seem to be saying that if a Christian quotes an ancient manuscript or passage, he has somehow made that reference invalid. The links I sent you to show facts and passages that anyone can confirm. That is why I provided them to you. If you think any of the facts they assert are not correct, please show this. Otherwise go ask a Jew to read the passages and statements on the section I referred to and see if they disagree.

"The Targum on Hosea does not elaborate on the meaning of the �son� in verse 11:1 but it does differ from the Septuagint translation which renders this �his children�. Matthew, the Masoretic Text and and the Targum on Hosea are all in agreement on the wording."

And this proves what?  Even if the son is both Israel and the Messiah, is it correct to come to the conclusion that like Israel, the Messiah would also sin against God?

Reply by Apollos:

It simply shows how Matthew was probably quoting from a Targum and not the Septuagint.

"When one considers that it is completely proper for a Jew to read a passage with different meanings in mind (see Wikipedia and other sources above), and that a reference to �God�s son� was typically viewed as Messianic (see references to Targum on Isaiah above), it is completely reasonable for Matthew to refer to Hosea 11:1 as he does. At a minimum, there is no contrary view on this passage in the Targums. The burden of proof is therefore on the one claiming Matthew is wrong."

No, the burden of proof would be on the person who initially made the claim that Hosea 11 was a prophecy about the Messiah (i.e. "Matthew").  "Matthew" does not expound on how he came to that conclusion.  He did not say anything about a dual meaning.  The burden of proof is also on you to prove that Matthew's perspective was 1) the correct view and 2) a view shared by Jews of the time.  Thus far, you have failed, in my opinion, to prove your position. 

Reply by Apollos:

I have shown that Matthew may have been saying the same thing as some Jews of his day believed and since there is no contrary view on this verse, there is nothing to prove. It could have been a new interpretation as well but still in keeping with the 4 meanings of Torah study. The crux of the matter is whether Jesus was who Matthew said he was. If he wasn�t, who cares what Matthew says about Hosea 11? If Jesus was who Matthew said he was, Jesus undoubtedly told Matthew that this was a proper comment on Hosea. Since I believe Jesus is the supreme authority on what the correct interpretation of the TANACH is, I go with Matthew.

If you think this sounds circular in that we have to believe Matthew was being accurate about Jesus who in turn authorized Matthew to write about Him, you are forgetting that we have 3 or 4 other writers who say the same thing about Jesus giving Matthew this authority, so it is not circular. If one believes Jesus was who the NT writers say He was, or even that He might be who they said He was, it is easy to see how the correct understanding of Hosea can include analogy and pattern prophecy. If you want to presume that Jesus did not do and say the things the NT writers say of Him, then you will undoubtedly find what you already presumed � that Matthew wasn�t accurate in his writing about Jesus.

Apollos

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - The question at hand is does the Hosea 11 statement have more than just a literal reading meaning. I have shown where is could and you simply said it doesn�t. If you ask a Jew of today what it means, they will undoubtedly say it refers only to <st1:country-region w:st="on"> - Israel</st1:country-region> but they will also reject many of the conclusions of ancient Jews regarding passages that the Apostles of Jesus cited. Since the Apostles wrote to those ancient Jews, they are the ones you must cite to draw a conclusion about whether the Apostles interpreted TANACH passages correctly.�

Paul -

 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Jesus speaking-

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Islamispeace -

You are also arguing that if Matthew was unique in his interpretation, that automatically makes him wrong. As I have pointed out, there are various areas of TANACH that the Jews were incorrect on as far as Jesus was concerned. Divorce for example is one where everyone � including the disciples � needed to be corrected by Jesus on. So even if Matthew was unique in his interpretation of Hosea 11, it does not equate to him being wrong.

I think you are missing my initial challenge to your comments on Matthew and Hosea. I said and continue to say that the different views Jews took when studying Torah includes patterns, allegories, analogies, etc. Therefore when you presume that Matthew intended �fulfillment� to be the literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11, you are missing the Jewish context. Even if Matthew was wrong in appealing to Hosea 11 as he did, he would have to be wrong on the dual or pattern aspect he intended. For the reader to do as you initially did � thinking he was appealing to the literal (Peshat) meaning of the passage � that is wrong.

You claim that I am changing my argument but it is you who have changed yours. You initially claimed Matthew was referring to a literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11. I gave you reasons why this is a na�ve and incorrect reading of Matthew based on Jewish perspectives. You then admit that analogies, metaphors, types, etc. are valid ways Jews have and continue to interpret Torah but you argue that Matthew was not justified in interpreting Hosea 11 this way. Your argument has changed so my response has changed.

I did not say � as you assert � that other writer�s confirm Matthew�s interpretation of Hosea 11. I said clearly: �that we have 3 or 4 other writers who say the same thing about Jesus giving Matthew this authority�. That is an important factor if Matthew is presenting something unique.

I admit that without appealing to Matthew�s authority or information from Jesus, it is not likely that one can confirm that his interpretation of Hosea 11 is correct. But neither can one refute his claim. To do that we would have to have contrary Jewish views from his time and we would have to know that those contrary views were the correct ones. You haven�t provided any evidence of this and I don�t see how anyone could.

You apparently think this is an important issue but I do not. The reason is � I view Matthew�s writing as a solid historical account about Jesus. It could have errors in it like the one you claim and it would still be a good historical account of Jesus. In fact, whatever Matthew intended by appealing to Hosea 11, we can conclude that Jesus must have been in Egypt as a young child. If Matthew was concocting �prophecies� it wouldn�t be about fictitious events in Jesus life, would it? It would be about well known events that he was trying to legitimize. So every odd or questionable reference Matthew makes to TANACH is a strong indication that the corresponding event in Jesus� life was an actual historical one. Even if Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies Matthew attributes to Him, we can have confidence that Matthew is telling us what Jesus really did and said. And the things Jesus said and did are very important.

Apollos

Islamispeace -

Your citing of Trypho only proves that the Hosea 11 passage was not addressed. It leaves you therefore with an argument from silence not a refutation of my argument."

No, it shows that the reason it was not addressed was because there was nothing to address.  It shows that the Gospel of Matthew is alone, even in early Christian theology, in trying to establish a link between Hosea 11 and the Messiah's alleged return from Egypt.

Justin Martyr specifically mentions the exodus to Egypt and Herod's plot.  But, he clearly did not see that as having any link, whether literal or allegorical, with Hosea 11.

Reply by Apollos:

That is your assertion but it is as I said, an argument from silence. Justin Martyr did not repeat or quote a number of things in his writings but that does not mean he rejected them. That would be foolish to conclude that. If you were to show that he actually repudiated the appeal to Hosea 11, that would be evidence on your side but you don�t have that at all.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the point I made about how Trypho, a Jew, makes no mention of any allegorical meanings in Isaiah!  According to his religious opinion, which I think has more weight than Christian opinions regarding the Old Testament, the verses in Isaiah were always interpreted as applying to Hezekiah.  Therefore, the argument that there was some allegorical meaning is mute. 

Reply by Apollos:

http:// - Reply by Apollos:

 ⁴³He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
 ⁴⁴" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
      "Sit at my right hand
   until I put your enemies
      under your feet." ' #fen-NIV-23915e - [ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23915e - e ] ⁴⁵If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" ⁴⁶No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022;&version=31; - 1

Now, this is supposedly a reference to Psalm 110:1.  According to the literal translation of the Psalm, the reading is simply:

"¹ The LORD says to my Lord:
       "Sit at my right hand
       until I make your enemies
       a footstool for your feet."" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20110;&version=31; - 2

Very vague, and no mention of the Messiah.  But, let's look at what the Targums say:

"Psalm 110

1.     Composed by David, a psalm. The Lord said in his decree to make me [meaning David] lord of all Israel, but he said to me, �Wait still for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to die, for one reign must not encroach on another; http://targum.info/pss/ps5.htm#_ftn5 - [5] and afterwards I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.� Another Targum: The Lord spoke by his decree to give me the dominion in exchange for sitting in study of Torah. �Wait at my right hand until I make your enemies a prop for your feet.� Another Targum: The Lord said in his decree to appoint me ruler over Israel, but the Lord said to me, �Wait for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to pass away from the world; and afterwards you will inherit the kingship, and I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.�

2.     The Lord will send from Zion the rod of your strength, and you will rule in the midst of your enemies.

3.     Your people are those of the house of Israel who devote themselves to the Torah; you will be helped in the day of your making battle with them; in the glories of holiness the mercies of God will hasten to you like the descent of dew; your offspring dwell securely.

4.     The Lord has sworn http://targum.info/pss/ps5.htm#_ftn6 - [6] and will not turn aside, that you are appointed leader in the age to come, because of the merit that you were a righteous king.

5.     The presence of the Lord is at your right hand; he struck down kings on the day of his anger.

6.     He was appointed judge over the Gentiles; the earth is full of the bodies of the slain wicked; he smote the heads of kings on the earth, very many. 

7.     He will receive instruction from the mouth of the prophet on the way; because of this, he will lift up his head." http://targum.info/pss/ps5.htm - 3

Interpret for me please what this all means.

http://targum.info/pss/ps5.htm -

Islamispeace,

I will answer your objections to Jesus� comments about Psalm 22 and then I will ask that you set forth the criteria that you use in your �studies�. It is obvious to me that you do not use the same criteria or approach on all history but just the history you don�t like.

Concerning Psalm 110 and Jesus� comments:

1. When Jesus asserted that Psalm 22: 41 was a reference to the Messiah, the Jews did not answer the challenge as some now do because they knew it referred to the Messiah. If they believed �my Lord� was Saul or David talking about himself in the third person, etc. they would have had an answer for Jesus rather than silence.
2. I have not studied the various Targum quotes you reference but even if they are pre-Jesus, you have shown that there is not a consensus in the Targums and the differences are exclusive. All three can�t be correct so at least two are incorrect. You apparently think any Jewish interpretation is superior to Jesus� interpretation and I presume exactly the opposite. The Messiah is certainly more qualified to explain which statements from the TANACH describe Him than those trying to understand what God�s prophets said.
3. Even Jews after Jesus agree that �my Lord� in Psalm 110 is a reference to the Messiah. There are Midrash and other commentaries I cold quote but I don�t see a need for this. Even today I have only heard Jews object to the idea that the �adonai� of Psalm 110 being a reference to the deity of the Messiah. In arguing that it only means �master� in the passage, they acknowledge that it still refers to the Messiah.

I can see that you have an endless collection of objections to New Testament references to TANACH. I surmise that you don�t agree with ancient or modern Jews but you want to quote their objections when it is convenient and quote the objections of atheists when that suits you. You seem to argue that God�s messengers are disqualified if they say something new or corrective but that would imply that there was no need for a message from God  in the first place and I think you do believe God sends messengers. The only thing I am sure of is your presumption that the writers of the NT can�t be telling the truth. This isn�t a conclusion for you but a starting premise. Otherwise you would give these writers � as we do all writers � the benefit of the doubt when it comes to puzzles or questions in what they say. So my question for you is � what is your criteria for assessing the validity of NT statements and how do you apply that criteria to the Quran or Hadiths? If you don�t have a consistent criteria you would be a hypocrite and phony that no one should take seriously. If you have a criteria that you employ with all history including Islam, I would like to know what it is. It does not appear to be anything I have seen from scholars of history but I would like to understand what it is.

Apollos

Apollos,

Now you are making me laugh.  The hostility in your words is blatantly obvious, but it does not bother me at all, because I have come to expect this from some Christians when they can't answer questions raised against their religion.  They go off on tangents or resort to ad hominem attacks against the questioner. 

"I will answer your objections to Jesus� comments about Psalm 22 and then I will ask that you set forth the criteria that you use in your �studies�. It is obvious to me that you do not use the same criteria or approach on all history but just the history you don�t like."

