hidden hypocrisy in kuffar opposition

i'm sure you can imagine presenting this to a Christian (without the accusation of hypocrisy, having the goal to prove it)
after you present it they might try to get a few steps ahead of you and disengage, this is a common response. if they stay sincere and engaged with it, ask if they think the Qur'an commits this (i.e. rejecting the "fulfilled prophecy of the rising from the third day dead") with what it says of the Messiah
affirm, instead, that the Qur'an does not do this (lie against previous scriptures/messengers) but rather confirms them & that they (Christian interlocutor) are therefore agreeing to this being a problem with the New Testament (NT) if it is established that the NT does this
if they follow with this accusation (that you are implicitly accusing them of being hypocritically against that false premise of the Qur'an lying against the Tanakh/Messiah), then explain that you're going to prove this accusation to them, after you demonstrate the form of the proof (and its falsification test) via a hypothetical violation being falsified.

for example (a different example, not the hypothetical violation and its falsification):

if I said that I had a magic wand that would make a "ding!" noise when pointed at someone not married, (that "ding!" would translate to "says they are not married!"
and I point it to someone that is 100% married,
and I can prove they're 100% married,
it would falsify the claim about the magic wand if the wand makes a "ding!" noise for them — showing it to be a faulty magic wand.

having that example made, and moving to demonstrating the hypothetical violation (of the NT) and its falsification test:
if I said that "the New Testament accuses the Messiah of lying against the Tanakh in Matthew 4:4 (Mat4:4)".
then, in this case, to prove that the NT in Mat4:4 is not accusing the Messiah of lying against the Tanakh, you would have to show that the Tanakh is not being contradicted.

that is, Mat4:4 would be the "ding!", and if I proved 100% that the Tanakh does not agree with Mat4:4, then the NT is a faulty magic wand.
but if you proved that Mat4:4 DOES agree with the Tanakh, and Tanakh is not being contradicted, then you would falsify my claim against the NT for this verse.

in this case, Deuteronomy 8:3 would agree and show that the Tanakh is not being contradicted by Mat4:4, and falsify the claim.

At this point, if they are following along and have no objections so far, or even if you can get them to [understand] falsify[ing] that hypothetical (claim against Mat4:4) and show the general claim is falsifiable, then they have been set up by falsehoods (pauline passion propagandas), to be set down by the truth.

from this point we make the claim, "it is not Mat4:4, since we said that was hypothetical. we make this claim with much of the narrative, such as Luke 24:46"

attached shows the picture, in Mat4:4/Lu24:46, the word "it is written" is used in each for something that is written in the Tanakh
I think that it is well apparent, these individuals will simply never be able to produce such a quotation that is allegedly written in the Tanakh! it is a lie against the Tanakh, attributed to the Messiah.

further, we know this lie inserted onto the lips of the Messiah is saying the Tanakh says "**the Messiah** will .... and rise..." — and this is a smoking gun that it is a lie, because from the quotation that I just produced, the words necessary ("the Messiah") for the phrase to be, are completely absent from the Tanakh, and so the phrase must be absent.

I am telling you this because it is effective, and the reason why it is effective is because these passion innovations were specifically targeted to be emotionally charged by their intended audience — an audience ignorant of the Tanakh and its understanding of the Messiah that its carriers held with it — so emotionally charged by the claim of the fulfillment, that their attachment would be put in place of the "original" prophecy, to ***personally*** justify it.

when they see that they never actually confirmed this claim, they just really wanted it to be true, and that it is an overt contradiction, they either admit that they've been duped into accepting this (and this can have them infuriated with religion in general), or they attempt to cope with this contradiction in ways that are ultimately contrived, conjectural, and following of assumptions.