Facts Concerning the Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew is commonly looked upon as the Gospel directed towards the Jews. But, my question is, "Should it even be recognized as a legitimate Gospel at all?"

The word "Gospel" has been translated by some as "the Good News" and the Gospel of Matthew has been publicized within the churches and throughout the world as such - the Good News according to the Apostle Matthew (its author most commonly believed as actually being the Apostle Matthew - I highly doubt that).

Well, there is a problem with Matthew. Besides being written some 200+ years AFTER Jesus was said to have Ascended into Heaven, there are many, many misrepresentations of the Old Testament Prophesies - some, even FALSE Prophesies altogether. It is as if "someone" wanted SO BADLY to prove to the Jews (and the world at the time) that Jesus was the Messiah that they resorted to every method possible - even deception.

"How could this happen?" you may ask. Isn't the Bible the Written Word of God? Unfortunately, there are a few misconceptions about the Bible that some people make:

1. First mistake is that some people believe that the Bible is somehow a single book that tells a story from start to finish; from Genesis to Revelation. This is not the case. The Bible is a "collection of books (scriptures)" that are unrelated to each other in context (with the exception of the Torah). In other words, Isaiah was written for what was taking place for Isaiah; Jerimiah was written for what was taking place for Jerimiah; and the list goes on...

2. Second mistake is in translation. If you want to know the most authentic translation of the Old Testament, then study the original version - the HEBREW; if you want to know the most authentic translation of the New Testament, the study the original version - the Greek. If you want to just read the Bible and be "inspired" then use the translation of your choice; however, whenever doing SERIOUS study of the Bible, you need to find the most authentic version as possible (Old Testament - HEBREW; New Testament - GREEK; sorry King James, you have been proven to contain over 36,000 errors when cross-referenced with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi).

With these things in mind, here are some Problems with Matthew:

******************************
Prophecy #1: Born of a virgin
******************************

Matthew 1:22-1:23
Now all this happened, in order that it might be fulfilled, that which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Look! A virgin shall be with child, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanu-El", which being interpreted is, 'God is with us'.

The correct translation from Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore He, my Lord, shall give to you a sign. Behold! The young woman is with child, and shall bring forth a son and call his name Emanu-El".

Upon first glance, you might think that the focus is the mother or the child. But if you read the sentences that both precede and follow this one you will see that the objects in this sentence (the mother-to-be and the future infant) are incidental to the actual prophecy. This prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled in later sentences IN ISAIAH and is about winning a battle. If either the woman or the child were not mentioned, the battle would still take place. But is it possible that someone would present a bad translation in order to prove a point as in Matthew's case? If you compare the two versions, you will see that the answer is "yes".

The word "virgin" was not in the original Hebrew text. The word "HaAlmah" (which IS in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Besulah." Even so, we will see later on that this sentence was not speaking about the mother of Messiah anyway.

This is a non-Messianic verse, yet Matthew attempts to use it to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah.

As further proof that Besulah and HaAlmah are different, we can read of this difference in the first sentence of the Talmud, Tractate Kesubos (dealing with the marriage and relationship process between men and women). It states "A besulah (virgin) is married on the 4th day [of the week] and an almah (non-virgin) is married on the 5th day [of the week]." It is obvious in this single sentence that the rabbi's of that period knew the difference between the two ideas.

Also, note that in the original Hebrew, there is use of the word hinei, or "behold!" This word, when used before describing a future event, often indicates that the event will happen very soon. So in this case, a pregnant non-virginal woman will soon be giving birth to a son, not centuries later.

How did this quote get translated in the book of "Matthew" as virgin in every other language in the world when it remained young woman in the Tanakh in its original Hebrew form? It was obviously done to promote the virgin story of pagan mythologies.

When the 71 Rabbis were forced to translate the Torah, it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Christian authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake appears to have been intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!

When the Christian bible was again translated into English and other languages, again, this error was kept in place. It wasn't until the early 1950's, a few versions of the Christian bible (beginning with Revised Standard Version of the Christian Bible) were changed back to "young woman," changing their Christian text to fit the Hebrew, but there are still many versions that have kept this in. Not that it matters, because this isn't even a messianic prophecy!

This is not a messianic prophecy. If you read the entire quote, you will see that it concerns Ahaz ben Jotham of Judah at around 700 BCE. Isaiah is providing him with a prophecy. I'll paraphrase the entire section of the story in more contemporary language so that you get the gist of the context in which that pusek was written. For the exact text, you can read Isaiah 7:10-7:17 for yourself.

**********************************************
Ahaz: Alas! Our land is under siege. All around me are our enemies. Rezin, king of Aram is joining forces with king Pekah. What shall become of our land and our people with these Syrians coming after us? God has abandoned us to our enemies!
Isaiah: Do you really want to know?

Ahaz: I'd rather not.

Isaiah: I will tell you anyway. God has not abandoned you or your people. Look at the young woman over there that is pregnant. God has not abandoned you, and this child will be called Emmanu-El because the people will see that God is with us. And what's more, before that child is old enough to tell the difference between good and evil, those kingdoms that you fear will have been abandoned.
**********************************************

So what discrepancies do we learn from this?

