Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
According to the Christian Gospels: this has been a question ever since
the life of Jesus. Jews have not believed, yet many others have. Why? Well,
the Jews do not believe that Jesus fulfilled any prophecies, although the
Christians do. Which of them are correct? Probably the best way to find out is
to analyze the scriptures ourselves. I will be using a NKJ Bible and the Jewish
equivalent - NJV which is the New JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Hebrew-
English Tanakh. I call it the Jewish equivalent to the NKJ, because the [old] JPS
Hebrew-English Tanakh was published in 1917; thus reading in similarly old
English as the [old] King James Bible, but was written by Jews instead of
Christians. So, the NJV, like the NKJ, is just an easier read, while aiming to
keep to the original translation. Mark, Luke, and John only mention a couple
of the prophecies, whereas Matthew has them all. So, I will be going through
Matthew.
"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His
name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."
Mary did not name her child Immanuel, or any form of it. She named her
child Jesus. The name Jesus does not mean God with us. But, then why are
Son and His capitalized? Doesn't this refer to Jesus [as the Son of God]? Well,
the Jews say otherwise. Isaiah 7: 14 in the NJV reads:
Look, the young woman is with child, and about to give birth to a son.
Notice that son and him are not capitalized, indicating no divinity. Also, it
does not specify that the mother was a virgin. It only says young woman. For
Jesus to have been born of a virgin is very important, because it implies that
he is actually He, being the Son of God, instead of the son of Joseph. The NJV
does not make either of these divinity claims - both of which are important.
So, it is not talking of the Son of God, nor is it referring to Jesus at all. Who
did the editing - the Jews or the Christians? Both groups have equal motives
to edit this, but it is much more apparent that it was done by the Christians.
Here is why I say this. Both the Jews and Christians agree on naming the
child Immanuel. Jesus is not at all the same name. Therefore, the Jews would
have no reason to edit anything, because the text would already show that
there is no relation to Jesus. The Christians, however, would have every
reason to edit; to try and show that Jesus is the prophesied Son of God. For, if
he is not connected to the Old Testament, then there is no way he could be
the Son of the God of Israel. Are you too stuck in your beliefs to not be
convinced by the obvious (yet overlooked) name difference? Well, let's read
further into Isaiah. Chapter 7, verse 15 in the NJV reads:
"By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be
feeding on curds and honey."
A whole people eating curds and honey is kind of a big thing, so why does
Matthew not mention that happening? The answer is in the NKJ:
"Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and
choose the good."
Instead of a whole people eating curds and honey, it says that the child will
eat curds and honey. Also, unlike the NJV, the NKJ capitalizes He. Why does
the people/child difference matter? I will explain. If the prophecy said that
the people would eat curds and honey, and it did not happen during the
childhood of Jesus, then in order to make Isaiah's prophecy fit Jesus they
would need to change it to the child. For, how would anyone be able to know
that Jesus did not eat curds and honey as a kid? They would just have to
believe Matthew, which is what all the Christians do. They need to start
looking at the evidence for themselves, instead of just trusting an ancient
manuscript that was not even written by an eye-witness. Even without the
Jewish text you can see that this prophecy did not fit, because of the
complete difference in the naming of the child. I see this as enough proof
alone that Jesus is not the Son of the God of Israel. I will continue anyway,
though, because I know that anyone who has believed that Jesus is the Son
of God will be very reluctant to believe otherwise - no matter how obvious
the proof is - because they had to have been ignorant to believe in the first
place. Yes, I was ignorant, but not anymore! Although I hold even this one
false claim and obvious editing by the Christians to be enough to support the
idea of Jesus not being the Son of God, I will be fair and score each prophecy
as 1 point. When it comes to ancient documents: proving that one party has
made alterations and false claims according to a document does not show
whether the original document was accurate to begin with. So, with this
study there can be no gaining of points, but only losing. So, the score is Jews:
0, Christians: -1. Next!
So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the
prophet:
First, notice that they said Judea, while the prophecy says Judah. This is ok
though. Why? Judea is just the Greek adaptation of Judah, which was
commonly used in that time and location. There is a problem with connecting
the prophecy to Jesus though. Jesus was never a literal ruler, and he was
concerned with more than just Israel. I think that this prophecy is speaking of
a literal ruler. Jesus was referred to as King of the Jews though. Let's look at
the original prophecy. Micah 5: 2 in the NKJ reads:
From everlasting."
The NJV does not have the shepherd reference, but neither does the
Christian Old Testament. So, it could not be the Jews that made that change,
since only in Matthew does it include the shepherding. Also, the NJV more
clearly defines that the ruler rules Israel, which cannot be taken figuratively.