The criteria I use are those that are required for historical study.  I rely on primary sources to investigate the historical claims made by people.  What "criteria" am I to use, in your mind?  I simply took your advice.  You told me to look at the Targum, because they are apparently more accurate, and so after I responded to your last post, I decided to look further into the Targum.  I found a Targum version of the Psalms and I remember that the Gospel of Matthew had quoted a verse in Psalm as a reference to the Messiah, Psalm 110:1.  Since the main topic of our debate was the Gospel of Matthew and its many strange claims, I thought it was worthwhile to see if there is any truth in your claim about the Targums.  And lo and behold, there isn't! 

"When Jesus asserted that Psalm 22: 41 was a reference to the Messiah, the Jews did not answer the challenge as some now do because they knew it referred to the Messiah. If they believed �my Lord� was Saul or David talking about himself in the third person, etc. they would have had an answer for Jesus rather than silence.'"

Psalm 22:41?  There is no such verse! 

Your entire premise is based on Matthew's claims.  Once again, in your desperation, you resort to circular reasoning.  You told me to look at the Targums!  Right?  I did and what did I find?  I found that your claims were incorrect and now as before you try to do an about-face.  The Targums say very clearly that David was talking about himself.  If you want to question the Targums now, well, that's your choice, but the fact remains that you made a premature claim, without doing the research (only copying material from like-minded websites), and in the end you looked silly.

"I have not studied the various Targum quotes you reference but even if they are pre-Jesus, you have shown that there is not a consensus in the Targums and the differences are exclusive. All three can�t be correct so at least two are incorrect."

Well, maybe you should study them first before making silly posts and questioning your opponent's "criteria".  How interesting it is that before, the Targums were so much more authentic (you brought them up when they suit your purpose---sound familiar?), but now, when your argument lies shattered, you forsake them! 

The point of all this is to expose the holes in your arguments.  Either the Targums are reliable or they are not.  Notice that I have not made any claims about the Targums.  It was you who brought them up and I am simply putting your claims to the test.  And everytime I do, they fail miserably.

"You apparently think any Jewish interpretation is superior to Jesus� interpretation and I presume exactly the opposite. The Messiah is certainly more qualified to explain which statements from the TANACH describe Him than those trying to understand what God�s prophets said.""

Need I remind you that it was you, not me, who was harping about how one should look at the Targums when trying to interpret the text.  It seems that when the Targums suit your purpose, you cling to them like an infant clings to it mother, but when they don't agree with you, you throw mud at them.  You recommended the Targums as the appropriate Jewish source to better understand the the claims made in the Gospel of Matthew.  But, now, oh no it's what Jesus said that is better.  The Targums are worthless now to you, it seems. 

"Even Jews after Jesus agree that �my Lord� in Psalm 110 is a reference to the Messiah. There are Midrash and other commentaries I cold quote but I don�t see a need for this. Even today I have only heard Jews object to the idea that the �adonai� of Psalm 110 being a reference to the deity of the Messiah. In arguing that it only means �master� in the passage, they acknowledge that it still refers to the Messiah."

So, now we are on the Midrash?  Before, it was all Targums.  Targums this, Targums that�but now, they are worthless.  Picking and choosing are we, Apollos?

By all means, quote the commentaries.  Stop beating around the bush.  Your argument is useless as I used the very criteria that you wanted.  You wanted the Targums and I have given them to you.

"I can see that you have an endless collection of objections to New Testament references to TANACH."

Well, only as many as can be found in the New Testament!

"I surmise that you don�t agree with ancient or modern Jews but you want to quote their objections when it is convenient and quote the objections of atheists when that suits you."

I surmise that when you are cornered, you start questioning my motives.  If my motives are wrong and my methodology for study is wrong, then surely you can prove me wrong.  Thus far, all you have been doing is changing your argument or attacking my "criteria". 

My feelings about the theology of the Jews are quite clear.  I feel that they have to a certain extent corrupted the divine revelation, but so have the Christians and it does not surprise me that neither can agree with each other.  Even then, the Jews have preserved at least the monotheistic message, which the Christians have not, so it does not surprise me that the verses which Christians cling to do not live up to their apparent  miraculous nature.  That is because the Jews never considered the Messiah to be divine.  I agree with the Jews here.  The point is that whether the Jewish texts are right or not, I am simply using the criteria stated by the New Testament writers to test their claims.  They were the ones who made the claims that Hosea 11 had a prophecy, or that Psalm 110 was talking about the Messiah.  When I looked at those texts, I saw nothing resembling what was claimed.  Whether those texts are right or wrong is not relevant.  What is relevant is whether what the Christian writers claimed about these texts is true or not.  As I have shown, they are not.

What �atheist� objections are you talking about?  I haven�t used any atheist sources, so stop making asinine allegations.  If there is any truth in your claims, why are you having such a hard time refuting the arguments presented?  Why is there no consistency in your response?  Are the Targums reliable or are they not?  Which Jewish interpretation is correct?  Where are the Midrash commentaries which prove your point?  Why is it that every Jewish opinion presented thus far contradicts your claims, when it wa you who was harping about how it's important to look at all this from the Jewish perspective?

�You seem to argue that God�s messengers are disqualified if they say something new or corrective but that would imply that there was no need for a message from God  in the first place and I think you do believe God sends messengers.�

New?  No.  Corrective?  Possibly.  The messengers never brought anything new.  The message was the same.  They may have been sent to correct false beliefs, but then there would have to be some evidence that the truth was corrupted.  The past scriptures mention nothing even remotely resembling the Christian beliefs.  No trinity.  No son of God coming to die for everyone�s sins.  No God in flesh on earth.  These are all new inventions, falsely attributed to the true messengers of God.  Prove me wrong, if you are doubtful.

�The only thing I am sure of is your presumption that the writers of the NT can�t be telling the truth.�

Of course, but that is based on research.  I looked into the claims of the New Testament authors, and I have seen that more often than not, they were wrong in their claims.  I have also seen that the New Testament is not supported by third party sources, nor is it preserved.  We have nothing to verify the claims made in the New Testament.  We don�t have Jesus� words.  We have the words of people who claimed to be his disciples, and yet not a single manuscript exists of these accounts from the 1^st century. 

But what do my �presumptions� matter?  If they are so wrong, why are you having such trouble answering them? 

�This isn�t a conclusion for you but a starting premise. Otherwise you would give these writers � as we do all writers � the benefit of the doubt when it comes to puzzles or questions in what they say.�

Nothing but a smoke-screen.  If you did this, then you would give equal credence to the very Jewish sources which contradict you.  But, hypocritically, you criticize me for my �presumptions� but you can�t seem to realize that you are the one who has already decided what to except and what not to expect. 

�So my question for you is � what is your criteria for assessing the validity of NT statements and how do you apply that criteria to the Quran or Hadiths? If you don�t have a consistent criteria you would be a hypocrite and phony that no one should take seriously. If you have a criteria that you employ with all history including Islam, I would like to know what it is. It does not appear to be anything I have seen from scholars of history but I would like to understand what it is.�

I look at the primary sources, if any, from the time in question.  So, for claims made in the Bible about the 1^st century, I look at the primary sources from the 1st century.  The same goes for the Quran.  The Quran makes historical statements which have been verified from third party sources.  For instance, it refers to the Year of the Elephant, the year the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was born, and how an army tried to attack the Kaaba but was repelled when God sent a flock of birds to defend it.  This event is confirmed by an account written by an Arabian, Nufail bin Habeeb, who witnessed the event.  Therefore, even non-Muslim sources support the Quran here.  These are the criteria I use.

Hasan,

You keep referring to �contradictions� as proof that the Bible is not the Word of God � and then you act as if this automatically validates the Quran being the Word of God. Your premises are wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

Concerning your first premise, I have shown you where some of your alleged contradictions are bogus and though you become silent on that claim, you simply move on to another. Knowing that at least some of your claims are fallacious, who are you to claim that every claim you make has to be treated as legitimate?

You then ignore the reliability of the Gospel accounts as good history by claiming they aren�t inspired. Though you can�t provide an example of what an inspired writing looks like, you think that this Red Herring strategy will allow you to avoid the clear history that a portion of the Bible contains. Let�s say the Gospel accounts aren�t inspired � they are still good history and the best history that exists about Jesus. And let�s just focus on one detail about this history � the crucifixion of Jesus. All historians agree that this part of the Gospels is reliable and yet - the Quran claims otherwise.  Why would someone accept the idea that Quran is correct on this while all historians and the Gospels say otherwise?

But it gets worse. The only inspired writing you believe to exist is the Quran and the reason you believe this is because the Quran says so. Complete circular reasoning. One book endorsing itself. One prophet who endorses himself. Incredibly we are supposed to give this one book credence because � at times � it agrees with and endorses the Bible, a book that we are told is just a corrupt collection of writings.

Even if your claim of Bible contradictions was true, it doesn�t invalidate the Bible as history nor does it lessen the significance that the Bible (specifically the New Testament), secular and Jewish history all contradict the Quran�s claim that Jesus was not crucified. Even if the Bible is without evidence of being inspired, the Quran doesn�t win that label by default. Islam has to show that the Quran has evidence of inspiration on its own and based on the �perfect� criteria proclaimed by Muslims, it can�t. It contradicts history and the Bible on the crucifixion of Jesus so it can�t be inspired. This is not an �apparent� contradiction that different theological interpretations might resolve. It is a contradiction with established history.

Could the Quran still be historically accurate concerning the things Mohammed said with such an error in it? Maybe but what good is that if it is not inspired as Muslims claim? Unlike the New Testament which has incredible historical importance in describing what Jesus said and did, the Quran only has significance if we know that Mohammed�s statements are superior to all other writings. Since he disagrees with the 40 authors collected in the Bible, numerous Christian, Jewish and secular history, we can only grant Mohammed this superiority if we know his words are inspired and the others are all not.

If you are honest I think you will admit that you start with the notion that the Quran is inspired and then anything that disagrees with this belief is simply wrong. You aren�t giving reasons for why you don�t believe the Bible - you are trying to fabricate reasons that hide your blind faith in the Quran.

Apollos

Reply by Apollos:

You flatter yourself and misrepresent me. I have no hostility toward you at all. (Do you realize though that this kind of personal address is the ad hominem attack you accuse me of?)

Tu quoque, Apollos.  Even if my response was an ad hominem (not that it was), it would not change the fact that you were questioning my motives and methodology, instead of responding to the actual issues. 

Reply by Apollos:

Please settle down. I made a typo. I think you know what verse I was referring to � the same one you referenced on this.

My apologies.  It just seemed strange that you would be so far off from Psalm 110.

Reply by Apollos:

When one wants to know what Jesus said or did or how people around Him reacted, we can not do better than eyewitnesses.

Sounds great, except that we don�t know if the purported �eyewitness� testimony of the Synoptic Gospels is true or not.  The fact that there exist no extant 1^st century manuscripts of the eyewitness accounts, and the fact that the first �Gospel� to actually be written was done so by a man who was not even an eyewitness, that being Mark.  It has also been claimed that Matthew used Mark as the template for his account.  Strange, isn�t it?  The first account of Jesus� ministry was not even from one of his disciples.

That is why I refer to Matthew here � to show that, according to Matthew, the Jews did not challenge Jesus� interpretation of the Psalm he refers to.

But according to third party sources, outside the New Testament, they did.  So, in order to prove that what Matthew claimed was right, quoting Jesus� words according to Matthew is not proof. 

