One of the most deceptive things written in the New Testament
was written by the author of Matthew when he took a small section
of Isaiah chapter 7 and attempted to show the birth of Jesus as
the fulfillment of a prophecy.
Matt 1:20-23
But after he(Joseph) had considered this, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David,
do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is
conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to
a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will
save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord
had said through the prophet:
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth
to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means,
"God with us."
The author of Matthew is saying that Mary's "virgin"
birth of Jesus would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
The actual verse which the author of Matthew attempts to
manufacture a prophecy fulfillment out of doesn't say a virgin
would conceive nor does Isa 7:14 have anything to do with Jesus.
Isa 7:14(RSV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young
woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Imman'u-el.
The author of Matthew was trying to retrofit Jesus into a
prophecy about a child who was to be born and called the name
Immanuel. This tactic is called manufacturing a prophecy
fulfillment and the author of Matthew was a master at doing it.
He was a master of deception.
One of the problems with this is that the prophecy given by
Isaiah was already fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus ever
arrived on earth.
The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for
king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be
invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14 is put
back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out
of.
Isa 7:10-16
Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
"Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or
high as heaven."
But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD
to the test."
And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little
for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young
woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Imman'u-el.
He shall eat curds and honey when 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.
This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9.
Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people
would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9
And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; the king of Assyria
marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people
captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin.
The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and
the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his
people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of
Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it.
The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one
verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to
give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.
There are many problems associated with the deliberate
misapplication of Isa 7:14 by the author of Matthew and this
essay will focus on investigating the particular problem that
Mary never called the name of her child Immanuel as required by
the prophecy, but instead called him Jesus.
Here is the prophecy about Jesus according to the author of Luke:
Luke 1:30-31
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you
have found favor with God.
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and
you shall call his name Jesus.
Note: Mary's child was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.
And Jesus he was actually called. Not Immanuel.
How do Christians get around this huge problem?
They try to find ways to concoct a rationalization, any
rationalization, that will satisfy the requirement that Mary
would call and name her child Immanuel as stipulated by the
prophecy.
The following is an example of what they try to do, which was
taken from an internet debate I had with a Christian apologetic
writer called Tim E.
This particular believer opens the debate by warning skeptics
about reading the Bible improperly:
[Christian Tim E wrote:
You(skeptics) really need to stop reading into the Bible what you
want to.]
Note: Please keep the above warning in mind as Tim E.
spins his rationalization of the problem.
Brad wrote:
It is no more honest to claim that Jesus was the Immanuel who
fulfilled Isa 7:14 than it would be to claim Jesus was the
Ishmael who fulfilled of Gen 16:11. According to Biblical
evidence, Jesus was never called the name Immanuel as required by
the prophecy, nor is the prophecy about Jesus in the first place.
The text of Luke 1:31 says Mary would call his name Jesus.
The text of Isa 7:14 says the woman would call his name Immanuel.
Show within the Biblical text where Mary(or anyone else) called
or named Jesus Immanuel.
[Christian Tim E. replied:
Even today He is called Immanuel. I call Him that and I know a
lot of other people that do too.]
Brad wrote:
You can call him Moses if you want to Tim. I stated that
according to the Biblical evidence Jesus was never called
Immanuel and it's not honest to do and then claim he was the
Immanuel of Isa 7:14 unless you want to rewrite the prophecy.
[Christian Tim E.wrote:
Which is not true. It is just not recorded the way that you would
like for it to be recorded.
When someone says, "Surely you are the Son of God."
They are saying "God with us." Immanuel.]
Brad wrote:
Show that from the Biblical text Tim. Don't just assert based on
your theological speculations of what calling someone might mean.
Demonstrate from the text that:
"When someone says, "Surely you are the Son of
God." They are saying "God with us."
Immanuel."
Show where Mary called the name of her child Immanuel.
For that matter, show where anyone in the New Testament called
Jesus the name "Immanuel."
[Christian Tim E. then posted the following verse as his proof:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God.]
Brad wrote:
There is nothing about Jesus being called or named Immanuel in
this entire verse.
The term "the Son of God" is not equated to Immanuel in
this verse. You've simply speculated that the term "Son of
God" means the same as Immanuel because it suits your needs
and is the only way you can rationalize the problem away.
I'm not interested in your speculations Tim.
You need to demonstrate from within the actual Bible text
that your speculation is valid.
At this point Christian Tim E. simply repeats what he said
before.
[Christian Tim E wrote:
Immanuel means God with us. Jesus is called Immanuel by lots of
people. Including me.
It means God with us. Calling Jesus the Son of God, or Christ
means God with us.]