The child was not the focal point of the perek, but was used as a sign, such as "When the last leaf has fallen from that cedar tree..." This is not to say that there is something special about the tree, but it is just an instance to note.

The event was to happen very soon, centuries before Jesus was even born. The word hinei emphasizes how soon the event will take place. Also, before the child is old enough to tell the difference between right and wrong, the war will have been over and the enemy cities abandoned.

This is not a messianic prophecy, but one that tells Ahaz that he shall vanquish his enemies and that the war will not be a long one.

There is nothing virginal about this pusek. The young woman needs to not be a virgin and give birth to her child, one that is human. The message here is that when one has faith in HaShem, ones enemies will fall and ones kingdom will prosper.

Scholars believe that the woman, who stood near the king and the prophet during their conversation, was probably the wife of the king, and was giving birth to his son. Rashi thought that the verse spoke about Hezekiah. When Hezekiah was 9 years old, his father became king over their land and the land of their enemies. Hezekiah was also know as the "Prince of Peace", a term that Christians have delegated to Jesus, which is an interesting "coincidence". However, Ibn Ezra refutes the idea because of the time delay involved.

It doesn't matter who the child was, however. The child was not the focal point of the prophecy, but only an interesting sidebar. As I said before, this was not a messianic prophecy, and it definitely had nothing to do with Jesus.


******************************
Prophecy #2: Born in Bethlehem
******************************

Matthew 2:5-2:6
And they said to him (concerning the birth of the King of the Jews), 'In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet, "And you Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, are not the least among the princes of Juda: Out of you one shall come, a Governor, who is to be the ruler of my people Israel."'

The correct translation from Micah 5:2
"And you of Beth-Lechem of [the district of] Ephrasah, you should have been the lowest [person] of the tribe of Judah [because of your questionable lineage]. [Yet instead,] out of you one shall come to Me who is to be a ruler over all of Israel."

This is a messianic verse, but you will notice that the Christian version seems to look a bit different than the original. First, their version speaks of an area called Judaea, which had since taken over the province called Ephratah. At the time of Jesus, the district no longer existed. That is why over and over we read in the Christian bible "Bethlehem of Judea." My guess is that the author of "Matthew" was afraid what that pesky word ("Ephratah") would do to the prophecy and so he simply removed it. The other problem, however, is that this verse does not speak of where the Messiah will be born, but from where his beginnings lie. You'll see that more clearly in a moment.

Next, the Christian version makes it sound like we are talking about a town instead of a person. There is no town that is of the tribe of Judah! We are speaking of a person, and not a place. The person is primary to the prophecy. It would not matter where the man in this pusek lived. No matter where he lived, there would still be a messianic line. The prophet is not predicting where the Messiah will be born, but is recalling the source of the messianic lineage before speaking of the Messiah.

Next, "Matthew" left out the portion about "you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah." Why is this person the lowest of the other members of the tribe of Judah? This is because the man who lived there had a Moabite grandmother, and therefore had questionable lineage. A Moabite man is forbidden to convert to Judaism and the problem of a Moabite woman also came into question. It was later ruled as not a problem for a woman, but some people still questioned anyone of that descent. Because of that, this man was the least likely of all of the tribe of Judah to be the SOURCE of the Messiah.

[1 Samuel 17:12 - "And David was the son of this Ephrasah man from Beth-Lechem of Judea."]

Yishai believed that David's mother was an adulteress and that David was not his son (which was untrue). So again, David too was the least likely candidate for King over all of Israel. It is from this lineage that Messiah will be born. Hence, this pusek was not stating where Messiah would be born, but, rather, where his roots had already begun.

The other part of the modified translation is that G-d says that this offspring will "come to me". This becomes a problem when we read in Christian tradition that Jesus came from G-d. Therefore, in order to get rid of this "pesky problem" the author of "Matthew" simply removed it from his version of the quote.

The rest of this passage speaks of the time period when Zion will be lead by a warrior king who will establish his kingdom with the help of several princes. As far as we can tell, Jesus was not the warrior king! In fact, unlike a real king, no prophet ever anointed Jesus with that special oil. Remember that Beth-Lechem is not only the prophecy about where the lineage would begin, but what such a person would do. There were lots and lots of baby boys born in Beth-Lechem, but not one of them did what this prophecy says that the Messiah will do. And since this prophecy has not been fulfilled, Jesus did not fulfill it either.

As you can see, this verse from Micah was not talking about where the Messiah would be born, but from WHERE the messianic dynasty would begin: It began with David HaMelech. So why pick a verse that Jesus never fulfilled? Perhaps the author of the "Matthew" was looking for some prophecy that had the name Beth-Lechem (Bethlehem) in it, and this was the best support that he could come up with. And since Jesus is not from that lineage, and since he did not fulfill the requirement of leading the Jews, this verse does not pertain to him.

******************************
Prophecy #3: Escape to Egypt
******************************

Matthew 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."


The correct translation from Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a child then, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called to my son."