There is nothing circular about this reasoning. I suspect you are mixing up your perspective with mine, meaning you don�t believe Matthew correctly describes anything about Jesus so how can someone appeal to Matthew to explain something Matthew says. If you hold this view, you should be consistent and not ask someone to explain how Jesus could be correct on something Matthew writes when you don�t even believe the words or deeds ever occurred.

The circular reasoning is in the fact that when asked to prove that what Matthew said was true, you say that Jesus told him to say that.  Therefore, what Matthew says Jesus said is proof of what Jesus said.  Perhaps I misunderstood.  Is that not what you are saying? 

Reply by Apollos:

Again, I think your bias has caused you to mix up the issues. I addressed this last challenge of yours from the internal evidence � from what Matthew describes about the entire event. If Matthew was correct about what Jesus said but incorrect about the response of the Jews, that is separate issue and challenge.

I am not concerned about this.  I apologize for not being clear.  The point I was making was that your appealing to the Targums is inconsistent.  You claimed that we need to look at the �other� meanings in the Old Testament and that I should have looked at the Targums to get the full picture with regard to Hosea 11.  You claimed that the Targum version of Isaiah supports the Christian understanding of the prophecies in that book.  So, to test your claim about the Targums, I checked some of the other prophecies.  Since the Gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus as appealing to Psalm 110 as a reference to him (Jesus), I wanted to see what the Targums said.  What I found was that it was not what Jesus claimed, according to Matthew.  Therefore, the conclusion I reached was that the Christian appeal to the Targums is not without inconsistencies.  That brings us back to Hosea 11 and Isaiah.  Whether or not the prophecies in the Targum version of Isaiah do actually refer to the Messiah, and the Christian appeal to those verses is correct (that remains to be seen as well), we still are stuck with the fact that Hosea 11 and Psalm 110 remain unproven to be Messianic chapters, as read in the Targums.  The logical conclusion then is that the Targums do not support your contention and we need to move on.  I still have not seen any evidence that Hosea 11 was an allegorical reference to the Messiah.  You appealed to the Targums as part of your contention that Matthew was interpreting Hosea 11 in a manner different from the literal meaning.

To that separate objection I responded below � that the Targums don�t have a unified interpretation and Jesus doesn�t need to agree with the Targums or any other Jewish belief.

Then your appeal to the Targums is wrong and inconsistent, and therefore, we are back to the original topic, that of Matthew�s reference to Hosea 11 as being Messianic.  I hope we can agree then that the Targums do not help us reach a conclusion on this topic and we can move past them.  Does that sound right to you?

This apparently confuses you because I previously pointed out that the Targums or similar documents do � at times � agree with the beliefs of the NT writers. I have never said or implied that Targums are the ultimate authority on what pre-Jesus Jews thought nor have I said that NT beliefs should all be compatible with pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs.

I may have missed that, but regardless, your appeal to the Targums is incorrect.  You can�t refer to them when they agree with you and reject them when they don�t.  This is a flawed and biased approach.  Can we say then, conclusively, that the Targums are not a viable source if we want to understand the meaning behind Hosea 11 and indeed other chapters of the OId Testament, including Isaiah and Psalms, which thus far you have failed to prove have any Messianic undertones?

The purpose of referring to Targums and other Jewish documents is to show how the approaches of Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod should all be considered before one starts telling others what a Jew means when they refer to Scripture.

Again, you can�t refer to them when they suit your purpose and discard them when they don�t. 

Remember you are the one who copied three different Targum views of one passage � not I. You proved that there was no consensus on the passage that Jesus referred to and then seem to think this somehow refutes Jesus� view. That seems silly to me.

What I proved was 1) you appealed to the Targums in your efforts to prove that the Christian interpretation of some Old Testament passages without doing research, but simply paraphrasing material from like-minded websites (without checking if the Targums can be applied in other cases-thus making you appear silly in prematurely jumping on the Targums) and 2) that you misunderstood my point.  When I brought the passage from Matthew referring to Psalm 110, I was doing so in the same context as Hosea 11.  In Matthew�s claim, Jesus believed that Psalm 110 was a reference to the Messiah.  Since we were talking about the Targums, I thought it was appropriate that I look at what they say about that verse.  You are right to say that they don�t agree as to the exact wording, but the important point you missed was that they ALL agree that the verse referred to David and not the Messiah, unless of course you consider the fact that �Messiah� simply means �anointed� and that since almost every major biblical figure was �anointed�, they could all be referred to as �Messiahs�.  What this all proves is that your appeal to the Targums is flawed. 

Reply by Apollos:

As I mentioned earlier � you have misrepresented my appeal to the Targums. I will assume it is just an over-sight and not a deliberate twisting of what I have said.

No, it was not an oversight, because I assumed that you were approaching this matter from an unbiased, scholarly matter, which means that you were not simply picking and choosing which parts of the Targums we should look at.  Since we have proven that the Targums do not answer our questions regarding Hosea 11, then it seems silly to keep arguing about them.  I am willing to move on if you are.  Just don�t bring the Targums back into this debate.  Let us go back to Hosea 11, shall we?

Reply by Apollos:

I have clarified this enough. Stop trying to change the focus from the question I posed to you.

You have only clarified your own illogical, biased, flawed approach to this matter. 

Reply by Apollos:

Please be serious. You know you are misrepresenting what I said concerning Targums and you know what I meant by your historical criteria. You don�t believe Matthew is a reliable historical source about Jesus so please show the criteria you used to reach this conclusion.

I already mentioned it.  The third party sources from the time period in question seemingly contradict many of Matthew�s claims.  I believe I mentioned the whole Herod drama and the so-called �Massacre of the Innocents�.  This event is not mentioned in any historical work from that time, even those which were critical of Herod (such as Josephus).

Reply by Apollos:

I am simply observing your statements. You object to using Matthew to inform us of what Jesus said, or what others said in response to what Jesus said. You have asserted that he made up a number of things concerning Herod, the Magi, Jesus going to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>, etc. so I don�t need to speculate about your view of Matthew as an historian. I am not changing the subject but trying to get at the root of your objections. Don�t you agree that answering your questions about why Matthew or Jesus said a certain thing is a waste of time to someone who believes that the whole account is unreliable? Don�t you agree that even if I convinced you that Matthew was correct or could be correct on a particular point, it wouldn�t change your basic presumptions?

The problem is that you have not proven that what Matthew said was correct.  You have only conjectured on what �could have been� rather that �what is�.  You have failed to show that the passages in question did in fact refer to a divine Messiah, or were interpreted at some point before Christianity as referring to a divine Messiah.  Of course you can simply say �well, he said it and since I am Christian, I believe it.�  That may be good enough for you, but you must understand that it is not good enough for a non-Christian, like me. 

I am not attacking you personally. I assume you are a smart person and that you have valid reasons for believing what you do. I am just trying to understand them so we don�t waste time on peripheral issues. Your first initial question about Matthew�s use of the word �fulfillment� drew me in � as if this was one of the few areas in Matthew that you questioned. Since then I have seen that you consider most of it unreliable. I would like to understand why.

I explained that above. 

Reply by Apollos:

Not at all. You have shown that some Jews before and after Jesus did not accept these �Christian� views. I�m sure you know that this is not a revelation. We have hundreds of years of history to show that what Jesus said was accepted by some Jews and rejected by others. So what?

So, then we are back to square one, which is if Hosea 11 is a simple retelling of Israelite history or an allegorical reference to the Messiah or both.  You have failed to show why you believe the latter.

Contrary to this fact making you comfortable with Islam, it should make you uncomfortable because the Quran and the NT agree that many Jews rejected what Jesus said to the point that they wanted to kill Him.

This has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is already clear on why the Jews rejected the Messiah, which is that they corrupted the text to fit their own beliefs and were rebellious against God.  Our present discourse actually serves to strengthen Islam�s position, since neither the Jewish texts nor the Christian texts seem to agree with each other, even though Christians regard both as divinely inspired. 

This differs from the Christian view which holds that the Old Testament as we have it today is the inerrant, unchanged, word of God.  Therefore, when the New Testament authors appeal to the Old Testament, we should not expect to find inconsistencies.  Unfortunately, we do find them. 

The problem areas the NT describes are the same ones the Jews have today � Monotheism and how the Messiah fulfills Scripture. If the NT invented these problem areas, then there must have been other reasons the Jews rejected Jesus, but what are they? Neither the Jews, nor history have evidence that there were any other differences � certainly nothing to try and kill Jesus over. So yes, the NT describes Jesus as offending many Jews and many are still offended. Jesus said they were the ones in error but even if they weren�t, these disagreement have existed from the beginning.

It is actually pretty simple.  They were rebellious against God.  If they could worship a golden calf after just witnessing God�s awesome power, they could certainly reject His Messiah.  Those who did accept him in his time did so knowing that he was human and never claimed any divine attributes.  Regardless of all this, the fact still stands that Matthew made some questionable appeals to the Old Testament, in his effort to prove his version of Jesus� life and ministry.

Reply by Apollos:

You have quoted the same objections that atheists write about the lack of historical corroboration on Herod killing children, etc. being �proof� that Matthew was fabricating these events. It is not a scholarly line of �reasoning� and I didn�t think Jews or Muslims had adopted it. I apologize if your sources were not the ones I have heard many times before.

I came to that conclusion doing my own research.  There are scholars who question the historicity of the Herod drama.  Just because they are not Christian does not automatically invalidate their opinions.  If you can prove these claims wrong, then go ahead.

Reply by Apollos:

I agree � if you mean, the understanding of the truth was corrupted. I think there is great evidence that this occurred with Jews including the fact that TANACH says that God would judge Israel for their unbelief and rebellion, He started doing this during the last Prophets to write (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.) and this punishment was continuing during the time Jesus arrived.

I think there was more than just the understanding.  But, regardless, the fact is that Christians regard the Old Testament to be inerrant and unchanged.  So, when it does not agree with Christian theology, it is problematic for Christianity. 

BTW � Do you apply this same axiom to Islam? Do you have evidence that the prior truth was corrupted or just an assertion that it was?

I already mentioned that there exist no 1^st century manuscripts.  In addition, the manuscripts that do exist at times differ from each other.  This is a separate topic, so if you want to discuss this, please open another thread. 

Reply by Apollos:

This is your claim and it goes against what Jesus said � according to His disciples.

Exactly�according to his �disciples�, or actually what the disciples purportedly said, since no manuscripts from their time survive today. 

The way that you are proved wrong is � if Jesus said and did as the Disciples said He did � His words refute you, as you know. I wouldn�t even try to prove you wrong on such things. But if you are arguing with Jesus, what good is your objection?

This is the limit of Christian arguments: Jesus said what he was �quoted� as saying.  Case closed.

Reply by Apollos:

Please provide an example. Not an example of where you don�t like their interpretation of TANACH but an example of where they are factually wrong � on a date, a city, a name, an event, etc.

I already mentioned the Herod drama.  Do I have to repeat myself over and over again?  Is there any historical evidence that a massacre of Jewish children occurred in the Bethlehem area around that time?  The only other source, other than the Gospel of Matthew to mention this event is a 2^nd century document, the Protoevangelium of James.  Can you give me any other source which corroborates the claims of Matthew?

Reply by Apollos:

There are many third party sources. How about Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Thallus, or Josephus? Or what about the Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome and others? What about anti-Jewish writings and councils?

Please�do you think I am that na�ve?  Do you not think that I have heard these arguments before?  Look at the following thread and my response to Believer, who made the exact same claim:

forum_posts.asp?TID=12336&PN=26 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12336&PN=26

Are you going to play the Josephus card again?  I can�t tell you how many times I have discussed Josephus with Christians, the so-called �Testimonium Flavianum��In addition, I have already mentioned Josephus in our discourse.  Do you forget how I pointed out that Josephus and other historians from that time fail to mention any of the events in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically regarding the massacre? 

