Introduction to the Prophecies

It is claimed that Jesus came in fulfillment of many prophecies. This belief forms the cornerstone of many Christians' continued faith that Christ was in fact the son of God. "How could he have fulfilled all of those prophecies, and be anything other than what he claimed?" they ask. Good question.

So I did some digging. And what I found, while not entirely shocking to me as a skeptic, may come as a terrible surprise to many Christians. Interestingly, the information I was looking for was not difficult to find at all. Most of it is right there in the Bible. I just don't think anyone ever looks for it, or thinks to question it.

I will not ask you to take my word for any of this. In fact, I will ask that you DON'T take my word for any of it. I want you to read what I say and my reasoning, and then check the sources for yourself, and decide for yourself if I am making anything up.

Because what I found is that all of the supposed prophecies in the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are a fiction of one form or another. They all fall into one of these categories:

1) An Old Testament passage that is quoted out of context, and had its meaning twisted to fit with the story of Jesus.

2) A prophecy that occurred in someone's dream. (As if a dream were proof of anything.)

3) A complete fabrication. In other words, claiming something to be fulfillment of a prophecy for which there is no record anywhere.

I will grant that a few of these are, at best, debatable. It is difficult to tell from the original context exactly what was going on. But the vast majority of them are clear forgeries: a quote was lifted out of the Old Testament, and a story was invented about Jesus to try to fit the quote. When the quote is looked at in context, it becomes clear that it has no bearing on what is claimed in the Gospel. In most cases, the original is simply referring to what was happening to the Jewish people at the time of the writing.

And when you see that perhaps 80% are forgeries without any doubt, how can you then say that the preponderance of evidence in the other cases does not prove them to be forgeries as well?

What does this mean for you if you are a Christian? I guess it will be up to you to decide. My fear is that most Christians are too afraid of what they might find, that they won't read any further, that they won't check the information for themselves.

I just want you to use the brain God gave you!

An Angel Talks to Joseph

The Story

Joseph discovers that his bride-to-be, Mary, is pregnant. He knows he is not the father, and plans to break up with her. (Who among us would not be distraught to find out that the woman to whom we were engaged was pregnant with someone else's child?)

That night, the distraught Joseph has a dream. In the dream, an angel comes to him and tells him that Mary is carrying the savior of mankind, and it's ok to go ahead and marry her.

The Facts

Dreams are not reliable sources of information, and are certainly not prophecies. (If you do not understand why, you need to read this article.) At best, this was Joseph's unconscious mind trying to account for the fact that his beloved had apparently cheated on him. So the unconscious mind concocts this fantastic story.

Thomas Paine: "So wonderful and irrational is the faculty of the mind in dream that it acts the part of all the characters its imagination creates. … I pay no regard to my own dreams, and I should be weak indeed to put faith in the dreams of another."

A Virgin Will Be With Child

The Story

After Joseph awakens from his dream, we are told this:

Matt 1:22-23: All of 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 Facts

1) The original quote is in the context of a time when there were two main Jewish nations, warring with one another: the Kingdom of Judah, and the Kingdom of Israel. Ahaz, king of Judah, is talking to Isaiah about their perilous situation, as the combined forces of their enemies are set to march upon them. Ahaz is contemplating an alliance with the Assyrians (which he later did).

Reading just the next two verses tells us that Isaiah is speaking not of a child to be born several hundred years hence, but of a child whose birth was imminent:

"The two kings you dread" refers to the two kings whose attack was imminent. In reality, Isaiah is speaking of his own son, and the woman of whom he speaks is his pregnant wife. And this takes place early in Isaiah 8.

2) There is at least one obvious mistranslation: The Hebrew word translated as "virgin" is actually used to refer to any young woman, regardless of her sexual history. The Hebrews used a completely different word in other places when referring to an actual virgin.

3) Another mistranslation: Most modern Hebrew scholars agree that the verb in the sentence should have been translated in the present tense, not the future: "The virgin IS with child…"

As one author notes: {Zindler P.16} "If this passage really were referring to the birth of Jesus seven centuries in the future, this would be the longest pregnancy in history, and the real miracle has gone unnoticed by Bible scholars for two millennia!"

4) The name "Immanuel" translates literally as "God with us". The only place where this name is used to refer to Jesus in the entire New Testament is in the quotation of this "prophecy".

On The Translation

So now we have the correct translation as: "The young woman is with child…" As opposed to, "The virgin will be with child."

All mistranslations aside, simply reading Isaiah 7 and 8 in their entirety will show you that this was a prophecy of something that was imminent, and dealt solely with the war that was going on in Isaiah's time (roughly 700 BC), and had nothing to do with a mythical savior to be born seven centuries later.

