I understand that all the supposed OT “prophecies” of being fulfilled by Jesus from like that from gospel of Matthew, are false fulfilments.
For instance, when I read the bible as a teenager (I was15, when I read it), like Jesus’ birth, I had believed in the author’s claim that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, as the author stated in
Matthew 1:22-23:
And church teachings alway agree with this gospel’s false fulfilment, including JW.
Im·manʹu·el means "With Us Is God". Jesus did indeed fulfill Isaiah's prophesy as he was born of a maiden and God was with his people through their Messiah. But he is not the only" Immanuel".
Matthew 1:22-23 was the first passage that I disagree with, when I re-read the whole chapters in 2000 (I was 34 then),
Matthew 1 and cross-checking it with
Isaiah 7 (not just 1 verse, but the complete chapter).
Back then, as a teenager, I apparently didn’t do much cross-checking with the bible, so I took the gospel author of Matthew at its face value.
Re-reading
Matthew 1 together with
Isaiah 7, in 2000, was really my first clue to as why Bible and the authors to the gospels shouldn’t be.
Matthew’s author only quoted a single verse from Isaiah (7:14), but the complete sign of Isaiah is 7:14-25, hence to the very last verse...BUT the core sign relating to the child is
Isaiah 7:14-17, read as follow:
Matthew’s sign is missing 3 crucial verses from Isaiah, relating to Immanuel.
"In view of the circumstances under which the prophecy was given, Bible commentators have looked for an “Immanuel” in Isaiah’s day, one who fittingly served then as a sign that ‘God was with them.’ In that eighth century B.C.E., Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, were bent on overthrowing Ahaz, king of Judah, in order to put the son of Tabeel upon his throne. (
Isaiah 7:1-6) Jehovah, however, remembered his kingdom covenant with David, the forefather of Ahaz, and sent his prophet with the reassuring message of Isaiah 7:13-16."
By reading all 4 verses -
Isaiah 7:14-17, I now know that the author of Matthew was wrong regarding the sign:
- That Isaiah’s sign (7:14-17) had nothing to do with the messiah.
- That the woman (Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23) has nothing to do with Mary.
- That the sign has to do with virgin birth is a false interpretation.
- That Immanuel isn’t Jesus.
- That Jesus didn’t fulfil the sign as stated Isaiah 7:14-17, because Jesus isn’t that child.
Isaiah 8:1-4 verified that the child wasn’t Jesus, because the sign of Immanuel had to with the war between Judah and the Israel-Aram alliance:
And Immanuel reappeared in 8:5-10, relating to the war, and to Assyria.
"...after telling about the birth of Isaiah’s second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the prophecy next describes how the threat to Judah would be removed. As an irresistible flood, the Assyrians would completely inundate Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, not stopping until they had dangerously spread over the land of Judah, even “to fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!” Then...the prophet Isaiah warns all those in opposition to Jehovah: If you gird yourselves for war, if you plan out a scheme, if you speak a word against Jehovah—“it will not stand, for
God is with us [Immanuel]!” (
Isaiah 8:5-10)
Of Isaiah’s second son, it was said: “Before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria.” (
Isaiah 8:1-4) Certainly this echoes what was said about Immanuel: “Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings [of Damascus and Samaria] you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.” (
Isaiah 7:16) Also, the birth of Isaiah’s second son is presented in close connection with the further prophecy involving Immanuel and, as Immanuel was to be a “sign,” so also Isaiah said: “I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as
signs.”—
Isaiah 7:14; 8:18.
Additionally, Isaiah’s wife is spoken of as “the prophetess,” not as “the maiden,” as well as the fact that she was already the mother of Isaiah’s firstborn, Shear-jashub, hence not a “maiden.” (
Isaiah 7:3; 8:3) It may be noted, however, that the Hebrew word here translated “maiden” is not
bethu·lahʹ, meaning, specifically, “virgin,” but is
ʽal·mahʹ, having a broader reference to a young woman, who could be either a virgin maiden or a recently married woman.
ʽAl·mahʹ as a common noun also occurs in other texts, more than one of which specifically involves virgin maidens.
(Genesis 24:43; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19)
If there seems to be a conflict between the angel’s instructions to Mary (“you are to call his name Jesus”) and Isaiah’s prophecy (“she will certainly call his name Immanuel”), let it be remembered that Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. (
Luke 1:31; Isaiah 7:14) For example,
Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified....with his title Immanuel, he measured up to and fulfilled its meaning."
Excerpts taken from
Immanuel — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Matthew 1 & 2 misuses of OT prophecies (eg massacre of Bethlehem, return from Exile in Egypt) were my first step towards agnosticism, so it had nothing to do with evolution vs creation, or with atheism.
The New Testament and Christian teachings of messiah are their own worse enemy.
I believe that you have misinterpreted and misunderstood what you have read.
I am even hearing a sad kind of resignation in your words. I get the feeling that you really want to believe, but something is preventing you.
If you were attached to a church in your youth, can I ask if you ever had a real relationship with God? Most people I have spoken to, don't. "Church" is more a duty to perform rather than a way to connect personally with the Creator. Once you experience this, you can never doubt again.
If we reject the only recourse we have from God to gain everlasting life and find real meaning to our existence, where does that unbelief leave us? What future can we anticipate?
Are you really sure that abandoning belief in God is what you want to do? I can see how you arrived at your conclusions but can I ask how you feel that you are better off in doing so?
What have you to gain as compared to what you have to lose? If seeds of doubt were planted...who planted them?
We all have to weigh these things up and we all have to have faith in something. Who or what do you have faith in now?
In the uncertainty of this world, I love the security of knowing that someone way stronger than myself is looking out for me. I can't rely on science or man to do that.
