Nox really wasn’t fooling around with this one! It’s that time again, folks: Prepare to be educated about the buybull and what’s wrong with it (except if you’re Daniel, who also has a giant Biblical brain). Take it away, Nox:
If Matthew (assuming for a moment that the author of Matthew is the same person as the apostle Matthew) did not meet Jesus until Matthew 9:9, how was he able to create such a detailed transcription of the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5,6, & 7 (one of the 3 longest red letter passages anywhere in the 4 gospels)? And how does he know what Herod said to the jewish priests, or what the angel said to Joseph, or what the Devil told Jesus in the wilderness?
Even after Matthew hooks up with Jesus, the book tells us that Matthew was not with Jesus during the trial, the crucifixion, the transfiguration, or all those private talks Jesus had with Peter, James and John. The popular christian answer to this question is that “Matthew” and the other biblical authors were working under the inspiration and guidance of the holy spirit. But if this were the case, I have to wonder, why does Matthew get so much sh*t wrong?
Right out of the gate the first words in the first gospel are a bastardized reading of the old testament. Matthew devotes the first 17 verses of his first chapter to a genealogy (of Joseph for some reason) which retells a genealogy from 1st Chronicles 10 except it leaves out 4 generations of the Chronicles genealogy. Immediately after this Matthew (1:22) tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin and that this was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.
But if you read Isaiah 7, Jesus is absolutely ruled out of this prophecy. In fact Isaiah makes it very clear that the prophesied child would be born 600 years before Jesus (according to Isaiah 8, he was and his name was Mahershalalhashbaz). The “prophecy” in this case was not even that the virgin would conceive, the young woman conceiving was meant to be a sign of the prophecy. The prophecy itself was that King Ahaz of Judah would be successful in an upcoming battle (according to 2nd Chronicles 28, Ahaz lost that battle and was killed in the aftermath).Right after this (Matthew 2:5) we get another fulfilled prophecy. Herod asks the priests where the messiah is to be born and they quote Micah 5:2 to him stating that he is to be born in Bethlehem. The 5th chapter of Micah does make mention of Bethlehem, but clearly states that the person who fulfills this prophecy must be a military leader. According to Micah this promised redeemer “shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian”.
By the time Jesus arrived, the Jews were a lot more worried about Romans than Assyrians. The next 2 prophecies come back to back in Matthew 2:15-18 claiming that Jesus living in Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 which is not a prophecy but a past tense statement about the Jewish exodus from Egypt (“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”). 3 verses after this Matthew tells us that Jeremiah 31:15 is a prediction of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents.
Jeremiah seems to think differently, and if one reads the chapter in question he is quite explicit that this is a description of the Jewish exile in Babylon (see the book of Daniel). In Matthew 2:23 we are told that Joseph moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene”. This one is not a mere misunderstanding. There is absolutely nowhere in the old testament that anyone is called a Nazarene, nor is it predicted anywhere that someone will later be called a Nazarene.
It is either a made up prophecy or it is attempting to quote Judges 13:5 where an angel tells Samson’s parents that their child (Samson, not Jesus) will be a Nazarite (Not even close to the same thing as a Nazarene). There are a couple dozen more of these scattered throughout the 4 books. Every one of them falls apart when you read the passage it claims to be quoting from.”
Thanks again to Nox for the serious amount of wor and research that went in to his giant wall of text; I wish I could say that it inspired an original response from NAoC, but alas it hasn’t yet.
More to follow….