If you want to talk about Polycarp and others, would you also give the same credence to Valentinus, Theudas and Basilides? 

Reply by Apollos:

And how would we confirm if they were telling the truth or not?

Have we not been discussing this?  One of the ways to prove that they were either mistaken or lying is if their claims appear inconsistent.  If Matthew claimed that Hosea 11 was a reference to the Messiah, and subsequent research proves that was not the case, obviously we have damaged Matthew�s reputation.    

Reply by Apollos:

Yes we do � There are several manuscript fragments of the Gospels dated as early 70 A.D. and no later than 125 A.D.

Which ones? 

Reply by Apollos:

I just did and I now glean some of the criteria you use to evaluate the NT documents. Even if I have not answered your objections on this, how do you apply this criteria to the Quran?

I have already mentioned this.

Do you have evidence of prior truth corrupted? Third Party sources? Evidence that the original author was who he said he was? Do you have manuscripts within 50 years of the original/

With the Quran?  Of course.  There are numerous 1^st century (AH) manuscripts such as http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html - Codex San�a DAM 01-27.1 .  There are also inscriptions from the 1^st century which have Quranic surahs such as a http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html - dated inscription from 29 AH (650 CE), found in Cyprus.  Let�s also not forget that the Quran was memorized by hundreds if not thousands of people.  As far as third party sources are concerned, consider that the Quran mentions the city of Iram in Surah al-Fajr (89:7), a city whose existence was long questioned but proven nonetheless to be true during an excavation of Ebla.  The Ebla Tablets mention the city by name.

But, what does all of this have to do with the topic?  Even if my criteria were flawed, it would still not change the fact that there exist some inconsistencies between the New and Old Testaments.

Reply by Apollos:

Not so at all. I agree that the Targums, etc. were written by Jewish sages and that they reflect their sincere beliefs. But they do not claim to be Prophets and I believe that Jesus was a prophet and when He differs from a sage, I go with Jesus.

In other words, you pick and choose parts which agree with you and reject those that don�t.  Very consistent�

Reply by Apollos:

Please list the primary sources of the Quran? Nothing by Mohammed, correct? Then sticks and stones with words which he couldn�t read, correct? Then after he is dead, others transfer the words to paper, correct? Do you call any of this a primary source? What about the Hadiths?

For third party sources, do you have evidence that corroborates that Mohammed dictated the various writings that later became the Quran? Do you have secular and enemy corroboration of this?

What are you talking about?  Primary sources of the Quran?  The primary source of the Quran is God, of course. 

I think you misunderstood what I said.  You asked me how I judge the Bible�s accuracy and claims.  I responded that if the Bible makes a claim, for instance about a historical event such as Herod�s plot, I look at other works from that time to see if they also mention any such event.  If they do, chances are that the event in question did occur.  If they don�t, chances are that the event was made up at a later time.  In the same way, if the Quran makes a claim about a historical event, looking at other works from the time in question would help us to see if the claim was true.  I already gave the example of Nufail ibn Habeeb.  The attack on the Kaaba is historical fact.  The same cannot be said about the Massacre of the Innocents and other related incidents as mentioned by the Gospel of Matthew. 

Regardless, by asking all these questions about the Quran and Islam, you are not doing a good job of explaining why the Christian Bible makes so many strange claims and tries to link itself with the past scriptures.  All you are doing is resorting to red herrings and tu quoques. 

Even if you have evidence for the above, I don�t see how the criteria for primary sources and third party sources leads you to the conclusion that the NT is unreliable? Will you please explain how this confirms the Quran and Hadiths for you but impugns the NT.

If other works from the time of the New Testament do not agree with it regarding certain events, then is it not sensible to question those claims made by the New Testament?  Of course, we should not expect non-Christian sources to exclaim that a man named Jesus resurrected from the dead.  I am not asking you give me that.  This discourse started with a question on why the Gospel of Matthew claimed that a certain chapter in the Book of Hosea made a prophecy about the Messiah.  When one looks at that purported prophecy, one sees that it was nothing more than a retelling of history, a reference to the Exodus from Egypt.  Examining it further for alleged �dual� meanings or �allegories� fails to bring any corroborative evidence.  So, the question remains: how do you reconcile the Gospel of Matthew�s seemingly incorrect reference to the Book of Hosea?  And what does this say about the Gospel itself?

By the way, you mentioned the Midrash in your last post.  I would like to see the commentaries which you referred to.

Reply by Apollos:

When one wants to know what Jesus said or did or how people around Him reacted, we can not do better than eyewitnesses.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Sounds great, except that we don�t know if the purported �eyewitness� testimony of the Synoptic Gospels is true or not.  The fact that there exist no extant 1^st century manuscripts of the eyewitness accounts,

New reply by Apollos:

I provide examples of early documents later in this reply but even if you were correct, it does not follow that your arbitrary demand for an extant manuscript of a particular date disproves the validity of the manuscripts we do have.

and the fact that the first �Gospel� to actually be written was done so by a man who was not even an eyewitness, that being Mark.  It has also been claimed that Matthew used Mark as the template for his account.  Strange, isn�t it?  The first account of Jesus� ministry was not even from one of his disciples.

New reply by Apollos:

There are many � including myself that believe that Matthew created the first written account of Jesus life and words real-time as he doing them. Matthew was a tax collector and as such had to know a shorthand form of writing. He could write down quickly verbatim long sermons, etc. and he apparently did since his Gospel has the most lengthy versions of Jesus sermons. What we call his Gospel is therefore a long hand version he later created or compiled from his short hand version. But let�s say Mark was first written account. It doesn�t mean the same words were being communicated by all the disciples prior to this. In fact there is great evidence that they were. It also doesn�t mean that Mark is less reliable. Third party sources say that Mark penned his account on behalf of Peter who was an eyewitness. I don�t see the problem here at all. The analogy that comes to mind is that if a tabloid was the first publication to tell us about Elvis� death, the claim is somehow false even though we have many other sources that concur.

That is why I refer to Matthew here � to show that, according to Matthew, the Jews did not challenge Jesus� interpretation of the Psalm he refers to.

Reply by Islamispeace:

But according to third party sources, outside the New Testament, they did. 

New reply by Apollos:

Please provide an example of a third party source that claims the Jews responded differently to Jesus� interpretation of this Psalms.

So, in order to prove that what Matthew claimed was right, quoting Jesus� words according to Matthew is not proof. 

There is nothing circular about this reasoning. I suspect you are mixing up your perspective with mine, meaning you don�t believe Matthew correctly describes anything about Jesus so how can someone appeal to Matthew to explain something Matthew says. If you hold this view, you should be consistent and not ask someone to explain how Jesus could be correct on something Matthew writes when you don�t even believe the words or deeds ever occurred.

Reply by Islamispeace:

The circular reasoning is in the fact that when asked to prove that what Matthew said was true, you say that Jesus told him to say that.  Therefore, what Matthew says Jesus said is proof of what Jesus said.  Perhaps I misunderstood.  Is that not what you are saying? 

New reply by Apollos:

If you want to make up rules that say we have to assume Matthew is unreliable and we can only cross-reference what he writes to show contradictions, not consistencies, then I guess by your rules, you are correct: Matthew must be unreliable. But you also don�t want me to quote any source that has come to be part of the New Testament. This is why I suggest looking at your initial presumptions rather than playing games with your arbitrary rules.

Reply by Apollos:

Again, I think your bias has caused you to mix up the issues. I addressed this last challenge of yours from the internal evidence � from what Matthew describes about the entire event. If Matthew was correct about what Jesus said but incorrect about the response of the Jews, that is separate issue and challenge.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I am not concerned about this.  I apologize for not being clear.  The point I was making was that your appealing to the Targums is inconsistent.  You claimed that we need to look at the �other� meanings in the Old Testament and that I should have looked at the Targums to get the full picture with regard to Hosea 11. 

New reply by Apollos:

No I didn�t and I think I have clarified this numerous time. I appeal to the Targums to show what Matthew meant by �fulfillment� and what any Jew could employ in interpreting any passage.

You claimed that the Targum version of Isaiah supports the Christian understanding of the prophecies in that book.  So, to test your claim about the Targums, I checked some of the other prophecies.  Since the Gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus as appealing to Psalm 110 as a reference to him (Jesus), I wanted to see what the Targums said.  What I found was that it was not what Jesus claimed, according to Matthew.  Therefore, the conclusion I reached was that the Christian appeal to the Targums is not without inconsistencies.  That brings us back to Hosea 11 and Isaiah.  Whether or not the prophecies in the Targum version of Isaiah do actually refer to the Messiah, and the Christian appeal to those verses is correct (that remains to be seen as well), we still are stuck with the fact that Hosea 11 and Psalm 110 remain unproven to be Messianic chapters, as read in the Targums.  The logical conclusion then is that the Targums do not support your contention and we need to move on.  I still have not seen any evidence that Hosea 11 was an allegorical reference to the Messiah.  You appealed to the Targums as part of your contention that Matthew was interpreting Hosea 11 in a manner different from the literal meaning.

To that separate objection I responded below � that the Targums don�t have a unified interpretation and Jesus doesn�t need to agree with the Targums or any other Jewish belief.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Then your appeal to the Targums is wrong and inconsistent, and therefore, we are back to the original topic, that of Matthew�s reference to Hosea 11 as being Messianic.  I hope we can agree then that the Targums do not help us reach a conclusion on this topic and we can move past them.  Does that sound right to you?

New reply by Apollos:

Yes

This apparently confuses you because I previously pointed out that the Targums or similar documents do � at times � agree with the beliefs of the NT writers. I have never said or implied that Targums are the ultimate authority on what pre-Jesus Jews thought nor have I said that NT beliefs should all be compatible with pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I may have missed that, but regardless, your appeal to the Targums is incorrect.  You can�t refer to them when they agree with you and reject them when they don�t.  This is a flawed and biased approach.  Can we say then, conclusively, that the Targums are not a viable source if we want to understand the meaning behind Hosea 11 and indeed other chapters of the OId Testament, including Isaiah and Psalms, which thus far you have failed to prove have any Messianic undertones?

New reply by Apollos:

See my comments above.

The purpose of referring to Targums and other Jewish documents is to show how the approaches of Peshat, Remez, Derash and Sod should all be considered before one starts telling others what a Jew means when they refer to Scripture.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Again, you can�t refer to them when they suit your purpose and discard them when they don�t. 

New reply by Apollos:

See my comments above.

Remember you are the one who copied three different Targum views of one passage � not I. You proved that there was no consensus on the passage that Jesus referred to and then seem to think this somehow refutes Jesus� view. That seems silly to me.

Reply by Islamispeace:

What I proved was 1) you appealed to the Targums in your efforts to prove that the Christian interpretation of some Old Testament passages without doing research, but simply paraphrasing material from like-minded websites (without checking if the Targums can be applied in other cases-thus making you appear silly in prematurely jumping on the Targums) and 2) that you misunderstood my point.  When I brought the passage from Matthew referring to Psalm 110, I was doing so in the same context as Hosea 11.  In Matthew�s claim, Jesus believed that Psalm 110 was a reference to the Messiah.  Since we were talking about the Targums, I thought it was appropriate that I look at what they say about that verse.  You are right to say that they don�t agree as to the exact wording, but the important point you missed was that they ALL agree that the verse referred to David and not the Messiah, unless of course you consider the fact that �Messiah� simply means �anointed� and that since almost every major biblical figure was �anointed�, they could all be referred to as �Messiahs�.  What this all proves is that your appeal to the Targums is flawed. 

New reply by Apollos:

I thought we were going to move on. I am ignoring the repetition on this part.

