Isaiah’s Immanuel is not about Jesus
The authors of Matthew and Luke’s genealogies don’t match
Out of Egypt is not a prophecy
Rachel weeping was not for the slaughter of the innocents
He will be called a Nazorean is not in the Bible
Healing on the sabbath incident
Jesus riding a donkey is not in the Old Testament
Judas’ betrayal money not in the Old Testament
Soldiers gambling for Jesus’ clothes not in the Old Testament
The author of the Gospel of Matthew tries to establish Jesus as the Messiah forecasted by the Old Testament by taking verses out of their context from the Old Testament (some which are not even prophecies) and contrive them to "fit" a future Jesus.
These are among the most glaring errors in the bible. Anyone who reads the context of these Old Testament verses will find that they very obviously have nothing to do with a future Jesus.
(Matthew 1:21-23 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
(In the Old Testament verse, Isaiah is trying to give King Ahaz a sign that was to happen during their time period (seven centuries before Jesus) that Judah will not be invaded, this has nothing to do with a future Jesus whatsoever.
Matthew pulls this verse completely out of context to try to make his Jesus birth story look forecasted by the Old Testament. The "virgin" part is also misquoted. The word in the Isaiah verse means a young woman who was not necessarily a virgin. There is a specific Hebrew word for virgin which is not used here)
(Isa 7:14-16 NRSV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
The author of Matthew’s genealogy doesn’t match with the author of Luke’s genealogy story about even who Joseph’s father was (Jesus’ grandfather).
Apologetics will try to say that the Luke genealogy was through Mary, but the Gospel of Luke genealogy specifically says it is through Joseph.
(Both authors make up a genealogy to try to establish Jesus as a descendent of King David and Abraham. The author of Luke’s has it going back to Adam)
(Matthew’s genealogy is descending and Luke’s is ascending)
(Mat 1:15-16 NRSV) … and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
and **Jacob** the *father of Joseph*
the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
(Luke 3:23-24 NRSV) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of
***Joseph son of Heli***,
son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, …
The author of Matthew contrives a story of Herod’s murdering of the babies (there is no historical record of Herod doing this) and making Mary and Joeseph take Jesus all the way to Egypt to escape it, and then having Jesus "called out of Egypt" was a way to try to connect Jesus with the Passover (death of firstborns) and the Exodus (called out of Egypt) and hence again an attempt to connect Jesus with Moses as a liberating Messiah or Joseph Campball’s mystery hero motif.
(Context: An Angel tells Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s murder of children under 2 years old)
(Mat 2:15 NRSV) and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
(Again Matthew rips a quote completely out of context, this time out of Hosea that has nothing to do whatsoever with a future Mary, Joseph, or Jesus, it’s not even a prophecy. It is retroactively talking about Israel’s exodus out of Egypt and their sins afterward)
(Hosea 11:1-2 NRSV) When *Israel* was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more I called them, the more they went from me; *they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and offering incense to idols*.
New Testament context: The author of Matthew has King Herod order the killing of children 2 years and younger in and around Bethlehem. This is recorded nowhere historically. It seems that this would have almost certainly been recorded, had it really happened.
The author of Matthew pulls another verse from the Old Testament to "forecast" the suffering of the parents, but the verse he chooses was about the suffering from a military raid by Nebuchadnezzer at the time it was written, not a prophecy of a future event.
(Mat 2:17-18 NRSV) Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more."
(The Rachel Jeremiah is talking about (Jer 31:15) was the second wife of Jacob. In another bible mistake within Jeremiah’s text, the King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon had conquered her descendant tribes and thus the quote that she is weeping for her children (her descendant tribes). That particular line was conquered a century earlier than Jeremiah, the correct quote would have been Leah weeping for her children).
(Matthew rips that verse out of it’s context and tries to give Jesus a Passover or a Mosaic type episode (Moses was almost killed as a baby by order of a pharaoh) to again try to tie him into an Old Testament)
Another misquote by the author of Matthew:
(Mat 2:23 NRSV) There he (Joseph) made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
(This "quoted verse" is nowhere to be found in the canonized Old Testament)
(There are a few verses in the OT that some apologetics will try to contrive to fit it)
(Judg 13:5 NRSV) for you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor is to come on his head, for the boy shall be a *nazirite*
to God from birth. It is he who shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines."
(This is a prophecy of Samson describing him as a nazirite meaning "one consecrated" or "separated". Notice it has nothing to do with one’s geographical location or residence.
(Isa 11:1 NRSV) A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a *branch* shall grow out of his roots.
(or)
(Zec 6:12 NRSV) say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is *Branch*: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.
(Some fundamentalists will try to say that Nazareth is really "netzer" or branch. Jesus did refer to himself *retroactively* as "the vine" as these are Messianic prophecies (course not for a crucified Messiah but one that will conquer Israel’s enemies and rule, the OT prophesied Messiah never came).
Unfortunately, even if you jump through this hoop to mistranslate netzer to Nazareth, these verses are still not talking about a geographical location as Matthew was)
(Jesus is starting his ministry)
(Mat 8:16-17 NRSV) That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick.
This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases."
(The verse Matthew is misquoting from:)
(Isa 53:4 NRSV) Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.
