Jesus' Birth Fulfilment of prophecies?

Question

The Gospels indicate that Jesus' Birth was the fulfilment of prophecies made by Who and from Where?

This is a question on a Christmas Quiz so need 1 answer

Answer 1

Here is one, there are many.......

Isaiah prophesied hundreds of years before Christ.

Isaiah 7:14, what the saviour would be called.

He would be called “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”

Answer 2

Gen. 49:10 Born of the tribe of Judah Matt. 1:2-16;
Luke 3:23-33;
Heb. 7:14

Ps. 132:11; From the family of David Matt. 1:1, 6-16;
Isa. 9:7; Matt. 9:27; 15:22;
Mic. 5:2 Born in Bethlehem Luke 2:4-11; John 7:42

Isa. 7:14 Born of a virgin Matt. 1:18-23;
Luke 1:30-35

Jer. 31:15 Babes killed after Matt. 2:16-18
his birth

Hos. 11:1 Called out of Egypt Matt. 2:15

Answer 3

fortuitously, the Bible incorporates 1000's of prophesies; maximum of that have come to pass with magnificent accuracy. all of us understand the Bible to be the made of God and not the paintings of guy as in user-friendly terms the Lord might have made such long term predictions and not guy. with reference to the beginning of the Messiah, we be conscious that His beginning exchange into foretold some 730+ years until now the form that He could be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2). on the time this prophesy exchange into made, Bethlehem exchange right into a almost unparalleled place because it exchange into basically those days settles by potential of a undeniable guy who went there to ascertain it and as almost no person had even heard of it, the Bible describes it as "Bethlehem Ephratah" Ephrathah exchange into the district wherein Bethlehem exchange into to be placed. on the time of the beginning of the messiah, Bethlehem in user-friendly terms had a inhabitants of 500 - six hundred people and alter into no longer often the placement the place one might have predicted a King to be born. Even the circumstances under which Joseph and Mary got here approximately to be there on the time have been ironic because it exchange into all a factor of the Lord's plan to have His will finished. God bless!

Answer 4

Isaiah 7: 14 prophesied that he would be born of a vigin.
Micah 5: 2 prophesied that he would be born in Bethlehem.

Daniel 9:25 prophesied that the messiah would arrive 69 weeks(of years) after the word going out to rebuild Jerusalem. This was in the 20 year of king Artaxerxes in 455 BCE. 69 weeks(of years) takes us forward to 29CE, the year Jesus was baptized and anointed with holy spirit by his father.

Answer 5

Hi.....

The 'messiah' was Horus of the Ancient Egyptians!

He vowed to return, to put order to chaos and was awaited for, for thousands of years!

This element, in the 'new' Judaic religion, was taken out of Egypt with the exodus and changed later, to represent someone of their own religion/creed.

Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Judaic version of the 'messiah' requirement, although the majority of Jews contested his 'divinity'!!

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have their most basic religious roots and belief system, firmly rooted in Ancient Egypt!!!!

Answer 6

Prophecies by OT prophets

Answer 7

Isaiah 9:6 is one place in which His birth was predicted.

Answer 8

The Old Testament prophets.

Answer 9

read genesis, when God speaks to adam and eve about our saviour being born of a woman's seed.

Answer 10

Actually that is incorrect.


ARE THE PROPHETS REFERRING TO JESUS?

Matthew 1:22-23 ~ Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophets saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and she shall call him Emmanuel."

Isaiah 7:14 ~ Behold! The young woman is with child. She shall bear a son whom she will name, Immanuel.

The virgin birth is a fundamental teaching of almost all Christian denominations. But can it be believed? First, the word "virgin," as it appears in Matthew is incorrectly translated. Other Bibles such as the New English Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the Jerusalem Bible give no credence to a virgin birth. There are four points worth noting as we compare the original Hebrew with the English translation of the KJV.

First, the source is written in the present tense - "the young woman is with child." Not "a young woman will conceive and bear a child" as it is recorded in Matthew. When Isaiah uttered those words, the young woman referred to was already pregnant. It is something that has already happened not that will happen some seven hundred years in the future.

Second, according to Isaiah the child's name is to be Immanuel. Yet in both Matthew (1:25) and Luke (1:31) the angel tells them to call the child Jesus. So, Isaiah was obviously referring to an altogether different individual.