The only sensible option then is that the Christians added [in Matthew] the
shepherd reference, and watered down the wording of the ruler, in order for
Jesus as King of the Jews to fit. They were just un-thorough to make changes
in the Old Testament apart from capitalizations. And, we have already seen
that they are not very thorough with their editing. So, the score is now Jews:
0, Christians: -2. What's next?
Why would God need to call Jesus out of Egypt? Joseph would automatically
return [with Jesus] to Israel without needing a message from God, and it was
never mentioned that he got one anyway. Nor was it prophesied that Jesus or
the Son of God would be taken into Egypt in the first place. Maybe the
original prophecy will clear things up. Hosea 11: 1 in the NKJ reads:
This actually makes it less clear. It says that God called His child out of Egypt
when Israel was young. When Jesus came around, Israel had been around for
a long time. Now, what about that NJV? It reads:
This next one is short. In the end of Matthew chapter 2 it talks of how
Joseph came [with his family] to Nazareth. In verse 23 it says it was fulfilled
by the prophets, saying, "He shall be called a Nazarene." It does not mention
who the prophets were, and does not refer to any Old Testament passage.
The only reason it would not be mentioned would be to attempt to hide that
it does not exist. There is no Old Testament passage, so this was purely a
Christian claim. This puts the score at Jews: 0, Christians: -4.
The next prophecy is not about Jesus specifically, but about the decree
that Herod makes to kill all males 2 years and younger in Bethlehem. This is
why Joseph had been warned to flee with his family to Egypt. In Matthew 2:
17 it states that this decree was fulfilled by what was spoken by Jeremiah,
which it then shows in verse 18:
"A voice was heard in Ramah,
Refusing to be comforted,
So, Isaiah said that the voice of one crying in the wilderness was telling
someone to prepare the way of the Lord. Wait. Isn't the voice of one crying in
the wilderness supposed to be John? Then who is John telling to prepare the
way of the Lord? I thought John was supposed to prepare the way of the
Lord! Is John talking to himself?! This is already not making sense! Let's take
a look at the original prophecy. Isaiah 40: 3 in the NKJ reads:
Make straight in the desert? Was Judah desertous? It probably was, being in
the Middle East. But, if you look into the context, it is pretty clear that the
voice of one crying in the wilderness is the tribe of Judah in Jerusalem, and
not John. Further clarity is in the NJV:
A voice rings out:
This would make sense [figuratively] if the voice ringing out was God
speaking to John as a command. We already know that the voice is of the
tribe of Judah, so it is no such command. Also, John was not around when
Isaiah was, so God could not have been speaking to John [in the book of
Isaiah] anyway. So, who did this one? Even in the Christian Old Testament it
is apparent in context that it is not at all referring to John the Baptist. So,
again there was no editing (besides the not so important difference in
Matthew), but just a false claim by the Christians. Jews: 0, Christians: -6.
And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death
This may relate to Jesus, who went to that area to preach the good news.
What was his good news? It reads in verse 17 that his message was:
So, this would mean that the darkness that those people were sitting in was
sin (for Jesus says they need to repent), and the light being the newly
received knowledge that they need to repent for the "entrance fee" of the
soon coming kingdom of heaven? Maybe, but what does the original
prophecy say? Isaiah 9: 1-2 in the NKJ reads:
Wait, Jesus heavily oppressed Capernum? Maybe the NJV will shed some light
on the subject. The first verse in the NKJ does not exist in the NJV, so Isaiah
9:1 in the NJV reads:
The people that walked in darkness
There is no mention of the land of the shadow of death, but instead a land of
gloom. Not the land of gloom, but a land of gloom. It does not look like it is
referring to a specific place, and neither does it include the parts about
Zebulun, Naphtali, or by the sea, which were all things that were very
pointed out in Matthew 4: 13. Also, that whole verse which is only in the
Christian Old Testament does not even make sense in that passage (when
you read further). So, the Jews could not have taken that verse out, but the
Christians added it. Jews: 0, Christians: -7.
For three more chapters, Jesus still has not fulfilled any prophecies. In
chapter 8, verse 16 it tells of Jesus casting out demons and healing the sick.
In verse 17 it reads the prophecy of Isaiah:
Bore our sicknesses? Doesn't that mean that Jesus would bear the sickness
(in other words, be sick) instead of them? When was this in any of the
gospels? Let's see what the original prophecy has to say. Isaiah 53: 4 in the
NKJ reads:
Since when did people think of Jesus as stricken, smitten by God, and
afflicted? Well, how about the NJV?