Reply by Apollos:

Please be serious. You know you are misrepresenting what I said concerning Targums and you know what I meant by your historical criteria. You don�t believe Matthew is a reliable historical source about Jesus so please show the criteria you used to reach this conclusion.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I already mentioned it.  The third party sources from the time period in question seemingly contradict many of Matthew�s claims.  I believe I mentioned the whole Herod drama and the so-called �Massacre of the Innocents�.  This event is not mentioned in any historical work from that time, even those which were critical of Herod (such as Josephus).

New reply by Apollos:

So are you saying that because third party sources we have in hand are silent on these events, that is proof against them happening? Quite unscholarly and misleading to say this is third party evidence.

Reply by Apollos:

I am simply observing your statements. You object to using Matthew to inform us of what Jesus said, or what others said in response to what Jesus said. You have asserted that he made up a number of things concerning Herod, the Magi, Jesus going to Eqypt,, etc. so I don�t need to speculate about your view of Matthew as an historian. I am not changing the subject but trying to get at the root of your objections. Don�t you agree that answering your questions about why Matthew or Jesus said a certain thing is a waste of time to someone who believes that the whole account is unreliable? Don�t you agree that even if I convinced you that Matthew was correct or could be correct on a particular point, it wouldn�t change your basic presumptions?

Reply by Islamispeace:

The problem is that you have not proven that what Matthew said was correct.  You have only conjectured on what �could have been� rather that �what is�.  You have failed to show that the passages in question did in fact refer to a divine Messiah, or were interpreted at some point before Christianity as referring to a divine Messiah.  Of course you can simply say �well, he said it and since I am Christian, I believe it.�  That may be good enough for you, but you must understand that it is not good enough for a non-Christian, like me. 

New reply by Apollos:

If Matthew could have been correct, the passages you refer to are not proof that he is incorrect are they? That is what you claimed they were. To say you are not compelled to accept his interpretation is correct or from Jesus is fine but that is not the same as your initial claim.

I am not attacking you personally. I assume you are a smart person and that you have valid reasons for believing what you do. I am just trying to understand them so we don�t waste time on peripheral issues. Your first initial question about Matthew�s use of the word �fulfillment� drew me in � as if this was one of the few areas in Matthew that you questioned. Since then I have seen that you consider most of it unreliable. I would like to understand why.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I explained that above. 

Reply by Apollos:

Not at all. You have shown that some Jews before and after Jesus did not accept these �Christian� views. I�m sure you know that this is not a revelation. We have hundreds of years of history to show that what Jesus said was accepted by some Jews and rejected by others. So what?

Reply by Islamispeace:

So, then we are back to square one, which is if Hosea 11 is a simple retelling of Israelite history or an allegorical reference to the Messiah or both.  You have failed to show why you believe the latter.

Contrary to this fact making you comfortable with Islam, it should make you uncomfortable because the Quran and the NT agree that many Jews rejected what Jesus said to the point that they wanted to kill Him.

Reply by Islamispeace:

This has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is already clear on why the Jews rejected the Messiah, which is that they corrupted the text to fit their own beliefs and were rebellious against God.  Our present discourse actually serves to strengthen Islam�s position, since neither the Jewish texts nor the Christian texts seem to agree with each other, even though Christians regard both as divinely inspired. 

This differs from the Christian view which holds that the Old Testament as we have it today is the inerrant, unchanged, word of God.  Therefore, when the New Testament authors appeal to the Old Testament, we should not expect to find inconsistencies.  Unfortunately, we do find them. 

New reply by Apollos:

So when you quote Targums, Third Party sources, etc. to prove a particular Jewish belief that is contrary to the New Testament, you don�t really believe that Jewish belief existed either? It seems like you are being inconsistent and disingenuous with what you �prove�.

The problem areas the NT describes are the same ones the Jews have today � Monotheism and how the Messiah fulfills Scripture. If the NT invented these problem areas, then there must have been other reasons the Jews rejected Jesus, but what are they? Neither the Jews, nor history have evidence that there were any other differences � certainly nothing to try and kill Jesus over. So yes, the NT describes Jesus as offending many Jews and many are still offended. Jesus said they were the ones in error but even if they weren�t, these disagreement have existed from the beginning.

Reply by Islamispeace:

It is actually pretty simple.  They were rebellious against God.  If they could worship a golden calf after just witnessing God�s awesome power, they could certainly reject His Messiah.  Those who did accept him in his time did so knowing that he was human and never claimed any divine attributes. 

New reply by Apollos:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Regardless of all this, the fact still stands that Matthew made some questionable appeals to the Old Testament, in his effort to prove his version of Jesus� life and ministry.

New reply by Apollos:

And you know this because he differed with Jews who were rebellious?

Reply by Apollos:

I agree � if you mean, the understanding of the truth was corrupted. I think there is great evidence that this occurred with Jews including the fact that TANACH says that God would judge Israel for their unbelief and rebellion, He started doing this during the last Prophets to write (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.) and this punishment was continuing during the time Jesus arrived.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I think there was more than just the understanding.  But, regardless, the fact is that Christians regard the Old Testament to be inerrant and unchanged.  So, when it does not agree with Christian theology, it is problematic for Christianity. 

New reply by Apollos:

Not if part of the teaching in the NT is to correct interpretations of the OT.

BTW � Do you apply this same axiom to Islam? Do you have evidence that the prior truth was corrupted or just an assertion that it was?

Reply by Islamispeace:

I already mentioned that there exist no 1^st century manuscripts.  In addition, the manuscripts that do exist at times differ from each other.  This is a separate topic, so if you want to discuss this, please open another thread. 

Reply by Apollos:

This is your claim and it goes against what Jesus said � according to His disciples.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Exactly�according to his �disciples�, or actually what the disciples purportedly said, since no manuscripts from their time survive today. 

New reply by Apollos:

I addressed this claim above and below. It is wrong factually and logically.

The way that you are proved wrong is � if Jesus said and did as the Disciples said He did � His words refute you, as you know. I wouldn�t even try to prove you wrong on such things. But if you are arguing with Jesus, what good is your objection?

Reply by Islamispeace:

This is the limit of Christian arguments: Jesus said what he was �quoted� as saying.  Case closed.

New reply by Apollos:

He was quoted by the disciples � who proved their testimony was as reliable as any eyewitness can be. Since this seems to be your foundation, please show why we should doubt that we have their accurate accounts.

Reply by Apollos:

Please provide an example. Not an example of where you don�t like their interpretation of TANACH but an example of where they are factually wrong � on a date, a city, a name, an event, etc.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I already mentioned the Herod drama.  Do I have to repeat myself over and over again?  Is there any historical evidence that a massacre of Jewish children occurred in the Bethlehem area around that time?  The only other source, other than the Gospel of Matthew to mention this event is a 2^nd century document, the Protoevangelium of James.  Can you give me any other source which corroborates the claims of Matthew?

New reply by Apollos:

Great � so your best example of �proof� is simply silence. As I mentioned before this is quite unscholarly � and I think it demonstrates how far one has to stretch to concoct a �contradiction�. This is not how history is assessed. There are volumes of events that we have only one source for and unless there is contrary evidence, silence means nothing.

Reply by Apollos:

There are many third party sources. How about Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Thallus, or Josephus? Or what about the Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome and others? What about anti-Jewish writings and councils?

Reply by Islamispeace:

Please�do you think I am that na�ve?  Do you not think that I have heard these arguments before?  Look at the following thread and my response to Believer, who made the exact same claim:

New reply by Apollos:

Your thread here is long enough. I�m not going to another one. Copy and paste the response here if you like but I want to see why these others sources are ignored by you.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Are you going to play the Josephus card again?  I can�t tell you how many times I have discussed Josephus with Christians, the so-called �Testimonium Flavianum��In addition, I have already mentioned Josephus in our discourse.  Do you forget how I pointed out that Josephus and other historians from that time fail to mention any of the events in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically regarding the massacre? 

New reply by Apollos:

More of your silent proof nonsense.

If you want to talk about Polycarp and others, would you also give the same credence to Valentinus, Theudas and Basilides? 

New reply by Apollos:

Polycarp was a disciple of John. The Gnostics that you reference held beliefs that were specifically criticized by John and have no chain of history to the disciples. But one can find evidence in their writings that they knew about the Gospel accounts as originally declared by the disciples.

Reply by Apollos:

And how would we confirm if they were telling the truth or not?

Reply by Islamispeace:

Have we not been discussing this?  One of the ways to prove that they were either mistaken or lying is if their claims appear inconsistent.  If Matthew claimed that Hosea 11 was a reference to the Messiah, and subsequent research proves that was not the case, obviously we have damaged Matthew�s reputation.    

New reply by Apollos:

You haven�t proven this at all. You have simply proven he disagreed with rebellious Jews on the interpretation. And as I have sated before, a disagreement on a theological interpretation does not invalidate the history Matthew writes.

Reply by Apollos:

Yes we do � There are several manuscript fragments of the Gospels dated as early 70 A.D. and no later than 125 A.D.

Reply by Islamispeace:

Which ones? 

New reply by Apollos:

Magdalen Papyrus (P64) Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Before 66 A.D

Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D., "could be as early as A.D. 50" Barcelona Papyrus (P67) Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28  Before 66 A.D. Paris Papyrus (P4) Luke 3:23, 5:36 "not much later" than 66 A.D.

Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66) Gospel of John, "near complete" 125 A.D.

John Rylands Greek 457 (P52) John 18:31-33, 37-38 100-125 A.D.

Reply by Apollos:

Please list the primary sources of the Quran? Nothing by Mohammed, correct? Then sticks and stones with words which he couldn�t read, correct? Then after he is dead, others transfer the words to paper, correct? Do you call any of this a primary source? What about the Hadiths?

For third party sources, do you have evidence that corroborates that Mohammed dictated the various writings that later became the Quran? Do you have secular and enemy corroboration of this?

Reply by Islamispeace:

What are you talking about?  Primary sources of the Quran?  The primary source of the Quran is God, of course. 

New reply by Apollos:

This is part of the inconsistency I am referring to. You use the term �Primary Source� one way when referring to the NT and then another way when you refer to the Quran.

Reply by Islamispeace:

I think you misunderstood what I said.  You asked me how I judge the Bible�s accuracy and claims.  I responded that if the Bible makes a claim, for instance about a historical event such as Herod�s plot, I look at other works from that time to see if they also mention any such event.  If they do, chances are that the event in question did occur.  If they don�t, chances are that the event was made up at a later time. 

New reply by Apollos:

This is totally unscholarly and it contradicts an example you gave above and below - in saying a city in the Quran was not corroborated until later archaeology. Did the Quran have a contradiction until the archaeology was done? Of course not.

In the same way, if the Quran makes a claim about a historical event, looking at other works from the time in question would help us to see if the claim was true.  I already gave the example of Nufail ibn Habeeb.  The attack on the Kaaba is historical fact.  The same cannot be said about the Massacre of the Innocents and other related incidents as mentioned by the Gospel of Matthew. 

New reply by Apollos:

So until we find evidence that confirms Matthew�s account these events, we must consider it doubtful and proof of him being unreliable? If there are other events in the Quran that have no corroboration are you willing to call these doubtful as well? You are revealing your inconsistent, arbitrary and unscholarly approach quite well.

Apollos

Islamispeace,

This thread is getting very long yet I think the points we are addressing are only a handful. In an attempt to condense our discussion and allow you to address the fundamentals of my beliefs on the Bible, I offer the below summation of what I believe on why I believe this concerning the Gospels of the New Testament. You can then consider which of your arguments still apply � or present new ones. (If you think it is a needless tangent from your objections please feel free to ignore it. ).