Third, the source specifically says, "The young woman" whereas KJV and other versions change the text to say "a virgin." The definite article, the, has been changed to the indefinite article, a. The original is evidently referring to someone known to both Isaiah and King Ahaz, to whom the prophecy is addressed.

Fourth, there are a number of verses found in the Old Testament where alma is used to describe a woman who is in fact a virgin. Such verses are used by Christian fundamentalists (a.k.a Fundies) to substantiate their beliefs that alma actually means virgin. To examine their claim, however, we have to consult the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43). From the context of these passages, it is clear that the alma in question is indeed a virgin. It should be pointed out, however, that in the Hebrew culture alma refers to a girl or young woman regardless of whether or not she is a virgin as we understand that word to mean today. When a woman is no longer young she looses her right to be called alma. Alma can be a young woman who is indeed a virgin or she can be a young woman who is no longer a virgin. The way alma is used in Isaiah can only tell us that she is a young woman who is pregnant, and therefore, no longer a virgin. If the prophet believed that the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 had conceived a child without the aid of a man and without loosing her virginity and if this incredible event was to be a sign, then he would have used the word "betula" which in Hebrew mean virgin as that word is understood in modern English. If he had said, "The 'alma' (young woman) who is also a 'betula' (virgin) is with child," no one would have misunderstood.

Some insist that betula does not mean a virgin; it means just the opposite - a married woman. This is the result of their faulty understanding of two verses in the Old Testament. The first is Joel 1:8 where it reads, ."..lament like a betula girded with sack cloth for the husband of her youth." In Genesis 24:16 betula is used to describe Rebecca, but it is qualified with, ."..neither hath any man known her." Fundies say that if the common understanding of betula is virgin, then the coda, neither had any man known her, would not have been needed.

Both of these claims can be easily refuted. The passage in Joel is simply saying that a virgin is weeping for a husband. The betula is weeping because she hasn't (and apparently will never have) a husband. In the other passage, the latter part of the verse is there simply to amplify the fact that Rebecca was indeed a virgin as well as to amplify the first part. The fact that Rebecca, mentioned in Genesis 24:16, says that she was a betula obviously means that she had never had sexual relations with a men. In the concordance there are at least fifty entries for betula, and in all cases they refer to a virgin. What is more, they are translated in all Christian Bibles as meaning virgin. Why then is "betula" not used to describe the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 if we are to believe her to be a virgin?

Some Fundies try to prove that alma means virgin by referring to the Greek Septuagint. If, however, "parthines" means a virgin, then there are problems in explaining Genesis 34:3 where the Septuagint calls Dinah a parthines. Dinah was definitely not a virgin. Yet, the Greek word parthines is used.

Concerning Isaiah 7:14, all the prophet is saying is that the child, soon to be born, will be a sign to King Ahaz. The sign related directly to the military situation then confronting him. The meaning is clear if the passage is read in context, and in its own historical setting. Second Kings 16:1-10 explains how the sign was given in its time to that particular king.

Despite the fact that Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that the baby's name will be Immanuel, Findies continue to claim that the reference is to Jesus. They even go on to say that Isaiah 9:6 is also referring to Jesus. If that is to be believed then what is the reason for the sudden name change from Immanuel to Pele-yo'ez-el-gibbor-aviad-sar-shalom? And why was not Jesus given either of these names?


Matthew 2:5-6 ~ When the wise men inquired about the birth of the king of the Jews, Herod called the chief priests and scribes together and asked where the Christ would be born. So they said unto him, In Bethlehem, for thus it is written by the prophet: And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda; for out of thee will come a governor that shall rule my people Israel.

Micah 5:2 ~ But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Juda, from you one will go forth to be ruler in Israel.

The writer of Matthew deliberately distorts Old Testament scriptures in an effort to prove that the birth of Jesus fulfilled prophecy. But, as we see in 1 Samuel 17:12, Bethlehem Ephrathah, refers to the family clan of Jesse, the father of King David, not to a village in Judea. Furthermore, the Jews believe that the messiah will come from the descendance of David. Therefore, Micah 5:2 is obviously not referring to Jesus because Jesus was not a descendant of David. Although Joseph came from David's line, he was not Jesus' father. Jesus didn't have an earthly father, according to Matthew and Luke. So, how could he have descended from David? Also, Jesus never became the ruler in Israel, as is stated in the prophecy.


