The faults with the bible are so numerous that so many books could be filled with them all. Prophecy problems are just one small part of it. And within prophecy problems, one part of that is the so-called prophecies for the supposed messiah are not prophecies of any messiah whatsoever. It's a fact that the gospel writers concocted elaborate stories, because they wanted people to believe that Jesus was the messiah (which, by the way, is understood by Jews to be a mere man, as there is no prophecy of the messiah being a god nor that he'd be a sacrifice). What some of the writers did was to go back into the bible and search for details to use to make the story.
While all of the writers were dishonest, Matthew takes the cake. He often changed words and phrases and omitted words in order to change the entire meaning just so that he could make it appear that some prophecy was being fulfilled.
I will only give three examples. Each person should do his or her own work in investigating. Clearly many people do not care to know the truth, and I've even been told as much. I was told by one person that she knew I liked to search out truth but that she had no desire to make time to do so. In other words, she'd rather continue living her entire life—perhaps decades to come—living a lie and teaching her children so, rather than to spare a few days or weeks or even a month to investigate on such an important issue as whether the bible is the word of God. I do not believe there is any book or books written by man that is a "word of God," and if we simply give honest meditation to this, we can know that no book can be the word of God. This person also was willing to throw our friendship in the garbage simply because I no longer believe the bible is the word of God, not because my character or behavior has changed, but because a belief has changed. I have never judged any friendship of mine on a belief. I always judge my friendships based on character and behavior. That's why I still have friends that I've had since childhood, who have plenty of different beliefs than I do, but they live out lives of moral character and behavior, and we get along well. That is what friendship should be based upon.
Certainly several people have proved just how immoral they are to trash a friendship based on a change of belief, rather than a change in character and behavior. Two such people not only trashed the friendship but took it to the next level of abusive words and ugly behavior. If that's Christian or Godly, then that's just one more piece of evidence that believing the bible is the word of God is wrong. There is no way I'd want to live some eternity with people who base their friendships on mere beliefs, apart from character and behavior. If that is what believing the bible (or Qur'an or any other) is all about, count me out all the more. It turns people into immoral individuals.
I'm not any exception. I defended immoral actions in the name of God, because I had been deeply brainwashed that it was the truth. Since I'm in fact a moral person, I've been carrying around guilt for some of the content in my book on the ten commandments, namely genocide and slavery. I've constantly carried around the guilt. There's been no escape. There's only been the telling myself over and over that it's what God teaches, and if he says it's ok, then it's ok....even though I know it's not.
Most people today have evolved enough morals to react in horror at the immorality in the bible. Without any brainwashing (usually from early childhood) we'd be able to clearly see that the bible god is a very immoral individual (who thankfully doesn't exist) and that his followers were very immoral individuals. Most of us are much more moral than any of the people living in that time.
Now....on to some of Matthew's dishonest "fulfilled prophecies":
Virgin Birth of Immanuel
Matthew 1:21-23 claims that Mary conceiving Jesus with the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah of a virgin (young woman) that shall bring forth a son named Immanuel. Not only was someone being born and called Jesus not a fulfillment of someone being called Immanuel, but Isaiah's prophecy had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Isaiah 7:10-16 deals with a sign Isaiah gave to Ahaz to prove to him that before the child to be brought forth is old enough to know good and evil, the land Ahaz abhorred would be forsaken of both her kings. Obviously that had nothing to do with some Jesus that was born many hundreds of years later. It was something that would need to happen quickly in order for it to be a sign to Ahaz. Furthermore in chapter 8:3-4, a child was born. Ironically enough, they instead called his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. There is some reference to Immanuel in verse 9. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that hints about Immanuel being a messiah and quite far from it.
What Matthew did by using Isaiah in this way is no different than what people do today when they say that Nostradamus prophesied the twin towers of the World Trade Center in NYC with his line:
In the city of York there will be a great collapse, two twin brothers torn apart by chaos while the fortress falls the great leader will succumb third big war will begin when the big city is burning.
You could also go to another part of Nostradamus' prophecies to say that he predicted that the WTC incident would be in September and by airplane as an act of terror:
In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror...
Now who's signing up to be believers in Nostradamus' prophecies? It's time that we wake up and stop believing in such a thing as prophecy. People can go back and pick people's "prophecies" to fit to whatever they like.
Calling Son Out of Egypt
In Matthew 2:15 it is said that Joseph and Mary fleeing with Jesus to Egypt was done so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
This was taken from Hosea 11:1. It states: When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
It continues in verse 2, As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.
As you can see, the "son" was Israel, and it was referring to when Israel came out from Egypt. Matthew conveniently left the "Israel" part out of it, as well as verse 2. The son Israel is also the "they" in verse two, to mean all the people of Israel. They sacrificed to Baalim and burned incense to graven images.
Very, very dishonest, Matthew. This obviously has nothing to do with prophesying a future messiah.
This account of going to Egypt, it should be noted, is only found in Matthew's account. In Luke's account, instead of fleeing for Egypt, Mary awaits her forty days of purification and takes Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem, and then they go to Nazareth. There is no mention of a baby slaughter and having to flee to Egypt. If you look on a map, you can see that Nazareth is well north of Jerusalem. South of Jerusalem is Bethlehem, and then south of that is Egypt. Matthew makes it sound like they fled Bethlehem and went to Egypt. That's where the magi went to look for him. But even if they were in Nazareth then (which means the magi actually didn't find him in Bethlehem), and even if it was after the purification period, it would be foolish to try to make it to Egypt when all the slaughtering was taking place between you and there. You would likely be safer up in Nazareth of Galilee (which actually wasn't an existing town during that time, anyway) than to make your way down to Egypt, having to go right into slaughter-the-babies zone. The reason the Egypt story was made up is because Matthew came across the "called my son out of Egypt" piece and thought he could make it into something. Note also that he changed the past tense "called" to "shall call."
Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus came to live in a town called Nazareth so that it would be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he shall be called a Nazarene.
First of all, there is absolutely nothing said in the prophets of this nature. Not a word. Furthermore there is no mention of any such town as Nazareth in any of the OT bible books. This is because the town of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century.
Most bibles include the footnote that takes you to Judges 13:5, 7, which talks of Samson being a Nazarite. A Nazarite doesn't have anything to do with a citizen of Nazareth. A Nazarite vow was a vow in the law of Moses (Numbers 6) which obligated a man not to cut his hair, not to drink wine or eat grapes, and not to touch dead persons. This idea may be why Jesus is portrayed with long hair, but we know he was not a Nazarite, because he drank wine and supposedly touched dead persons on a regular basis.
Matthew made a very critical error here when he was busy searching the OT scriptures to use things to construct his story.
This stuff just goes on and on. You can look at all the so-called fulfilled prophecies to see the errors.