For hundreds of years no one doubted that the Gospel accounts are what they claim to be, eyewitness accounts and quotes from eyewitnesses concerning Jesus of Nazareth. There is no contrary evidence to this claim and all of the evidence we do have from Peter, Paul, James, Jude, the disciples of the Disciples, Jewish history, secular history, early Church members, etc. all confirm that this claim was accepted by the first believers from the onset. The manuscript evidence corroborates this widespread acceptance. The veneration believers had in quoting these writings corroborates this. Regardless of what the Gospel accounts actually say, it is reasonable to assume these writings were authored by the ones the early believers said they were.

(In contrast, Gnostic accounts � written and verbal - that arose many years later were rejected by the John, his disciples, and the Church at large. There is no evidence that the authors they claim wrote their accounts and the Church rejected them from the first.)

The fundamental message that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, that He was crucified and that He rose again is confirmed by the same sources mentioned above. (I am not saying Jewish and secular historians endorsed the message � just that they acknowledged this message even in their attacks). Virtually all historians agree that this fundamental claim arose and existed within days of Jesus� death and the believers who accepted this started and grew in Jerusalem.

There are scholars who reject the truth of this claim or other details of the Gospels but they do so based on apriori presuppositions against the super-natural. They don�t object to Jesus having rose from the dead or walking on water because there is contrary evidence but because they �know� miracles can�t happen. In this way, such scholars aren�t reaching a conclusion about the accuracy of the accounts but an arbitrary presupposition. (This is not an accusation but an observation which they admit to).

Given these things it is clear that the Gospels have all the marks of good history and they satisfy normal historical criteria established by scholars in this field. I do not exclude miracles nor dismiss historical accounts simply because they describe miracles so I don�t demand �extraordinary� evidence as some do. Without this bias, I approach the Gospels as I do any ancient writing and I accept scholarship that approaches the Gospels as they do other ancient writings. Statements are compared to other sources to see if confirmation or disagreement occurs. If there is disagreement, one attempts to determine if there was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts, a mistake or something else. There is no reason to imagine that an apparent problem is automatically a real one or that somehow the Gospels are so inferior that they are the obvious culprit if a disagreement arose.

The fundamental message of these writings explains many of the minor points as well. For example, we know that many people did not accept Jesus as the Messiah so it should be no surprise that Jesus said things that they disagreed with � then and later. If Jesus did rise from the dead, I see Him as having superior credentials than His detractors so I am not concerned about what they say when it comes to different interpretations of TANACH, God, etc. If Jesus did rise from the dead but the eyewitnesses made errors about the number of angels at the tomb, who the first one to see Him was, etc., I see no reason to discount their general claim � that He rose from the dead. (BTW � I don�t think they made errors on details like those mentioned).

I advocate studying the writings, culture and beliefs of those alive during Jesus� time as it helps one to understand many of the idioms, beliefs, etc. that Jesus spoke with or against. For example, knowing that Jesus used and revised a generic Rabbinical story about paradise into one with the specific name of Lazarus the Beggar shows how Jesus used common stories that people were used to; Knowing that Scriptural patterns are important to Jews we better understand why Jesus often said things like: �As Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish, so shall the son of man be in the belly of the earth�, �As it was in the time of Noah, so shall it be when the son of man returns�, etc. By understanding Roman culture, one can see why Rome would execute someone who called Jesus Lord instead of Caesar.

When I read the Gospels in this way, I discover that there are many minors details about Jesus, the culture, etc. but the fundamental message is the one that has significance to me. Each time I dig into the minor points I discover profound corroboration that these accounts are great history but they don�t need to � it just adds depth to the obvious. Far from being blind faith, I base my reasons for believing in Jesus on His resurrection and I base the historicity of that claim on the Gospels and the corroborating evidence. My belief can be refuted with contrary facts � like Jesus� bones being discovered, a tomb that people venerated as His final resting place, etc. Blind faith can not be refuted by such objective things and that is why it is incorrect to call my faith �blind�.

Apollos

Islamispeace,

The following is a tangent from the main topic of this thread but it has to do with the initial objection you had to my assertion that the Jewish perspective places profound significance on patterns. If you recall, you said I was simply imposing Christian concepts on Old Testament passages and events. While I still contend that many allusions to TANACH patterns are shared by Christians and Jews, I admit that Christians see many more patterns in the TANACH than Jews do. But this is not an arbitrary notion and I think it has a profound implication. It permeates the New Testament writings and Jesus Himself provides the precedent for this.

Jesus said "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me�. Spending time with two disciples it is said: �And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.�  Jesus referred to Noah, Jonah and the healing bronze serpent on a pole as patterns that would be fulfilled by His actions. On the final day of a feast where water is poured out on the altar Jesus declared: �If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.� He forced the Jews to arrest Him on a feast day even though they had wanted to avoid this � making his death and resurrection coincide with three of Israel�s seven feasts, a clear reference to these feasts as patterns of His death, sacrifice and resurrection.

Many if not all of these appeals to the TANACH are new and Jesus says this should not be surprising for He brought a �New Covenant�,  new wine that should not be placed in old wineskins, new cloth that should not be sewn into old garments. So it is no wonder that Peter, Paul and others refer to Old Testament in new ways and � they didn�t cover it all. The writer of Hebrews attributes Psa 40:7 to the Messiah when it says: �Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me�. Taking this and Jesus literally we Christians are encouraged to look throughout the Old Testament to see where a pattern, allegory, or allusion to Jesus might be.

Though one can object that this is just imposing Christian beliefs on Old Testament Scriptures, I ask: �Why is it so easy to do this? Why is it so easy to find so many points of agreement on a person or event in the Old Testament when Jesus is read into the story but so difficult when another person is?� In the account of Abraham I described, there are at least seven points of agreement/fulfillment. Can you read Mohammed into the same account and arrive at the same number? One can do the same with the story of Ruth, Joseph, Joshua, Daniel and others. The layout of the camp of Israel formed a cross, the four faces on the Cherubim that show up in several places mirror the four different emphases each Gospel has about Jesus, the names in the first geneaology describe the Gospel message, etc. Why is it so easy to do this only for Jesus?

Apollos

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.44 - New reply by Apollos:

There are many � including myself that believe that Matthew created the first written account of Jesus life and words real-time as he doing them.

But this is not the scholarly consensus, is it?  I will respond further to your claim later.

 Matthew was a tax collector and as such had to know a shorthand form of writing. He could write down quickly verbatim long sermons, etc. and he apparently did since his Gospel has the most lengthy versions of Jesus sermons.

This is nothing but conjecture which provides no historical evidence.  What evidence do you present to prove your contention that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had the ability to ��write down quickly verbatim long sermons��? 

What we call his Gospel is therefore a long hand version he later created or compiled from his short hand version. But let�s say Mark was first written account. It doesn�t mean the same words were being communicated by all the disciples prior to this. In fact there is great evidence that they were. It also doesn�t mean that Mark is less reliable. Third party sources say that Mark penned his account on behalf of Peter who was an eyewitness. I don�t see the problem here at all. The analogy that comes to mind is that if a tabloid was the first publication to tell us about Elvis� death, the claim is somehow false even though we have many other sources that concur.

Third party sources also say that people like Basilides and Valentinus based their teachings on the disciples. 

New reply by Apollos:

Please provide an example of a third party source that claims the Jews responded differently to Jesus� interpretation of this Psalms.

According to Jewish sources, such as Trypho, the Psalm referred to Hezekiah.  This is according to Justin Martyr�s paraphrase of Trypho�s argument.  So, unless the Jews in Matthew�s account were ignorant of traditional Jewish interpretation, there is no way they could not have responded to Jesus� claim, if such a claim was even made.  I agree that if you rely solely on Matthew�s claim, then it would appear that the Jews did not challenge Jesus� interpretation but the traditional Jewish interpretation(s) of the verse in question does differ from what Jesus allegedly claimed.  There is no indication that the person referred to in the verse is the Messiah.  However, I also agree that even the Jewish sources, at least the ones we have seen, do also differ amongst themselves.  The Targums agree that the verse talks about David himself, and not Hezekiah whereas Trypho�s opinion shows that Hezekiah was also a possibility.  But, no where is it shown that some Jews did interpret the verse to refer to the Messiah, even when reading it in an allegorical way.

New reply by Apollos:

If you want to make up rules that say we have to assume Matthew is unreliable and we can only cross-reference what he writes to show contradictions, not consistencies, then I guess by your rules, you are correct: Matthew must be unreliable. But you also don�t want me to quote any source that has come to be part of the New Testament. This is why I suggest looking at your initial presumptions rather than playing games with your arbitrary rules.

I have already pointed out that the other New Testament sources often do not mention the same stories.  So, even if you do want to use the other books, you will not be able to provide much evidence.  Does any other New Testament source like the letters of Paul or the other Gospels mention for instance the massacre by Herod or the Magi�s visit to the Messiah or the trip to Egypt?  The answer is no.  Do they also refer to the same verses in the Old Testament that Matthew did?  The answer is no.  In the absence of corroboration even from the other Gospels, you are forced to continually defend your position by saying that what Matthew said about Jesus is proof of what Matthew said.

New reply by Apollos:

No I didn�t and I think I have clarified this numerous time. I appeal to the Targums to show what Matthew meant by �fulfillment� and what any Jew could employ in interpreting any passage.

So, what you are saying is that any Jew could come up with an interpretation and, according to Jewish theology, that interpretation would be plausible?  So, if a Jew believed that Psalm 110 referred to Muhammad (pbuh) (not saying that it does), would you believe that?  After all, any Jew can employ various interpretative tools to figure out the dual or hidden meanings in the Bible, as you said. 

Is this argument not self-contradictory? If any Jew can interpret the text in a myriad number of ways, would that not mean that any one verse can have multiple meanings, depending on the interpreter?  If that is the case, then how do you determine which is the true interpretation?  Obviously, the �lord� in Psalm 110 cannot be the Messiah, David or Hezekiah at the same time.

Fine.  To me, this means that you do pick and choose.  I am glad we agree.

New reply by Apollos:

Yes

OK.  I respect your opinion, but please understand then that in academic and historical circles, such a position is considered biased (something you have accused me of).  But, I understand that this is a matter of faith.  So let�s get back to Hosea 11.  I still see nothing about the Messiah. 

New reply by Apollos:

I thought we were going to move on. I am ignoring the repetition on this part.

Don�t get finicky.  I was simply responding to what you wrote.

New reply by Apollos:

So are you saying that because third party sources we have in hand are silent on these events, that is proof against them happening? Quite unscholarly and misleading to say this is third party evidence.

The fact is that almost all modern scholars regard the incident to be a concoction, according to Paul Maier.  Consider also the differences in Matthew�s account of Jesus� birth and early days with Luke�s account (the latter being the only other NT text which even mentions Jesus� infancy).  Whereas Luke has the family still in Jerusalem on the 40^th day since his birth, Matthew has them on the run from Herod.  Would Herod have waited that long to try and kill the infant Messiah?  How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him?  Consider also that Luke mentions the census, which he says was done under the reign of Quirinius.  While the census may have taken place, all indications show that Quirinius reigned when Herod Archelaus had succeeded Herod the Great.  The elder Herod, who is the villain in the Gospel narratives, was already dead by that time.  So, how could he have ordered a massacre?

New reply by Apollos:

If Matthew could have been correct, the passages you refer to are not proof that he is incorrect are they? That is what you claimed they were. To say you are not compelled to accept his interpretation is correct or from Jesus is fine but that is not the same as your initial claim.

All indications are, Apollos, that he was incorrect.  I simply said that while you may simply believe he was right because that is what your faith requires, that would not be evidence for a non-Christian, and therefore, you really haven�t proven anything except that you believe Matthew was right not because he necessarily was, but because your faith requires you to believe he was.