Matthew 2:14-15 ~ But Joseph took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt in order to escape King Herod's edict to kill all baby boys. They remained there till Herod died so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hosea 11:1 ~ When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

The source passage is not a prophecy; it's a statement. In it the phrase my son obviously refers to Israel. The context of this statement shows very clearly that Hosea was referring to the Israelite exodus from Egypt. The one who did go to Egypt and was in turn called out of Egypt was Israel. This is the plain meaning of the text. In Exodus 4:22-23 we read these words, And thou shall say to Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my first born. So, I say unto thee, let my son go that they may serve me.

In order to set the stage for the fulfillment of what he perceived to be prophecy, the writer of Matthew had to stretch his imagination to the limit. He first had to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, then send him to Egypt and set the stage for his return. So, what did he do? Well, he conveniently put all the blame on King Herod5. Herod, he said, was jealous of Jesus and plotted to get rid of him. But Jesus' parents were warned by way of a dream and departed. Where did they go? You guessed it, to Egypt. In the meantime Herod, in an effort to make sure that the threat was eliminated, ordered his army to go and slay all male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under (Matthew 2:16). But did this really happen? First, none of the other gospel writers refer to this alleged atrocity. Second, it is not mentioned in any extant official documents of that day. Third, why was John the Baptist, who was the same age as Jesus, not killed at that time? Fourth, Flauvius Josephus, an important first-century Jewish historian, chronicled the reign of Herod the Great in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. In doing so he made no attempt to whitewash Herod's character. He said nothing about a massacre of children which he most certainly would have if such a heinous crime had actually been committed.

Parallel versions of the baby-killing story are common in the folklore of almost all ancient societies. It occurs so frequently that mythologists have assigned it a special category -- the myth of the dangerous child. The Hindu version of this myth, which antedates the gospels by about six hundred years, is strikingly similar to the account in Matthew. In fact, it is similar enough to justify, summarizing:

It seems that Krishna, the eighth incarnation of the god Vishnu, was born to the virgin Devaki in fulfillment of prophecy and was visited by wise men who had been guided to him by a star. Angels also announced the birth to herdsman on the near by countryside. When mean old King Kansa heard about the miraculous birth of this child he panicked and ordered his army to "kill all the infants in the neighboring places," but a "heavenly voice" whispered to the foster father of Krishna (who, incidentally, was a carpenter) and warned him to take the child and flee across the Jumna river to safety. (Till pg. 5)

Also recognizable in this Hindu legend are other parallels to gospel stories of the infancy of Jesus. But all of this brings up another question, Exactly when was Jesus born?

According to Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (the Great) who died in the year 4 BCE6. In Luke 2:1-2, however, Jesus' birth is said to have taken place when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. It was at the time of a major taxation. Now according to the historian G. A. Wells Quirinius assumed the governorship in the year 6 CE, and a major taxation did take place at that time7. Luke never mentions the alleged slaughter of baby boys by Herod nor does he send Jesus and family down into Egypt. In 2:39 Luke tells how Jesus and family stayed in Bethlehem until they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord. This would include circumcision on the eighth day, the redemption of the first born on the 30th day, and Mary's purification on the 40th day. They then returned home to Nazareth.

So, here we have a discrepancy of monumental proportions. The writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke don't even agree on such a fundamental aspect as the date of Jesus' birth. They can both be wrong in this matter, or one can be right which makes the other wrong. Either way it creates a real problem for a book claimed by its adherents to be the divinely inspired word of God.


Matthew 2:17-18 ~ Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the Prophet was fulfilled saying - A voice was heard in Rama weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children when she refused to be comforted because they were no more.

Jeremiah 31:15 ~ Thus saith the Lord: A voice was heard in Ramah, lamenting, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for the children, because they were not.

Jeremiah is obviously not referring to Jesus. The children of Rachel are the Israelites. They were not killed but were taken into exile in Babylon, and that is what this prophecy is all about. It is stated in the very next verse that they would return again to their land. Also, the children Herod allegedly massacred were living in Judea. As members of the tribe of Juda they were Lia's children, not Rachel's. Here the writer of Matthew is deliberately practicing deception.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 ~ This important passage is known to Bible believers as the "New Convenant" because in it God allegedly reveals his plan for the future of his chosen people, the Jews. However, nowhere in it is there a mentions of a Messiah, a Savior, or a Son of God, the one who, according to the Christian interpretation, is ultimately responsible for its establishment. If Jesus' sacrificial death is a requirement, why does God make no mention of it?