This is the famous Isaiah 53 of which the Christians and the Jewish people have completely different interpretations for obvious reasons.
The christian interpretation is wrong.
This is not talking about Jesus
This is talking about the "Suffering Servant" which could possibly be Israel personified, a friend of Isaiah’s, Isaiah himself, or an example of or a model of a good "Suffering Servant".
Whoever it is, it is not Jesus who had no children, no riches, and was crucified.
The "Suffering Servant" in this chapter is someone who will see his offspring, live a long life, and divide the riches with the strong as a reward for his suffering. This doesn’t sound like Jesus.
Context: Jesus was supposed to have healed a man’s hand on the sabbath which was against the law of Moses. Yahweh had ordered a man to be stoned to death for just picking up sticks on the sabbath in the Old Testament, the Pharisees were upset.
(Mat 12:14-18 NRSV) But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. When Jesus became aware of this, he departed. Many crowds followed him, and he cured all of them, and he ordered them not to make him known.
This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
This misquote has nothing to do with the situation at hand in this Old Testament verse. There is no mention of the healing, the Pharisee’s meeting, the admonishing the people to be silent, or fleeing the area.)
(And besides all that, again the verses he is ripping out of Isaiah (42:1-4) obviously have nothing to do with a future Jesus.)
(context: Jesus is about to enter Jerusalem, so Matthew sticks him on a donkey to contrive another "prophecy fulfillment")
(Mat 21:4-5 NRSV) This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
(What was really going on in Zechariah (chapter 9 ~333 BCE) is the Jewish people had been waiting hundreds of years for their conquering Messiah to show up and liberate them from Persian empires when Alexander the Great shows up to steal the conquering Messiah’s thunder and take the region. They then changed their prophecy to say that the Messiah will ride in peacefully and *rule*. This was to happen 300 years before Jesus. That Messiah never showed up either, they just exchanged Persian rule for Greek rule for a while)
(This again has nothing to do with a future *sacrificed* Messiah but a soon coming (~333 BCE) ruling Messiah)
(context: The author of Matthew specifically has Judas’ business dealings for the betrayal of Jesus to set up for his next prophecy contrival in detail. He dickers for 30 pieces of silver.
Matthew has him come down with a sudden attack of conscious when he finds out Jesus is to die and he goes to the chief priests in the temple and Matthew has him say:)
(Mat 27:4-9 NRSV) …, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
(Matthew has the priests agree that the money is blood money so they used it to buy a "potters field" which today means a beggar’s cemetery)
(Mat 27:8-9 NRSV) For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price,
(The Jeremiah scriptures are talking about an event (at the time of Jeremiah) where God "tells him" that his cousin Hanamel is going to sell him a field. The "fulfillment" of that prophecy is in the next sentence, not hundreds of years later)
(Jer 32:6-9 NRSV) Jeremiah said, The word of the LORD came to me: Hanamel son of your uncle Shallum is going to come to you and say, "Buy my field that is at Anathoth, for the right of redemption by purchase is yours." Then my cousin Hanamel came to me in the court of the guard, in accordance with the word of the LORD, and said to me, "Buy my field that is at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, for the right of possession and redemption is yours; buy it for yourself." Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD. And I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel, and weighed out the money to him, *seventeen* shekels of silver.
(Matthew again rips this verse completely out of context to try to make it appear to apply to a different situation in a different time period than it was intended for in the Old Testament.
(context: Some soldiers had just nailed Jesus up. Jesus is hanging on the cross)
(Mat 27:35 *KJV only*) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
(The verse Matthew is taking out of context this time is Psalms 22:18)
(Psa 22:18 KJV) They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
(This Old Testament verse is not a prophecy, it is a lament. If we read on we see that this is another error by the author of Matthew)
(Psa 22:20-22 NRSV) Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion!
(notice the context changes here (unlike Jesus) and this person is "rescued")
From the horns of the wild oxen you have **rescued me**.
I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters; in the midst of the *congregation* I will praise you:
(The rest of the Psalm is a the continuation of thanksgiving for being rescued)
among the authors who do not mention the slaughter of the innocents is Josephus, the Jewish historian who despised Herod, and listed his crimes and atrocities in revolting detail. If he knew of the incident, he would certainly have mentioned it, and he had every facility for knowing about it.
You could mention of Luke’s Nativity story. He has Mary conceiving Jesus during Herod’s reign, and giving birth during Quirinius’s census (Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register). Since Herod died 4 BCE and the census didn’t occur until 6 CE, Mary was pregnant with Jesus for ten years. I don’t understand why this Christmas miracle doesn’t get more play.
Check it out.
His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinus. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinus was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of the Lord’s birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria, he is called the governor, which he was, de jure, “of” Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord’s birth (Luke 2:2), a ‘taxing’ (R.V., ‘enrolment;’ i.e., a registration) of the people was ‘first made;’ i.e., was made for the first time under his government. …(Luke 2:2; R.V., ‘enrolment’), ‘when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,’ is a census of the people, or an enrolment of them with a view to their taxation. The decree for the enrolment was the occasion of Joseph and Mary’s going up to Bethlehem. It has been argued by some that Cyrenius was governor of Cilicia and Syria both at the time of our Lord’s birth and some years afterwards. This decree for the taxing referred to the whole Roman world, and not to Judea alone.