Why the mistranslation – and why does it only appear in Christian bibles? Maybe because Christian translators are being purposely dishonest, in an attempt to further their cause, and are not afraid of lying to do that? What does that say about the truthfulness of any of their claims?

A Ruler is Born in Bethlehem

The Story

King Herod, upon hearing of the birth of a Jesus, asks his advisors where the birth has taken place.

"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
     are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
     who will be the shepherd of my people Israel"

The Facts

1) The verse is misquoted.

a. In the original context, "Bethlehem" is really "Bethlehem [of the family] Ephrethah". It is not referring to a place at all, but rather it is meant to be addressing a person (or group of people). The family line is given in 1 Chronicles 2 (verses 19 and 51, specifically).

b. The phrase "in the land of Judah" is inserted in the Gospel version. It simply doesn't exist in the original context. It's a complete forgery.

c. The phrase "among the rulers of Judah" is more properly translated as "among the clans of Judah"

2) When the entire chapter (Micah 5) is read in context, we see that Micah is talking about a human warrior who is going to come to beat back the Assyrians, and who will deliver the people from the rule of Assyria.

Christ was never considered a military general or warrior, even in a metaphorical sense; that completely goes against how Christians think of Christ. Furthermore, in Christ's time, it was the Romans, not the Assyrians, who were oppressing the Jewish people. (The rule of the Assyrians had declined by about 600 BC.)

Lastly, far from delivering the Jews and ruling over the Romans, it was the Romans who crucified Jesus.

So clearly, the passage in Micah is not prophesying the birth or birthplace of Christ many hundreds of years in the future. It's just some guy hoping for someone to come and beat up the Assyrians in his time.

3) The author of Micah had a bit of a tendency to steal ideas from other authors. For example, the beginning of Micah 4 is plagiarized almost word-for-word from Isaiah 2. In the case of the (alleged) prophecy in Micah 5:2, the idea seems to be taken from 2 Samuel 5:2. In the Samuel passage, a distraught people are pleading to David to save them:

Out of Egypt I Called My Son

The Story

After the three wise men visit the baby Jesus, Joseph has yet another dream. This time it is God who instructs him to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. God is afraid that Herod, the Roman ruler, plans to kill the Baby Jesus. Joseph is instructed to wait in Egypt until God tells him to return. The story finishes with this:

The Facts

This is perhaps the weakest "prophecy" yet.

First, we've already discussed the problems with placing any reliance on our own dreams, let alone the dreams of another.

Regardless, a full reading of Hosea 11 shows, with no doubt whatsoever, that "my son" refers to the nation of Israel, and the statement "Out of Egypt I called my son" clearly refers to God calling the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt during the time of Moses. He then goes on to lament how they later sacrificed to Baal and made graven images (such as the golden calf). Here are verses 1-3:

And on it goes. So unless Jesus Christ also sacrificed to Baal and made graven images, it is really hard to make this one stick.

Rachel Weeping For Her Children

The Story

After learning he had been duped by the Three Wise Men, King Herod orders all male babies under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be murdered. Matthew tells us this:

The Facts

Once again, we have a Christian author taking a quote that was intended to relate to the suffering of the Jews at the time it was written, and instead try to make it apply to Jesus' time. Some historical context will help clear this up.

In Jeremiah's time, Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem and led all the Jews into slavery and captivity. It is a time of great despair and suffering for the Israelites. This is the suffering that Jeremiah is witnessing, and of which he writes. A full reading of chapters 30 and 31 makes this abundantly clear. God is talking about the promise of returning his children (the Israelites) to the land that he has promised to them. It is these "children" for whom Rachel is weeping. Even looking at the subsequent two verses helps:

Jeremiah 31:16-17

16 This is what the LORD says:
      "Restrain your voice from weeping
      and your eyes from tears,
      for your work will be rewarded,"
      declares the LORD.
      "They will return from the land of the enemy.
 
 17 So there is hope for your future,"
       declares the LORD.
       "Your children will return to their own land.

About Herod

On a historical note, the entire story of Herod killing all the boys under two years old appears to be completely fabricated by the author of this tale. It is not supported by any other historical evidence or records. The penalty to Herod for such an action would have been quite severe. Herod was the equivalent of a local governor in the Roman Empire, and appeals to officials higher than him would have been possible. The story appears to have been invented solely for the purpose of "fulfilling" the three false prophecies in this chapter.

Additional Sources

• Rachel Weeping: Written by a Christian author who at least acknowledges that the meaning Matthew ascribed to the Old Testament source is not what had been intended by its author.