Matthew 2:23 ~ And he came and dwelled in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

No such statement has yet been found anywhere in the Old Testament. The author of Matthew here shows his ignorance of Judaism and of the Hebrew language when he tries to associate living in Nazareth as being called a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a Jewish person who has taken upon himself certain vows which Jesus never took. It has nothing to do with people living in Nazareth. Also, archaeologists, historians and other investigators can find no evidence that a village called Nazareth even existed in Palestine during the alleged time of Jesus.
Fundies often argue that in the Old Testament the Messiah was referred to as a "branch" that would come out of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1; 53:2). The Hebrew word for branch is "netser," and that is where the town of Nazareth got its name, or so they claim. However, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance declares that the name Nazareth is of uncertain derivation, and Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says that the name was derived perhaps from naser, which means watch or neser meaning a sprout or descendent (1987, p. 751). Among scholars there is serious doubt over the linguistic origin of the name Nazareth, and as long as that is the case this argument remains without merit. (Till, p. 2)


Matthew 3:3 ~ John the Baptist says about Jesus, For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Isaiah 40:3 ~ A voice cries, prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a hiway for our God.

The writer of Matthew claims that this verse refers to John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus. But, when ever did he prepare such a path? When did these things ever come to pass? When Isaiah 40 is read in context, it is obviously not referring to John the Baptist. Just read the first two verses and then ask when ever did John the Baptist tell Jerusalem that her warfare has ended and that her iniquity had been pardoned? Well, if he did he was wrong. Also, in verse 5 it states that when these events take place "all flesh shall see it together" In other words, the whole world will know about it at the same time. Two thousand years later the whole world still has not heard of John the Baptist.


Matthew 4:14-15 ~ That it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by Isaiah the Prophet saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan , Galilee of the gentiles -- the people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

Isaiah 9:1-2 ~ At the first he likely afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Nephthalim and afterwards he afflicted her more grievously by the way of the sea beyond the Jordan in the Galilee of the nations. The people that have walked in darkness have seen a great light. They that dwelleth in the shadow of death upon them hath the light shown.

By referring this prophecy to Jesus the writer of Matthew shows his ignorance of the Old Testament and of Jewish history. The prophet is simply describing historical events. The King of Assyria had at first attacked only the lands of Zebulun and Nephthalim and, therefore, it is described as being a relatively light affliction. Afterwards the affliction became more severe when another King of Assyria, Sennacherib, marched against Judea and captured all its strongholds so that he came to attack Jerusalem as seen in 2 Kings 19. There it tells us (v35) that an angel of the Lord destroyed 185,000 of Sennacherib's men. Thus the statement, "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that hath dwelt in the shadow of death upon them the light hath shown" refers to the light of deliverance cause by the severe blow to Sennacherib's army. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged light brought by Jesus to the people living in his time.

Concerning this prophecy, what deliverance did Jesus ever bring to his people? How and when did he increase the nation? What joy did he ever bring to his people? They were in fact under the heavy yoke of Rome which Jesus did nothing to lighten.


Matthew 5:43 ~ Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thin enemy.

Leviticus 19:18 ~ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

The writer of Matthew has deliberately misrepresented the source which says nothing about hating an enemy. In fact, in Proverbs 24:17 it says, "Rejoyeth not when thin enemy falleth," and Proverbs 25:21 tell us, "If thin enemy hunger feed him."


Matthew 11:10 ~ For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Malachi 3:1 ~ Behold, I will send my messenger, who shall prepare the way before me.

In Matthew the personal pronoun "me" has been changed to "thee" thus distorting the prophecy and giving the false impression that God was speaking to Jesus about a messenger. In the source, "me" is obviously referring to God.