New reply by Apollos:

So when you quote Targums, Third Party sources, etc. to prove a particular Jewish belief that is contrary to the New Testament, you don�t really believe that Jewish belief existed either? It seems like you are being inconsistent and disingenuous with what you �prove�.

I quoted the Targums (why are you bringing them back anyway??) to show that your appeal to them was inconsistent!  I thought we were passed this?? 

New reply by Apollos:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

What do you mean?  Even the Bible states that the Jews rebelled against God, even to the point of worshipping idol gods, on several occasions.  So, why is it so surprising that they would have rebelled against God�s chosen Messiah, His servant?

New reply by Apollos:

And you know this because he differed with Jews who were rebellious?

No, because like you, he believed that the Old Testament was inerrant and therefore, it should not disagree with his Christian interpretations. So far, we have seen that it does.  All indications are that Hosea 11 was only referring to the nation of Israel, whereas Matthew claims that it referred to the Messiah.  You, on the other hand, maintain that it referred to both and therefore Matthew was technically right.  All indications are that Psalm 110 was referring to a figure other than the Messiah (either David or Hezekiah according to the Jewish sources we have looked at) and not the Messiah, whereas Matthew claimed that it referred to the Messiah, a claim you have supported.

New reply by Apollos:

Not if part of the teaching in the NT is to correct interpretations of the OT.

Does the New Testament state that?

New reply by Apollos:

I addressed this claim above and below. It is wrong factually and logically.

And I responded above.

New reply by Apollos:

He was quoted by the disciples � who proved their testimony was as reliable as any eyewitness can be. Since this seems to be your foundation, please show why we should doubt that we have their accurate accounts.

I have already mentioned why several times.  There are many reasons. 

New reply by Apollos:

Great � so your best example of �proof� is simply silence. As I mentioned before this is quite unscholarly � and I think it demonstrates how far one has to stretch to concoct a �contradiction�. This is not how history is assessed. There are volumes of events that we have only one source for and unless there is contrary evidence, silence means nothing.

Not my proof, only.  This is the opinion of most modern scholars.  Are you saying that this fact proves nothing?  Also, why is it that the other Gospel narratives, of Mark or John, make no mention of the Nativity story but move straight into Jesus� adult life and ministry?  If those accounts did not mention the stories, and since most scholars believe that Matthew�s account was based on Mark�s, where did Matthew get the story from?  And why did he need to rely on another account if he was Matthew �the disciple of Jesus�? 

What would be your idea of �contrary evidence�?  How would you prove that an event, while widely believed, did not actually happen?

New reply by Apollos:

Your thread here is long enough. I�m not going to another one. Copy and paste the response here if you like but I want to see why these others sources are ignored by you.

Oh come on, Apollos.  You have got to be one of the laziest Christians I have ever spoken to.  �Just kidding!  Here is my response to Believer:

Reply by Apollos:

There are many � including myself that believe that Matthew created the first written account of Jesus life and words real-time as he doing them.

From Islamispeace:

But this is not the scholarly consensus, is it?  I will respond further to your claim later.

New Reply from Apollos:

I don�t know that this is controversial. Matthew was a tax collector and this ability was common to tax collectors. They had to interact with people in Aramaic and translate that into reports for the authorities in Greek.

:

 Matthew was a tax collector and as such had to know a shorthand form of writing. He could write down quickly verbatim long sermons, etc. and he apparently did since his Gospel has the most lengthy versions of Jesus sermons.

From Islamispeace:

This is nothing but conjecture which provides no historical evidence.  What evidence do you present to prove your contention that the author of the Gospel of Matthew had the ability to ��write down quickly verbatim long sermons��? 

New Reply from Apollos:

As I said it is common knowledge among historians that Matthew�s job was one where this skill was common. Compare Matthew�s version of Jesus� sermons to the other Gospels and you will see they are much longer and more detailed. Therefore the �conjecture� is not arbitrary or unfounded.

The way you argue about this point � and others � implies that this is a crucial point. If this is the case and you are prepared to admit defeat if I document and prove my �conjecture�, I will spend the time to do so. But I suspect you just want me to give you a response that you will then say: �It doesn�t matter�. I have not made this assumption a crucial foundation just an aspect that helps explain the background of Matthew.

What we call his Gospel is therefore a long hand version he later created or compiled from his short hand version. But let�s say Mark was first written account. It doesn�t mean the same words were being communicated by all the disciples prior to this. In fact there is great evidence that they were. It also doesn�t mean that Mark is less reliable. Third party sources say that Mark penned his account on behalf of Peter who was an eyewitness. I don�t see the problem here at all. The analogy that comes to mind is that if a tabloid was the first publication to tell us about Elvis� death, the claim is somehow false even though we have many other sources that concur.

From Islamispeace:

Third party sources also say that people like Basilides and Valentinus based their teachings on the disciples. 

New Reply from Apollos:

Third party sources is a vague reference. Do you have writings by Disciples or their disciples or leaders of the Early Church? That is who I am referring to.

Reply by Apollos:

Please provide an example of a third party source that claims the Jews responded differently to Jesus� interpretation of this Psalms.

From Islamispeace:

According to Jewish sources, such as Trypho, the Psalm referred to Hezekiah.  This is according to Justin Martyr�s paraphrase of Trypho�s argument. 

New Reply from Apollos:

You are over a hundred years late with this contrary view.

So, unless the Jews in Matthew�s account were ignorant of traditional Jewish interpretation, there is no way they could not have responded to Jesus� claim, if such a claim was even made.  I agree that if you rely solely on Matthew�s claim, then it would appear that the Jews did not challenge Jesus� interpretation

New Reply from Apollos:

So you have no evidence that Matthew was inaccurate with his account but you presume he wasn�t because some Jews of this time had different opinion about the Psalm quoted?

but the traditional Jewish interpretation(s) of the verse in question does differ from what Jesus allegedly claimed. 

New Reply from Apollos:

But as you admit later, there was not a consensus. Maybe this is why they had no answer to Jesus� question, maybe they were embarrassed that they had contrived such a nonsensical interpretation of it referring to David, who knows? You still have no internal or external evidence that Matthew was inaccurate with his account.

There is no indication that the person referred to in the verse is the Messiah. 

New Reply from Apollos:

I disagree. The passage makes no sense if interpreted the way the Targums suggest. But you and I aren�t arguing our own interpretations on this passage are we? If Jesus said this is what it meant, He is the one to establish what it means. Your objection is therefore � �We know some Jews of that era, thought the Psalm referenced did not refer to the Messiah. I think the Jews Jesus was speaking to accepted one of those views and if Jesus would have posed the question He did to them, they would have answered differently. Therefore Matthew must be lying when he describes what the Jews said and/or what Jesus said.� The problem with this �argument� is that it requires speculation on an assortment of things and there is no contrary historical evidence that these Jews replied differently than Matthew claims. Since there is no evidence that Matthew was historically wrong on anything � you can�t build a case against him based on speculation.

However, I also agree that even the Jewish sources, at least the ones we have seen, do also differ amongst themselves.  The Targums agree that the verse talks about David himself, and not Hezekiah whereas Trypho�s opinion shows that Hezekiah was also a possibility.  But, no where is it shown that some Jews did interpret the verse to refer to the Messiah, even when reading it in an allegorical way.

New Reply from Apollos:

No where except the NT of course.

Reply by Apollos:

If you want to make up rules that say we have to assume Matthew is unreliable and we can only cross-reference what he writes to show contradictions, not consistencies, then I guess by your rules, you are correct: Matthew must be unreliable. But you also don�t want me to quote any source that has come to be part of the New Testament. This is why I suggest looking at your initial presumptions rather than playing games with your arbitrary rules.

From Islamispeace:

I have already pointed out that the other New Testament sources often do not mention the same stories.  So, even if you do want to use the other books, you will not be able to provide much evidence.  Does any other New Testament source like the letters of Paul or the other Gospels mention for instance the massacre by Herod or the Magi�s visit to the Messiah or the trip to">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN>?  The answer is no.  Do they also refer to the same verses in the Old Testament that Matthew did?  The answer is no.  In the absence of corroboration even from the other Gospels, you are forced to continually defend your position by saying that what Matthew said about Jesus is proof of what Matthew said.

New Reply from Apollos:

This is all irrelevant. There are numerous unique details to every independent writing and no one is arguing that any passage you want to focus on has direct corroboration from other sources. But when Paul or Peter endorse all or part of Matthew�s account or Matthew himself, that is pretty good corroboration that we can trust Matthew. That is what you have tried to exclude.

Reply by Apollos:

No I didn�t and I think I have clarified this numerous time. I appeal to the Targums to show what Matthew meant by �fulfillment� and what any Jew could employ in interpreting any passage.

From Islamispeace:

So, what you are saying is that any Jew could come up with an interpretation and, according to Jewish theology, that interpretation would be plausible?  So, if a Jew believed that Psalm 110 referred to Muhammad (pbuh) (not saying that it does), would you believe that?  After all, any Jew can employ various interpretative tools to figure out the dual or hidden meanings in the Bible, as you said. 

New Reply from Apollos:

In a way yes. Any Jew can argue that a passage should be viewed this way but it doesn�t make it automatically correct. The Targums are not infallible. If the Jew comes up with a pattern fulfillment or similar that concludes that God is evil or dumb, etc. that interpretation would be automatically wrong but their appeal to the general aspects of Torah study are acceptable.

Is this argument not self-contradictory? If any Jew can interpret the text in a myriad number of ways, would that not mean that any one verse can have multiple meanings, depending on the interpreter?  If that is the case, then how do you determine which is the true interpretation? 

New Reply from Apollos:

Ask a Jew and I think they will say: �Puzzling areas of the Torah will be clarified someday by the Messiah�. In the mean time they discuss, argue and interpret the Bible the same way scholars do any Holy books.

Reply by Apollos:

So are you saying that because third party sources we have in hand are silent on these events, that is proof against them happening? Quite unscholarly and misleading to say this is third party evidence.

From Islamispeace:

The fact is that almost all modern scholars regard the incident to be a concoction, according to Paul Maier. 

New Reply from Apollos:

Critical (i.e. � anti-supernatural) scholars.

Consider also the differences in Matthew�s account of Jesus� birth and early days with Luke�s account (the latter being the only other NT text which even mentions Jesus� infancy).  Whereas Luke has the family still in Jerusalem on the 40^th day since his birth, Matthew has them on the run from Herod.  Would Herod have waited that long to try and kill the infant Messiah?  How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him?  Consider also that Luke mentions the census, which he says was done under the reign of Quirinius.  While the census may have taken place, all indications show that Quirinius reigned when Herod Archelaus had succeeded Herod the Great.  The elder Herod, who is the villain in the Gospel narratives, was already dead by that time.  So, how could he have ordered a massacre?

New Reply from Apollos:

Matthew differs from Luke in many ways but this does not mean one is wrong. On that basis, we can �prove� both were wrong by each other. You still are arguing from silence. Do you know that is a logical fallacy?

Reply by Apollos:

If Matthew could have been correct, the passages you refer to are not proof that he is incorrect are they? That is what you claimed they were. To say you are not compelled to accept his interpretation is correct or from Jesus is fine but that is not the same as your initial claim.

From Islamispeace:

All indications are, Apollos, that he was incorrect. 

New Reply from Apollos:

You keep repeating this lie. Silence is not an indication or evidence.

I simply said that while you may simply believe he was right because that is what your faith requires,

New Reply from Apollos:

My faith does not require me to believe Matthew on this point. I just see no evidence or reason to doubt it. The only reason you want to doubt it is so you can then use it as �proof� that Matthew is not reliable and then dismiss other passages you don�t like � because your faith requires you to dislike those passages..