He Will Be Called a Nazarene

The Story

It's easier if you just read it for yourself:

The Facts

This one is easy. There is no such prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament. It is a complete fabrication. This lends further credence to the conclusion drawn in the previous section that this entire chapter is a fabrication.

In researching this one, I turned up a couple of Bible apologists doing some incredible mental acrobats in trying to make up for this problem. If you have extra time and are looking for a good laugh, here is the best one I found. Their conclusion still fails to counter the basic accusation: that it is a false prophecy. But if you aren't paying attention they talk long enough that they may distract you from this fact. (This seems typical of much of the Bible Apologetics that I've come across: they restate the case during the course of the answer, then respond to the re-stated case.)

And on the subject of this being yet again "revealed" through a dream, Thomas Paine had this to say: "Joseph dreamed another dream, and dreamed of another angel. And Matthew is again the historian of the dream and the dreamer. If it were asked how Matthew could know what Joseph dreamed, neither the Bishop nor all the Church could answer the question."

Prepare the Way for the Lord

The Story

John the Baptist heads out to the desert to start preaching and baptizing. Matthew tells us this:

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
   "A voice of one calling in the desert,
   'Prepare the way for the Lord,
      make straight paths for him.' "

The Facts

This one seems a bit random.

The first obvious problem is that the verse is misquoted:

It isn't that there is a person calling in the desert; it's that the voice is calling, and the instruction includes the command "In the desert."

Furthermore, the original context seems to be giving an instruction to build a highway in the desert. It says nothing about some apocalypse nut yelling about the end of the earth and baptizing people. In other words, the "prophecy" doesn't seem to fit the situation described.

Here is a translation from a Hebrew Bible:

As with other writings of Isaiah, it seems logical to assume that this has to do with the Jewish people returning (yet again) to Jerusalem after being exiled.

On Isaiah

I haven't figured out exactly what Isaiah is trying to get across in this passage. Which makes it a good time to point out a few things about Isaiah in general. I'll begin with this observation from Thomas Paine:

"Isaiah is, on the whole, a wild, disorderly writer, preserving in general no clear chain of perception in the arrangement of his ideas, and consequently producing no defined conclusions from them.

"It is the wildness of his style, the confusion of his ideas, and the ranting metaphors he employs, that have afforded so many opportunities to priests in some cases, or to superstition in others, to impose those defects upon the world as prophecies of Jesus Christ.

"Finding no direct meaning in his writings, and not knowing what to make of them, and supposing at the same time that they were intended to have a meaning, they supplied the defect by inventing a meaning of their own, and then called it Isaiah's. I have however in this place done Isaiah the justice to rescue him from the claws of Matthew, who has torn him unmercifully to pieces, and from the imposition or ignorance of priests and commentators, by letting Isaiah speak for himself.

Additionally, the book of Isaiah is believed to be not just a single writer, but in fact at least 3 distinct writers, and possibly more. They split up roughly this way:

• #1 - books 1-39
• #2 - books 40-55
• #3 - books 56-66

Parts one and two look to be a single author each; it's part 3 (books 56-66) that some scholars believe may in fact be numerous authors. But there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that it is, at a minimum, 3 distinct authors.

Which raises the question: since everything after Chapter 39 is not the work of the supposed prophet, how can it honestly be called a prophecy at all?

Zebulun & Naphtali

The Story

The Facts

To get this one to work, the author had to completely butcher the quote from the Old Testament, removing entire phrases to change its meaning, and altering verb tenses from past to future. The original passage spoke of things that had already happened, not of things that were going to happen.

*I have taken this quote from the NIV, as I do all my quotes, because of its easy readability compared to many other versions. However, this appears to be one of those instances where the Christian translators of the NIV — who had sworn an oath to make sure the scripture was in line with Christian theology — appear to have purposely changed the verb tense in this phrase from past to future. In fact, they render the whole meaning of this sentence completely differently than other translations. [See: New King James, Young's Literal Translation, as two examples.]

Either way, it still doesn't pass the "stink test", since this passage has nothing to with Jesus (or anyone) actually being in the Land of Zebulun. All it says is that in the past he humbled these lands.

Additionally, "The people walking in darkness" that Isaiah refers to are the same people he refers to just a few verses earlier at the end of chapter 8 (Isaiah 8:19-22).

Jesus Casts Out Demons

The Story

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Jesus, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
   "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."

The Facts

Here they go, picking on Isaiah again.