Matthew 12:17-21 ~ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 42:1-4 ~ Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

The writer of Matthew has changed the last sentence to read, And in his name shall the gentiles trust. In Isaiah this sentence reads, And the isles shall wait for his law. Fundies claim that Jesus is the servant here referred to. But when we read the whole episode (Isaiah 42,43,44) it becomes clear that God is referring to Israel. Incidentally, back in Isaiah 42:8 we read, I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another (hence not to Jesus), neither my praise to graven images (such as an image on a wooden cross). Those who still insist that this prophecy refers to Jesus should be aware that Isaiah gives a further description which is not very flattering. In Isaiah 42:19, speaking of the very same servant, he says, Who is blind but my servant or deaf as my messenger that I sent? Does this also apply to Jesus?
The servant mentioned in Isaiah 42:1-2 shall bring forth justice to the gentiles. Yet Jesus' gentile followers received the Roman sword, the Inquisitor's fire and a gospel that kept them in darkness until the Reformation. As for his voice not being heard in the streets, this cannot be referring to Jesus because according to Matthew 4:24 and Luke 4:14-15, he spoke before great multitudes


Matthew 12:40 ~ Jesus prophecies, For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

According to the gospels Jesus died sometime late Friday afternoon and was resurrected sometime Saturday night or early Sunday morning. That amounts to barley a day and a half. So, Jesus, this God-man, couldn't even correctly predict his own resurrection. To make the prediction accurate, he should have stayed dead until the following Monday evening (McKinsey p 307).


Matthew 13:14-15 ~ And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not under- stand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Isaiah 6:8-10 ~ Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

This prophecy can be dated by the fact that it is a message Isaiah brought to his own generation. Verse 8 says, Here I am; send me. But, if the Fundies insist that this prophecy is referring to Jesus, they should be consistent. For the person who said here am I send me also says in verse 5, Woe is me! I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips.



Isaiah 9:6-7 ~ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Christians claim this is a prophecy about Jesus. The title, "The mighty God," proves, they say, that Jesus is God. But these verses refer to events that have already occurred - the past. The child has already been born. How do we know this? There is a small, but important, difference in wording between the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Bible. In the Christian Bible (KJV) verse 6 reads . . . and the government shall be upon his shoulder. In the Hebrew Bible it reads . . . and the government is upon his shoulder. So, in the Christian Bible the present tense has been changed to the future tense. This same alteration is made in the next phrase regarding his name.



Matthew 13:34-35 ~ All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Psalm 78:1-2 ~ Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, things that we have heard and known, that our ancestors have told us.

This psalm was written by Asa who was a poet not a prophet. Nothing in the psalm can be referring to the parables of Jesus because none of his parables mention the law. Whereas the aim of this psalm is to bring the knowledge of the law to each generation. This becomes obvious when it is read in its entirety.

There is nothing in the psalm to suggest that the writer thought he was prophesying. Also, the last part of the psalm differs substantially from Matthew's version. The psalmist referred to sayings that had been "heard and known" that "our ancestors have told us," but the writer of Matthew has Jesus say, "things hidden from the foundation of the world." This amounts to a significant alteration. The important thing, however, is that the psalmist obviously intended his remarks to have an immediate application to a contemporary audience and situation and not to the distant future. (Till pg. 4)


Matthew 15:7-9 ~ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Isaiah 29:13 ~ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.

Isaiah was not prophesying about the people of Jesus' time as the New Testament writers suggest. When we examine the words of the prophet we can see clearly that they are intended for his generation. The use of the phrase "this people" means the people of Isaiah's time not those of the time of Jesus some 700 years later.



In Matthew 15:24 ~ But he answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Zechariah 9:10 ~ He shall speak to the gentiles, and his dominion shall be from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth.

Jesus was unwilling to speak to gentiles, although Fundies claim that Zechariah was speaking of Jesus. In Matthew 15:24 Jesus states emphatically that he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He goes on to liken gentiles to dogs, though he later retracted it. Also, Jesus had no dominion as is spoken of in the prophecy. In fact, he says in John 18:36, My kingdom is not of this world.


Matthew 16:28 ~ Jesus prophecies, Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Although understandably ignored by most Fundies, this stands as one of the most devastating examples of false prophecy on record. It brings into question the entire Christian rationale.


Matthew 17:10-13 ~ Jesus' disciples asked him, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? And he answered, Elijah is coming and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also is the Son of Man going to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he spake to them of John the Baptist.

Malachi 4:5-6 ~ Behold! I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to the fathers less they come and smite the earth with their curse.