Note: This is a wonderful illustration of how the mind of
a believer can work.
They are utterly incapable of proceeding outside the limits of
their programming and will simply repeat what they previously
said when they are asked to support their assertions.
In Tim's indoctrinated mind, calling Jesus "the Son of
God" is the same as calling him "Immanuel".
And so, according to Christian Tim, Jesus was called Immanuel
after all.
That is the way he solves the problem of Jesus not being called
Immanuel by Mary or anyone else.
Of course, Christian Tim E. hasn't supported his assertion from
the Biblical text.
He ignored the request to do that and simply made an argument by
assertion and didn't bother to provide evidence that his
assertion is valid.
The rationalization used by Christian Tim E. is exposed as a
failure by looking at what the New Testament scriptures actually
say "the Son of God" means.
Brad wrote in response to Tim's claim:
You haven't established, using the Biblical text, that Jesus was
ever called or named Immanuel by Mary as required by the
stipulation of the prophecy, or that he was called or named
Immanuel by anyone else.
All you have done is to assert that calling Jesus the "Son
of God" is the same as calling him Immanuel.
You haven't demonstrated using the scriptures, that "the Son
of God" means Immanuel.
All you've done is assert and speculate that it does, which is
why your attempted rationalization doesn't reconcile the problem.
You stated:
"Calling Jesus the Son of God, or Christ means God with
us."
No it does not. You invented that definition Tim.
The term "the Son of God" as used in the New Testament
doesn't equate to the name Immanuel or the term "God with
us".
It equates to an expected king Messiah or Christ which would
follow the line of king David, sit on his throne, and usher in an
era of restoration and prosperity for Israel. (which Jesus failed
to do )
John 1:49
Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you
are the King of Israel."
Matt 26:63
…..The high priest said to him, "I charge you under
oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ(king
Messiah), the Son of God."
John 11:27
"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are
the Christ(king Messiah) the Son of God, who was to come into the
world."
Luke 4:41
Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are
the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow
them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ(expected king
Messiah).
You've done exactly what you told skeptics not to do.
You told skeptics:
"You really need to stop reading into it(the Bible) what
you want to."
None of these verses say that Jesus was "the Son of
God" , the Immanuel.
Nor is there any reason why they would.
The word Christ(Messiah) and the name Immanuel are not
interchangeable just because you want them to be.
The word Christ does not mean "God with us", it simply
means anointed or messiah.
Immanuel wasn't an expected king Messiah nor did Isaiah ever
imply such a thing.
As Isa 7:14 clearly states, the mother of this child would call
his name Immanuel as a sign for king Ahaz and his people that God
was with them and they wouldn't be invaded by two rival kingdoms.
It wouldn't do Ahaz a bit of good to have Isa 7:14 fulfilled
hundreds of years after he was dead.
Isaiah 7 isn't messianic and the Isa 7:14 prophecy was fulfilled
hundreds of years before the author of Matthew ever decided to
lift a piece of Isa 7 out of context and apply it to Jesus in an
attempt to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment to lend credibility
to his virgin birth story.
The term "the Son of God", as used in the New
Testament, refers to an expected king Messiah and has nothing to
do with the Immanuel in Isa 7:14, and Isa 7:14 has nothing to do
with Jesus.(end)
Note: The type of dishonesty exhibited by Christian Tim E.
is not unusual. It's one of the tools of standard Christian
indoctrination procedures. They will claim that Jesus was the
only person who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and then tell
people unfamiliar with the Bible to read the Gospel of Matthew to
see how Jesus did so.
Christian advertising in this matter is nothing more than
circular logic, misapplied scripture, and deceptive
rationalizations all dressed up as the inerrant word of God.
Millions of people take the bait and they swallow it hook, line,
and sinker. Then they go out and aggressively try to persuade
others to do the same, often telling potential converts that if
the don't accept Jesus as their Lord, they will go to hell. This
isn't a healthy religion folks. It's very, very ill.
Christians who maintain that the Bible is inerrant are required
to make all Bible scriptural inconsistencies and contradictions
disappear if the Bible is to be the word of God.
Christian Tim E. is stuck with what the author of Matthew did and
Tim E. had to find a way to make a lie become truth. Rather than
admit the obvious, Christian Tim E. decided to invent an
explanation, ignore the request to back up his assertion with
scriptural evidence and then pretended he had resolved the
dilemma in an honest manner.
The lengths that believers have to go to and the type of
dishonesty they have to engage in to maintain that the Bible has
no errors serves to highlight how flawed the Bible is.
When maintaining a perception becomes more important than
reality, integrity is dead and buried.
-- BACK --