If you read the whole of Isaiah 53, you will realize that it is not intended to be a prophecy at all. Isaiah is lamenting the passing of a long-suffering friend (or several friends). Everything of which he speaks is in the past tense, and there are no things that he describes of a supernatural nature which suggest he is speaking of a savior-God to be born 700 years later.

Putting that aside for the moment, let's address a more obvious problem: there is no such thing as demonic possession. This belief was all the rage at the time the New Testament was written (similar to the UFO craze of today). But there was not a single mention of it in the Old Testament, and there is no documented case of it in our time anywhere in the world. It's a fairy tale; a myth. A plot device for the movie "The Exorcist".

Lastly, see the note "On Isaiah" at the bottom of this section on why picking a quote from Isaiah 53 doesn't necessarily amount to much.

God's Chosen Servant

The Story

The Pharisees (a group of Jewish religious leaders) were getting upset with Jesus because he and his disciples were doing work on the Sabbath: picking grain. Then Jesus goes into their synagogue and performs a couple of miracles and healings. The Pharisees get mad and start plotting how to kill Jesus. Matthew continues the story:

The Facts

1) The first and most obvious problem (and seemingly the most overlooked): the supposed "prophecy" bears no resemblance to the events that Matthew just described. There is no connection; obvious or otherwise.

2) The last line above has been misquoted. In the original context, it reads, "In his law, the islands will put their hope." This bears no significance to Jesus; the author of Matthew had to change it to hide this fact.

3) Reading further in the Isaiah 42 yields other clues that it could not possibly be referring to Jesus. Such as giving him authority over gentiles (Jesus was king of the Jews).

4) "He will not quarrel or cry out". Jesus quarreled with his disciples on a couple of occasions. And he cried out on the cross.

5) "No one will hear his voice in the streets." Jesus did a great deal of his work in public places, including one famous sermon given on the side of a mountain.

Once again, Isaiah's passage is somewhat long, rambling, and disjointed. And of course he has left out the name of the person of which his writing speaks, leaving it open to misinterpretation (or outright hijacking from the early Christians). The only thing we can be certain of is that it was not (and did not) apply to Jesus Christ.

One more plausible explanation that I read is that it was written regarding Cyrus, King of Persia. The details of the explanation are long so I won't repeat them here. You can read it here if it really interests you.

Here is another link on Cyrus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Religion

Gentle and Riding on a Donkey

The Story

We shall let Matthew tell the story:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethpage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."
This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
   "Say to the Daughter of Zion,
      'See, your king comes to you,
   gentle and riding on a donkey,
      on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "

The Facts

Honestly, I read the whole book of Zechariah, and had trouble making heads or tales of it. He was not one of the better writers in the Bible (which is saying something, because there is a lot of bad writing in the Bible).

Zechariah is apparently one of the harder texts to translate. I read the notes from a couple of Bible scholars and it appears they have to make a lot of guesses with some of these works.

My research turned up a couple of interesting things though:

1) Zechariah was celebrating the return of the Jews to Jerusalem after their captivity (again) in Babylon. This is apparently what most of the writings refer to. Chapter 9 is "prophesying" a contemporary return (from Zechariah's viewpoint) of God and His People (the Jews) to Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with Christ. It's a nice fiction though.

2) The author of Matthew apparently didn't understand Hebrew poetry. The last two lines of the quoted poem, "gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey", the second line is merely a repeat of the first with some embellishment. There is actually only a single donkey involved. Apparently this type of balance and symmetry was a common characteristic of Hebrew poetry. But Matthew had Jesus tell the disciples to go and get two donkeys, the mother and the colt. Oops!

Jesus is Arrested

The Story

Matthew tells of Judas arriving with armed soldiers, coming to arrest Jesus. As they approach, the disciple Peter draws his sword and cuts off one of the soldier's ears. Jesus has Peter put back his sword. The story concludes with this line from Jesus: "This has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled."

The Facts

No one — not even the most devout Christian scholars — has been able to find a source for this supposed prophecy. It could be that Jesus was simply intending to refer to all of the previous prophecies (which we've now debunked), but either way, this one is clearly not a prophecy fulfilled.

There are a few interesting points to be made regarding this story though, drawing into question whether it could have even happened the way it was told:

• The Jews at this time were Roman subjects. Peter, a Jew, would not likely have been allowed to carry a sword.
• Why would a disciple of Christ have been wearing a sword in the first place?
• Having cut off a soldier's ear, Peter would have been arrested too.
• In the Luke version, Jesus heals the soldier's ear… which one might imagine would have caused the soldiers to re-think the whole business about arresting him. Instead they act much more like the villains in a tale of fiction and continue on their mission unabated.