When asked if he was Elijah, John the Baptist contradicts Jesus by replying, "I am not" (John 1:21). So, according to Malachi, Elijah must come before the Messiah and since John the Baptist was, by his own admission, not Elijah, Jesus can not have been the Messiah.

Some Fundies claim that John the Baptist represented Elijah, or that he had the spirit of Elijah. But that does not fulfill the prophecy of Malachi because in the Old Testament no phrase such as "one like unto Elijah" or "one with Elijah's spirit must come first" are used. The prophet simply says, I will send you Elijah the Prophet. Also, it tells us that they did to him that which was written, but nowhere is it written that when Elijah comes he will be beheaded as was John the Baptist.

Another aspect of Malachi's prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled is the fact that children are still disobedient to their parents, parents are still weeping over their wayward children and Fundies still play a role in separating families thus sowing the seeds of hatred and discord in many homes. Jesus says, Unless a man hates his father and mother, he is not worthy of me (Luke 14:26). In Matthew 10:35-36 he says, I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Little wonder then that when Elijah does come his first task will be to undo the harm which Jesus and his followers have done and reconcile the broken homes. Malachi's prophecy calls for the remembrance of the law of Moses (Malachi 3:22). But the Fundies claim that the law has been replaced by a new and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6).


Matthew 20:19 ~ And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

John 19:14-18 ~ And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, "crucify him." Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified.

In Matthew Jesus prophecies that he will be killed by the gentiles. But it is clearly stated in John that the Jews were responsible. (McKinsey - p 309).


Matthew 21:4-7 ~ All this was done so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, your king is coming to you mounted upon an *** and upon a colt the fole of an ***. And they brought the *** and the colt and put on them their cloths and they sat him thereon.

Zechariah 9:9 ~ Behold, thy King comes victorious and humble for he is riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the fole of an ***.

Here the writer of Matthew goes to absurd extremes in order to make Jesus appear to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. They have Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals at the same time. So, he was a rodeo trick rider, not the Messiah. This text simply implies that the king will ride into Jerusalem upon an *** and that it would be a young one, a colt. It does not mean that he would be riding upon two animals simultaneously.

The Hebrew language often uses parallelisms such as this where the second half of the verse serves to emphasize the first half. As for Jesus fulfilling this prophecy, he did no such thing. He was never anointed King of Israel. Yet the prophet clearly states that the rider would be a king. In fact, Jesus was never the king of anything.


Matthew 21:13 ~ It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer. But ye have made of it a den of thieves.

In order to produce this alleged Jesus quote the writer of Matthew has joined together parts of two widely separated verses, Isaiah 56:7, Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar;
for mine house shall be called an house of prayer, and Jeremiah 7:11, Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.

From this false and slanderous accusation Christians have been taught to believe that the Jews were corrupt not only in their business dealings but even in their worship.


Matthew 22:41-46 ~ While the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them, "What think ye of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They answered, "The son of David." He said unto them, "How then doeth David in spirit call him Lord saying `The Lord said unto my Lord sit down on my right hand till I make theine enemies theine footstool. If David then calls him Lord, how then is he his son?" And no man was able to answer him a word neither does any man from that day ask him any more questions.

Psalm 110:1 ~ The Lord said to my Lord8, Sit at my right hand till I make theine enemies thy footstool.

Fundies claim that in the psalm God is speaking to Jesus. But the original Hebrew does not support this claim. It is perfectly clear from the text which Lord is which for it is written in Hebrew, "Saith Yahweh to my master . . ." It should be noted that this psalm was not written by David; it was written about David. In the Old Testament it begins, Concerning David. So, the word "master" refers to David. There is no indication that God is speaking to another God whether as father to son or in any other way. Christians believe that this is a prophecy concerning the ascension of Jesus up into heaven. But it is merely a continuation of the instructions being given to David by God.

To seat a person at one's right hand is simply a mark of respect as can be seen in 1 Kings 2:19. Further evidence that this Psalm does not describe Jesus lies in the fact that Jesus' enemies were never made to serve as his footstool. On the contrary, his enemies triumphed over him as is clearly seen from the gospels.


Matthew 24:15-21 ~ When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

This passage comes partly from Daniel 12:11, And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days, and partly from an obscure work known as the Book of Zarupo.