That shows in even plainer speaking that it does not fit Jesus, but the Jews do
have equal motives. This one goes deeper; any part of Isaiah that mentions
this servant (which is mentioned in surrounding verses although not this one)
in the NJV is un-capitalized, whereas all over the Christian Old Testament
(you guessed it) it is capitalized. Seeing as even the Matthew version does
not fit Jesus (because of the word "bore"), it is obvious that the Christians did
the editing as well as the claiming. Jews: 0, Christians: -8.
In the next one (which is in Matthew 11: 10) Jesus refers to John the
Baptist with the prophecy of Malachi:
Behold, He is coming,"
Says the Lord of hosts.
Oh, so the messenger is preparing the way for God, Himself. That does not
destroy the possibility of it being Jesus though, if you believe in the trinity
(which is nowhere in any Jewish or even Christian Bible!). So, for this to work,
the Messenger of the covenant has to be Jesus. Let's take a look in the NJV:
and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly.
As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.
Aha! Jesus is never said to be an angel, and not of any covenant either! Ok,
so who did this one? The fact that the Matthew version is different even from
the Christian original, shows that the Christians at least did some editing. But
which Old Testament is unedited? The key to this lock is in the word Temple.
Notice that in the NKJ it is un-capitalized, whereas it is capitalized in the NJV.
The Jews would not need to edit the un-capitalization of temple. It would
already have been capitalized by them from the beginning, because the
Temple is Holy and Sacred to them. The Christians, on the other hand, would
want to un-capitalize it. The Christians believed that Jesus had made the
ultimate sacrifice, which would get rid of the need of the daily sacrifices in
the temple - which they would no longer hold sacred - and thus need to un-
capitalize it. Jews: 0, Christians: -9.
I thought that Jesus spoke in the streets a lot. Also, how was he that calm
and quiet when he turned tables in the temple? Let's check out the original
prophecy. Isaiah 42: 1-4 in the NKJ reads:
Both versions say that He will bring justice to the Gentiles, but only the
Matthew version says the Gentiles will trust in His name. I think we are
getting two different ideas of justice! But, we still have not looked at what
the Jews have written. Isaiah 42: 1-4 in the NJV reads:
Notice that in this version the translation refers to him as the bruised [but
not broken] reed and a dim [but not snuffed out] wick. If in that metaphor
break means die, then he did break - he was crucified! The prophecy says
that he would not break. So, I really do not think this fits Jesus. So, like the
last one, we can see that the Christians at least edited the Matthew version
from the original (by adding And in His name Gentiles will trust which
changes the meaning of bringing justice to them; and by watering down the
wording of the reed and wick to attempt to make it relate to Jesus not
making Himself known). But which Old Testament is unedited? The NJV says
nothing about Gentiles, and I would not say that the Jews took that out -
even the Christian Old Testament does not specify that the Gentiles would
trust this servant. Another clue is in the word spirit. Only the Jews do not
capitalize God's spirit. God's spirit does not have to imply Jesus, so not
believing in Jesus as the Son of God would not be a reason to un-capitalize it.
They must have had it un-capitalized from the beginning, for some other
reason unknown to us non-Hebrew speaking people. But, as we have seen
before, the Christians like to capitalize anything and everything that they
could possibly use to imply Jesus as the Son of God. So, again, it all adds up
to the Christians as the culprits. What's the score? Whoa! Jews: 0, Christians:
-10! Need I go further? Well, there are more prophecies, so I will.
Next in line is Matthew 13: 10. Jesus’ disciples ask him why he speaks
to the crowds in parables. He tells them that as his disciples they can know,
but not for the [common] people. He gives the reason, "seeing they do not
see, and hearing they do not understand." If Jesus means that they would not
understand him if he spoke to them plainly, then what would make him think
that they would understand him with parables? It already does not look like
this prophecy fits, yet it comes from the mouth of Jesus! Or did it? Was it put
into his mouth? Surely the Son of God, or even the man that we know of
Jesus, would not have been as stupid as that! We definitely need to dive into
this one! In verses 14-15 it reads:
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
You do not even need to look in context (although I have, to make sure) to
see that God is instructing Isaiah to make a people's heart dull. It is not
Isaiah speaking of the Son of God who will speak in parables. Jews: 0,
Christians: -11.
In Matthew 13: 34 it claims that Jesus did not speak to the multitudes
without using parables. What about the beatitudes? Those were very plain!