The Field of Blood

The Story

In this story, Judas returns the money that he was paid to betray Jesus, then he hangs himself. The elders decide they cannot accept "blood money":

The Facts

This one is a laugher. The NIV lists three possible sources for this "prophecy". When read in full context, none of them even come close to fitting the situation described in Matthew! (Read them yourself by clicking the links at the top of the page, if you are interested.) It is another blatant forgery.

Further Contradictions

Acts 1:18 completely contradicts the account given in Matthew. Acts says Judas did not return the coins, but rather it was he who bought the field. It also says that rather than hang himself, he fell (possibly into a whole) and his guts were spilled all over, hence the reason it was called the Field of Blood.

How much more proof do we need that these stories are all made up?

Casting Lots For His Garments

The Story

The soldiers who have just crucified Jesus decide to cast lots to see who will get to keep his clothing. ("Casting lots" is the biblical equivalent of flipping a coin or rolling dice.) This is said to have fulfilled a prophecy from Psalm 22:18, "They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."

The Facts

If you read all of Psalm 22, you will see it is written by a man who is simply lamenting his place in the world. He is not speaking of the actions of a savior to be born many hundreds of years hence; he is merely speaking of the poor way he (the writer) is treated by those around him, at the present time.

God's Messenger

The Story

The Book of Mark starts off by telling of the coming of John the Baptist:

The Facts

Mark tells a similar story to Matthew but embellishes the "prophecy" of John the Baptist even further by mixing and matching two separate Old Testament passages, one from Malachi, and one from Isaiah. We previously discussed the problems with the Isaiah passage.

As for Malachi:

1) If we continue reading in Malachi 3, we find this is not a prediction of a savior, but of a destroyer. It is a doomsday prediction of fear and terror. It would be a complete bastardization of all Christian teaching to try and make this apply to Jesus Christ.

2) The doomsday prediction continues in Malachi 4, then in verse 5 of this chapter, the person of whom he is speaking is revealed: It is Elijah!

The Resurrection of Jesus

The Story

According to each of the above passages, Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day "in fulfillment of the scriptures."

The Facts

Since this teaching is the cornerstone of Christian theology, maybe I should have covered it first. But I thought most believers might find it off-putting to have it come first. And what better topic to have as a grand finale?

No one has ever been able to locate the supposed scriptures that were fulfilled by the story of Jesus and his death and resurrection. There is no such passage in the Old Testament, or anywhere else for that matter.

The story of the prophecy was invented, in much the same way that the story of it being fulfilled was invented.

People do not walk on water. They do not "cast out demons" (since there is no such thing as demonic possession). They do not heal the sick with a simple touch.

And most importantly, they do not rise from the dead. And they do not ascend into heaven.

The Prophecies — in Conclusion

It is claimed that Jesus came in fulfillment of many prophecies. As we have now seen, this claim is clearly false. These are by no means all of the prophecies that are claimed in the New Testament, and some Christians claim even more. (I found one site that supposedly listed 365 fulfilled prophecies! To this guy, God cursing the serpent in Genesis was somehow a prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Please!) But these being the first 16 that I could find, and being part of the canonical Gospels, they give us pretty good evidence for the truthfulness of the rest.

Early Christian writers, who were desperate to have more people believe in and follow their religion, committed a fraud on humanity. A fraud that has been perpetuated for more than 2000 years. They stole some loosely worded passages from the Hebrew scriptures, quoted them out of context, and twisted them around to make them fit their savior-god.

There is no longer any excuse for this fraud to continue. It survived this long largely for the following reasons:

1) Up until the 19th century, publishing such information would have been considered heresy, and would have been punishable by imprisonment or even death.

2) Up until the 19th century, most people were illiterate, and relied on their religious leaders to provide this information for them. For some reason, they expected their religious leaders to be honest.

3) People are too lazy to read the Bible for themselves, and to use their own brains to think about its content.

What's incredible is that this information is so easy to find. It doesn't require any faith; it is right there in black and white. Anyone with a Bible could have figured this out for themselves at any time. Thomas Paine came to the same conclusions 200 years ago that I came to today.

My hope is that, with the advent of the Internet, speech is more free than it ever has been before. Hopefully, finally, people will start to wake up from their 2000-year-old dream, and join the other billion of us who already live in reality.

What does this mean for you if you are a Christians? I guess it will be up to you to decide. Does the fact that your Holy Book is so full of blatant lies call into question the rest of what is written about your savior? Or does not even this obvious sham shake your faith? And if not, then upon what exactly are you basing that faith?

Additional Resources:

• The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah
• Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled
• Thomas Paine: An Examination of the Prophecies