The writer of Matthew has Jesus relate events which had already occurred and ties them up with a few events which had previously been predicted for the so called last days. Jesus continues this prophecy in Matthew 24:21-22,
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

These verses are a loose rendering of Daniel 12:1, And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
In attempting to explain this passage the Fundies have come up with so many different interpretations and given so many different dates for the fulfillment of the prophecy that their speculations have served only to give encouragement to Bible thumping cracked pots. Daniel himself did not understand what he saw and heard and was instructed (12:9) to go on his way for the words were to be closed up and sealed till the end of time.


Matthew 24:30 ~ And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaves: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory.

Daniel 7:13 ~ I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Fundies claim that this passage refers to Jesus who, according to Acts 1:9, ascended up to heaven in a cloud. But how do they know that this passage refers specifically to Jesus? The object Daniel saw was in a cloud and he had difficulty identifying it at all. He says, "what I saw seemed like a man." Now the Son of Man as described by the prophet will be unmistakable since it tells us that all peoples and nations will serve him. This story sounds suspiciously like that of Moses who is supposed to have ascended up to heaven in a thick cloud in order to speak with God (Exodus 19:1-9). It is difficult to determine just what this prophecy is referring to, but it obviously is not referring to Jesus.

Daniel 8:14 ~ Unto 2,300 days will the sanctuary be cleansed. In the year 1831 the fundamentalist preacher Rev. William Miller, then living in Low Hampton, New York, took this brief passage to predict the second coming of Jesus. This awesome event would take place, he assured his followers, on the October 22, 1844. Many of his followers, known as "Millerites," took him so seriously that they planted no crops that year and thus preserved no food supplies for the coming winter. As a result many of them, facing sure starvation, were force off their ancestral land.

Matthew 26:31 ~ I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Zechariah 13:7 ~ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Fundies claim that Jesus was the shepherd. Before doing so, however, it might be wise to see what else is said about this shepherd. In Zechariah 11:15 it refers to a foolish shepherd; in verse 17 of an idol9 (not idle) shepherd. In Zechariah 13:9 it says that only when this shepherd is removed can the people turn to God. Does this also apply to Jesus?


Matthew 26:67 ~ Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.

Fundies hold that all of chapter fifty of Isaiah is a prophetic dialogue between God and Jesus. Jesus, they believe, is the "servant" mentioned in this chapter, and that he is the speaker from verse 4 onward. This broad claim is based entirely on the single verse shown above.

In the first place this chapter of Isaiah is not even a prophecy. It is simply a word of rebuke for Israel having turned away from God (v1-3). In verses 4-6 Isaiah is talking about himself. Jesus is considered to be the judge of Israel by the Fundies so they say that he fulfilled this (non)prophecy. First, it is not clear to whom Isaiah is referring, but it could certainly not be Jesus because he was never the judge of Israel. In fact, he was never the judge of anything. He said in Luke 12:14, "Who made me a judge?" In John 12:47 he says, "I came not to judge."


Matthew 27:9-10 ~ Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Here Jesus is said to have fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah The fact is that no such prophecy has yet been found in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 32:8-9 does not apply because the price paid for the field is 17 pieces of silver. Also, in Jeremiah one man buys the field while Matthew says "they" bought it. Also, Matthew is discussing blood money not approved by God while the sale in Jeremiah was approved by God. (McKinsey - pg 294). Some Fundies suggest that Matthew said Jeremiah when he really meant to say Zechariah (11:12-13). First, there is little semblance between the two passages. Second, if this is the case, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would make such an obvious goof.


Matthew 27:46 ~ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Psalm 22:1 ~ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Many Christians see the source to be prophesying Jesus' mode of execution as well as the anguish he bore on the cross. If, however, Jesus knew that he was fulfilling God's plan, why should he have thought himself to be forsaken by God? If he really was the Christ of prophecy, he surely would have been aware that the crucifixion was essential to the successful completion of his mission. Yet in Matthew 26:39 Jesus prayed that God would spare him from having to undergo this bitter fate. If, as the gospels claim, Jesus knew long in advance the circumstances surrounding the death which he must face, and if those circumstances were neither a surprise or a defeat, but elements of his father's divinely inspired plan, what sense did it make for Jesus to complain? This is especially relevant in view of the fact that he had detailed knowledge of his immediate resurrection. Shouldn't his despair have given way to joy as he realized that God's purpose had been attained through his sacrificial death?