In verse 35 it gives the prophecy:
"I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from
This apparently comes from a Psalm this time. It is written by Asaph (who
was not - to my knowledge - a prophet) as God in the first person. So, it is
most likely not a prophecy, but just a song. Let's look at the original passage
though, just in case. Psalm 78: 2 in the NKJ reads:
Notice that my is not capitalized. That must be because Asaph was the one
writing it. So, even though the song was written as God in the first person,
Asaph did not want to sound like he was claiming himself to be Divine. And,
again, we already know how "capitalization happy" the Christians are. Now,
what do the Jews have to say? Psalm 78: 2 in the NJV reads:
In Matthew 15, Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, and tells them that
Isaiah prophesied about them, saying, (In verses 8-9):
The original prophecy in the NKJ and the NJV are hardly different (which is in
Isaiah 29: 13), but the important thing here is that the Pharisees did NOT
worship or honor Jesus. They came to him to question him in hopes that he
would answer something incorrectly. Even based on this passage alone it is
clear that Jesus cannot be the Son of God! There were not any alterations in
this one, but just a false reference [by the Christians] to an Old Testament
passage. So, Jews: 0, Christians: -13.
He is victorious, triumphant,
Yet humble, riding on an ass,
Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me
this night, for it is written:
'I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'."
Well, this could relate if Jesus’ crucifixion counts as God striking the
Shepherd [Jesus], because the disciples [or sheep of the flock] did scatter. Is
the original any different? Zechariah 13: 7 in the NKJ reads:
So, who is the sword - the people who arrested Jesus? Who are the little ones
- people who were not his disciples? I do not think that this relates very well.
Notice that the Matthew version says God will strike the shepherd, whereas
in the Christian Old Testament it is God commanding someone to - or saying
what would happen if someone - strike(s) the shepherd. Also, the NJV is
similar, but does not capitalize shepherd or man, nor does it call him His
companion. So, either Jesus is misquoting scripture (which is unlikely with the
context that does not relate to him), or the passage was Christianized and
then put into his mouth. The latter is a better explanation. Jews: 0,
Christians: -15.
In Matthew 26: 55 Jesus speaks to the priests about how they came to
arrest him during the night with weapons, when they had opportunities to
arrest him while he was amongst them during the day. In verse 56 he says,
"But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
What scriptures of what prophets is he talking about? There are no
references to any! Also, look at the context. After saying [in verse 55]: "Have
you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat
daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me.", why would
he then say out loud, "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the
prophets might be fulfilled."? I would think that they would ask him what he
is talking about. Also, he says it like it already happened, and that it "might"
be fulfilled. If Jesus is the Son of God, then he would say that it would be
fulfilled, without any doubt. It doesn't sound like he said this, but that
Matthew did. Also, aside from whether he said that strange sentence, there
is no reference to what scriptures were fulfilled by him getting arrested like
that. He must not have fulfilled any! Jews: 0, Christians: -16.
"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced,
whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord directed me."
Wait, they did it, as the Lord directed me? That does not make any sense.
Something is already wrong. Let's see what the original prophecy has to say.
Jeremiah 32: 6-9 in the NKJ reads:
And Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Behold,
Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle will come to you, saying, "Buy my
field which is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is yours to buy it." '
Then Hanamel my uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison
according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, 'Please buy my field that is
in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance
is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this
was the word of the Lord. So I bought the field from Hanamel, the son of my
uncle who was in Anathoth, and weighed out to him the money - seventeen
shekels of silver."
Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
If this is Jesus (or perhaps God) speaking, then it makes sense. Where does
this come from? It is a Psalm of David. David was not a prophet, so why
would a song he writes be prophetic? Anyway, here it is - Psalm 22: 18 in the
NKJ:
Being in the Christian Bible, it still capitalizes My. Even more importantly, is
that it says divide instead of divided. You could say that if this is a prophecy,
that it means will divide. But, it sounds more like it is something that is
repeatedly happening to David. Wait, what about the My? Is David writing as
if God is speaking; like Asaph did? Unlike Asaph's Psalm, this one does not
say that. I think it is time to look at what the Jews have written. Verse 18 in
the NJV is 17 in the NKJ; the Jews must have a verse that the Christians do
not have. So, Psalm 22: 19 in the NJV reads:
Here it is clearer that it is David speaking about himself. Even in the NKJ
(aside from capitalizations) you can see by reading the whole Psalm that it
was not intended to be taken as God speaking as Jesus; how could it be if it
was written by David? There are no more prophecies, so the final score is
Jews: 0, Christians: -18. You can determine your own conclusion from this
evidence, but I do not see how you could still believe in Jesus as anything
other than a false [and misrepresented] prophet.