Reply by Apollos:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

From Islamispeace:

What do you mean?  Even the Bible states that the Jews rebelled against God, even to the point of worshipping idol gods, on several occasions.  So, why is it so surprising that they would have rebelled against God�s chosen Messiah, His servant?

New Reply from Apollos:

You claimed �

�Those who did accept him in his time did so knowing that he was human and never claimed any divine attributes.�

So again I ask, how did you reach that conclusion?

Reply by Apollos:

And you know this because he differed with Jews who were rebellious?

From Islamispeace:

No, because like you, he believed that the Old Testament was inerrant and therefore, it should not disagree with his Christian interpretations. So far, we have seen that it does. 

New Reply from Apollos:

No, we have seen that the Christian interpretation differs from the Targums � quite different.

Reply by Apollos:

Not if part of the teaching in the NT is to correct interpretations of the OT.

From Islamispeace:

Does the New Testament state that?

New Reply from Apollos:

Yes of course. Read the parts where Jesus calls the Jewish leaders �blind leading the blind�, �white-washed sepulchers�, �hypocrites�, etc.

Reply by Apollos:

Great � so your best example of �proof� is simply silence. As I mentioned before this is quite unscholarly � and I think it demonstrates how far one has to stretch to concoct a �contradiction�. This is not how history is assessed. There are volumes of events that we have only one source for and unless there is contrary evidence, silence means nothing.

From Islamispeace:

Not my proof, only.  This is the opinion of most modern scholars. 

New Reply from Apollos:

Only scholars who reject Matthew based on his �supernatural� comments. And even if he was wrong about this, are you willing to admit he was accurate elsewhere? These types of statements imply that you value what historical scholars conclude � but you don�t. For all scholars conclude Jesus died on the cross and that the Disciples claimed he had risen from the dead. You don�t accept this conclusion do you? I can survive Matthew being wrong on some minor details but you can�t survive if he, and Luke and Mark and John were right about Him dying on the cross.

Are you saying that this fact proves nothing? 

New Reply from Apollos:

The most it does is raise a question. It doesn�t answer the question.

What would be your idea of �contrary evidence�?  How would you prove that an event, while widely believed, did not actually happen?

New Reply from Apollos:

The same way we do with other historical claims. Did contemporaries who read Matthew�s account object to any of it? Why yes, they objected to Jesus being born of a virgin, they objected to calling Jesus the Messiah. But we don�t have accounts that objected to the historical details you refer to. Maybe they were written and maybe some copies will be found someday. Matthew could be proven wrong but instead, each time new things are found, he is vindicated rather than impugned. Does this indicate we should trust him until proven otherwise?

Reply by Apollos:

Your thread here is long enough. I�m not going to another one. Copy and paste the response here if you like but I want to see why these others sources are ignored by you.

From Islamispeace:

Oh come on, Apollos.  You have got to be one of the laziest Christians I have ever spoken to.  �Just kidding!  Here is my response to Believer:

New Reply from Apollos:

I read the exchange and I don�t see how you refuted anything material. You quibbled about a few fine points but we still have numerous secular sources that confirm the core history of Jesus death on the cross and the belief that Christians had that he rose from the dead.

Reply by Apollos:

Polycarp was a disciple of John. The Gnostics that you reference held beliefs that were specifically criticized by John and have no chain of history to the disciples. But one can find evidence in their writings that they knew about the Gospel accounts as originally declared by the disciples.

From Islamispeace:

What evidence do you present that John, the disciple of Jesus (not some other John) criticized the Gnostics or any other belief which contradicted standard Christian theology?    

New Reply from Apollos:

In his letters he addressed the Gnostic heresies that Jesus had not come in the flesh and that he would not return in the flesh. One statement is listed below:

1Jn 4:1  Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1Jn 4:2  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

1Jn 4:3  and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

It has been claimed that both Valentinus and Basilides were students of people who were in turn students of some of the disciples, like Peter.  Valentinus� followers claimed that his teacher, Theudas, was a student of Paul.

New Reply from Apollos:

Not by credible or contemporary people. These were claims made long after the facts could be confirmed. You don�t even believe they were do you? Do you admit that Polycarp and the others I refer to are good third party sources?

You talk about �chain of history.�  What �chain of history� helps you to believe that the disciples of Jesus believed he was divine.  What �chain of history� leads you to believe that Jesus claimed divinity?  

New Reply from Apollos:

A tangent that we should break off. For starters though, Pliny the Younger who documents that early Christians sang hymns to Jesus as if he was a God.

Reply by Apollos:

Magdalen Papyrus (P64) Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Before 66 A.D

Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D., "could be as early as A.D. 50" Barcelona Papyrus (P67) Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28  Before 66 A.D. Paris Papyrus (P4) Luke 3:23, 5:36 "not much later" than 66 A.D.

Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66) Gospel of John, "near complete" 125 A.D.

John Rylands Greek 457 (P52) John 18:31-33, 37-38 100-125 A.D.

From Islamispeace:

However, let us say that it is a fragment of the Gospel of Mark.  So what?  First, it would refute your own contention that the Gospel of Matthew was written first (do you remember making that claim?). 

New Reply from Apollos:

No it doesn�t. Matthew could have been written earlier. Manuscript dating does not equate to the autograph date.

Second, would this fragment be indisputable evidence that the Gospel of Mark was fully in circulation by that time?  Not at all, say most scholars. 

Moving on now to P66:

You gave a date of 125 AD, which even if true, would be well after �John The Evangelist� had died.  But is the date of 125 AD the consensus among scholars?  Once again, every source I referenced gave a date of 200 AD ^{http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html - 4 - http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap66.html - 5} . 

New Reply from Apollos:

I believe the early dates are possible and that is why I included it. It is still quite early.

So, the answer to that question is a resounding �no�.  In addition, if we consider this manuscript �[nearly] complete�, as you put it, why do we find that it lacks the �Pericope de Adultera�, one of the most famous stories in Christian history?  Consider the situation: Here we have the earliest and almost complete manuscript of the Gospel of John (the only Gospel to mention the adulteress story in modern versions of the NT), and it lacks one of the most famous stories in Christendom.  This is very strange, no?  When we consider this revelation rationally, the legend of �let he who is without sin cast the first stone� goes down the drain.

New Reply from Apollos:

If you have studied this you know the reasons why this section is missing from some manuscripts. Consider it an addition or mossion. It doesn�t change the fact that the majority of John is accounted for in an early manuscript.

Finally, we move to P52:

This is the only manuscript that you listed whose date you actually got right, at least when compared to the scholarly consensus.  This is by far the earliest Gospel manuscript, and would put it within 90 years of Jesus� alleged death, and at least 10-15 years after the death of John.  Therefore, what does it prove? 

New Reply from Apollos:

So you first claim there is no such evidence, you try to minimize some of it and then admit that there is manuscript evidence from the first century. Were you deliberately trying to mislead in your initial claim. You owe a real recant here, not an �OK, you have a little evidence�.

I am sorry to say, although not surprised to say it, that your defense of the Gospels� authenticity utterly fails.  There exists no manuscript within 5, 10, 15, or even 50 years of Jesus� ministry and if we consider P52, not within 10 years of the actual disciples� time.

New Reply from Apollos:

So you change your argument to a shorter � arbitrary � time frame. I see. Good ploy for making it look like you were right all along.

Reply by Apollos:

This is part of the inconsistency I am referring to. You use the term �Primary Source� one way when referring to the NT and then another way when you refer to the Quran.

From Islamispeace:

There is an inconsistency if you completely misunderstand my position.  I did not refer to �primary sources� of the Bible. 

New Reply from Apollos:

When I asked what criteria you used for history - including the Bible � you replied:

�I rely on primary sources to investigate the historical claims made by people.�

I understand that the source of the Bible, according to Christians is God.  The �primary sources� I referred to were the third party sources from that time.  In other words, I was referring to primary historical sources (which have nothing to do with the Bible) from the time period in question and then compare their accounts of that time with the Bible�s accounts, hence my comparison of Matthew�s story about the massacre by Herod with historical accounts by Josephus and others.  I used the same analysis with the Quran and even gave you an example.  Where is the inconsistency? 

New Reply from Apollos:

This is simple equivocation � the inconsistency I refer to. It also appears you are using it as a cloak for dismissing anything in the Bible from being a primary historical source.

Reply by Apollos:

This is totally unscholarly and it contradicts an example you gave above and below - in saying a city in the Quran was not corroborated until later archaeology. Did the Quran have a contradiction until the archaeology was done? Of course not.

From Islamispeace:

The fact is that it was known to the Arabs.  Arab accounts in the time of Muhammad and even before acknowledged its existence, so it was not that it was not corroborated, but that it was not accepted by western scholars until quite recently.  In contrast, there is no indication that anyone else was aware of a massacre of infants in the 1^st century, as claimed by the Gospel of Matthew. 

Your lack of comprehension of my arguments astounds me.  Or are you intentionally misconstruing my words?  Or, am I not being clear enough for you?

Reply by Apollos:

So until we find evidence that confirms Matthew�s account these events, we must consider it doubtful and proof of him being unreliable? If there are other events in the Quran that have no corroboration are you willing to call these doubtful as well? You are revealing your inconsistent, arbitrary and unscholarly approach quite well.

From Islamispeace:

Gripe all you want about my alleged �inconsistency�.  The holes in your argument remain unfixed.  The fact is that every reference to specific historical events in the early years of Islam mentioned in the Quran is verified by history.  At least in this regard, the Quran is superior to the Bible. 

New Reply from Apollos:

Well we know that you don�t mean historical events in general because there are many disagreements with other history � especially the death of Jesus. But what do you mean by �events in the early years of Islam�? Do you mean that other history verifies that Mohammed visited the farthest Mosque or the place where the sun sets and rises? These at least aren�t confirmed are they?

It should be pointed out, however, that this does not mean that the other claims made in the Quran are automatically true.  That is a separate issue.

Before I close, let me say again that I am still waiting for the Midrash commentaries that you alluded to before.  Please show me the references.

New Reply from Apollos:

That would be a waste of time akin to our discussions about Targums, etc. When Jewish sources disagree with Christian views you claim they are the correct ones. When they agree you say so what? Lets try to summarize what we have discussed and see if we have agreement on at least our disagreements. Please editteh below if you think I have misrepresented you.

1.       You believe that Matthew and Jesus would not have differed from other Jews on specific beliefs and when we read differently in Matthew, it is proof that Matthew�s account is unreliable.

2.       I believe that understanding contemporary Jewish beliefs during Jesus� life helps one to understand Matthew�s account but if Matthew is correct about Jesus we should not be surprised to see Jesus and Matthew disagreeing with contemporary Jewish beliefs.

3.       I contend that based on manuscript evidence, corroborating history, secondary sources and internal consistencies, there is great reason to consider Matthew�s account a primary source from an eyewitness of Jesus.

4.       You believe there is room to question some aspects of Matthew�s account and these questions make it reasonable to dismiss the overall account.

5.       We both agree that the Quran differs from the current consensus of historical scholarship that Jesus was crucified and His disciples claimed he arose from the dead.

6.       I contend that this point of contradiction between the Quran and the NT is crucial. If Matthew was wrong about Hosea 11, Jesus living in Egypt, Herod killing children, etc. it does not mean that he and the other Disciples were wrong about Jesus being crucified and rising from the dead. If they were wrong about the latter, who cares if they have the rest of their history correct? In the same way, if the Quran is wrong about Jesus dying, it is wrong on the fundamental belief of Christians � the ones it attacks for believing wrong things. Additionally the Quran is supposed to be inspired and perfect. If it is wrong on this point, why should it be accepted on anything else? Considering how you have tried to appeal to secular history, Jewish history, I am most interested in knowing how you defend the Quran in light of this clear contradiction.

Apollos