We have now completed those prophecies appearing in the Gospel According to Matthew. In the next segment we will be analyzing those in Mark, Luke and John. Since much of what was covered in Matthew is repeated in the other gospels, we will be dealing only with those passages not addressed in the analysis of Matthew.


Mark 13:30-31 ~ Verily I say unto you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus made this statement after listing a wide assortment of events that were to occur. Yet two thousand years have past and he has not returned, nor has he sent his angels to gather the elect from all parts of the world. Moreover, the sun has not become darkened, the moon has not failed to reflect light and the stars have not "fallen" from the sky. (McKinsey - pg 308)


Mark 14:21 ~ The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Better were it for him if he had not been born.

Such a prophecy has never been found any where in the Old Testament. It should be noted, however, that in spite of its nonexistence it has been the root cause of centuries of anti- Semitism. Since the coming to prominence of Christianity early in the fourth century the Jews have been accused of deicide and made to bear the reproach. They were held accountable for the crucifixion of Jesus and persecuted relentlessly. The anti-Semitism, foisted by zealous Christian clergy, culminated with the Nazi Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered.


Luke 4:18-19 ~ Jesus reads from Isaiah, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight of the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2 ~ The spirit of the Lord is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.

Jesus announces in (Luke 4:21) that this prophecy was fulfilled by him that day. But when was Jesus ever anointed for anything? There is no record of it anywhere in the New Testament. Anointment was a holy ritual requiring authorization. Only kings, high priests and prophets were anointed. It had to be carried out in a prescribed method using specially prepared oil. So, if Jesus was anointed, on whose authority was it done, and was it done according to Jewish law?

The Fundies claim that Jesus was prophet, priest and king. But there is no verification anywhere in the New Testament of him being officially anointed for these high offices. Some Fundies will argue that anointing took place in the house of Simon the Leper where a woman smeared Jesus with "precious ointment" (Matthew 26:6-13). But the law specifically states that only those in authority were permitted to prepare the anointing oil and carry out the ritual (Exodus 30:22-38). Also, what captives did Jesus release, and who were the downtrodden he set free? All Palestine was then ruled by Rome, and Jesus couldn't even save himself or his mentor, John the Baptist. The original prophecy says nothing about the recovery of sight by the blind. As for proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord, which year is it?

Luke 11:49-51 ~ Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Here an anti-Semitic and false charge is credited to the wisdom of God. Zacharias the son of Balihias was never put to death by the Jews. There was a Zacharias slain, but he was the son of Geodiah (2 Chronicles 24:20). That was in the days of Joash, 840 BCE. Zachariah son of Balihias lived around 520 BCE.


Luke 23:43 ~ Jesus says to the thief on the cross, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

How could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus was to lay in the tomb for the next three days?


Luke 23:45 ~ And the sun was darkened, and the veil in the temple was rent in the midst.

Exodus 26:33 ~ The veil shall be for you as a division between the holy place and the most holy place.

It is believed by the Fundies that at the death of Jesus there was an earthquake and the veil in the temple was torn in half. This, they tell us, was an act of God showing that there is no longer a division between God and man so that man now has direct access to God. However, Christians should be reminded that they do not have direct access to God.

According to 1 Timothy 2:5 God can only be approached through a mediator, Jesus Christ. This is why Christian prayers usually end with "We ask it in Jesus name." Jews, on the other hand, talk and pray directly to God without the aid of priest, pastor, pope, or clergy. So, if such an incident described by Luke ever happened, and it seems unlikely that it did since it went unnoticed by the other New Testament writers as well as historians of the day, what difference would it have made? The holy place went into captivity in the days of David. The temple of Solomon was destroyed. There were times when the sacrifices ceased, but Israel still has access to God without the need of a mediator of any kind.

The following is a commentary on Psalm 69. In verse 21 "Gall for my meat" is mistranslated in the New Testament. In Hebrew it reads, "They put poison in my food." However, none of the gospels refer to Jesus eating food either at his trial or during the crucifixion. But there is a contradiction regarding what he was offered to drank. Matthew 27:34 says it was vinegar mingled with gall. But Mark 15:23 says it was wine mixed with myrrh. So, there is nothing about Jesus in Psalm 69.


http://home.inu.net/skeptic/prophecy.html