The quotation continues: "The more [the observant Jews] called [the non-observant Jews], the more they went from them. [The non-observant Jews] sacrificed unto the Baalim, offered to graven images. And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.; I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently. He (the Jew) shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return (to their ways). And the sword shall fall upon his cities, and shall consume his bars, and devour them, because of their own counsels."

For some reason, there is this need by some Christians to find "My Son" and automatically attribute it to Jesus, even though we have instances where Yaakov and David HaMelech, and the people of Yisrael were called "My Son". Yes, the people of Yisrael are referenced here, as they are in other places, as a single unit, as a child of HaShem. Here we read that the children (son) of Yisrael exited Egypt and as time passed, many went on to worship idols.
[Shemos (Exodus) 4:18 - Then say to Pharaoh, This is what HaShem says: Yisrael is my firstborn son."]

In fact, we might even say that, based on the way that the Christian bible is using the text ("Out of Egypt I called my son") that it could even be referring to Hitler who lost the battles of northern Africa and had called his forces back to Germany!

This is yet another instance of a non-existent prophesy that Jesus was supposed to have fulfilled, but in reality was simply another out-of-context phrase that is being used to attribute a special relationship between Jesus and God.

It is important to remember that a "Son of God" is not a Jewish idea. Nowhere in the Tanakh (Sacred Jewish Scriptures that include the Torah) will you find the term b'nei HaShem. You will only find God calling us "son", we calling ourselves "your son", and we calling God "father". The word Elohim also is translated as "God", but can also mean "false gods" and "they that decended from heaven". The Sanheidrein were called Elohim. Because of this, we often have bad translations, such as "You are gods" and "The sons of gods came forth and..."


Again, this verse is about how the Jews fell away from their destined path, refused to proclaim their spiritual heritage, and because the ended up worshipping other deities, they will suffer tremendously.

******************************
Prophecy #4: Killing of baby boys to find a baby Christ
******************************

Matthew 2:17-2:18
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel is weeping for her children, and will not be comforted, because they are no more.

The correct translation from Jeremiah 31:15
"Thus says HaShem: a voice in Rama I hear. It is wailing, weeping bitterness. Rachael is weeping for her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children, for they are no more."

So far, the translation looks pretty good, however, if we read the next two sentences, we find out what this quote really meant.

"Thus says HaShem: Refrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for your work shall be rewarded says HaShem; And they shall come back from the land of the enemy, and there is hope for their future says HaShem, and your children shall return to their own border."

This is a typical way of using a text out of context as "proof".

As we can see, in no way is this verse a prophecy that the children of Beth-Lechem would be killed. Yaakov Avienu, buried his wife Rachel on the side of the road as he traveled to Beth-Lechem of Ephratah (sound familiar?). We are told that she is there for all generations to pray to God on behalf of all of the children of Israel who shall be led into exile. The nations lead the Jews into bondage; the Jews are exiled and often murdered. God tells the spirit of Rachael that the Jews shall one day return from "the land of the enemy, and there is hope for their future." God also speaks of the return of the Jewish people back to the land of Israel.

This text does not speak of a massacre of an entire town, and in the actual Hebrew text, the children are exiled and will return.

Some Christians might say that this verse was stating that this was speaking of the resurrection of the dead babies. Or maybe some woman was there named Rachael. Or he or she might say that when Jesus returns, then we can all live in peace in Israel. And of course "the enemy" is Satan. And they will go on and on, trashing these words of the future to fit what they want. The reality is that we Jews have a long memory, and they remember any great disaster that befalls them. And if a foreign leader kills a great multitude of Jewish baby boys, the Jews would NOT forget it. And yet, neither the Romans nor the Jews take note to remember this.

No, this verse is not about Jewish babies being sacrificed so that the Christ may live. It is about a Jewish nation that can take anything thrown at it, and still be able to return home one day. This is a promise of God.

******************************
Prophecy #5: Moving to Nazareth
******************************

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

And the correct translation is...

[PROPHECY NOT FOUND]

No Such Prophecy Exists!!! Why?

Because there are no recorded prophets that made this statement!!!

Nowhere in the book of Prophets is the word "Nazarene" used. Nazarite, yes, but Nazarene, no. They have two different meanings. The first is a town and the second is a lifestyle. Furthermore, the only text where the word "nazarite" was used was in relationship to Shimshon (Samson), a word spelled differently in Hebrew that means that he would not drink wine or cut his hair. Nor, in that sentence, does it say that Shimshon shall be called a nazarite, but that he shall be treated as a nazarite. So this quote could not be lifted from that verse either.

Nazareth was a LATER created city and DID NOT EXIST DURING THE TIME OF ISAIAH. This verse in Matthew was a completely fabricated "prophecy".

There is another word similar to "Nazarene" that I had thought might work - notzri, but the word "notzri" doesn't seem to work in this context either. The "notzri" cult appeared in northern Israel around 100 B.C.E. It later became a term that Jews used when referring to Christianity, since it seems that Christianity lifted many of its aspects from that cult. There was even a Yeishu ha-Notzri written about in the Talmud, who existed around that same time, but was eventually stoned as a heretic around 40 C.E. after no one would come to his defense. Educated Jews claim that this is the same character that Christians call "Jesus." Christian leaders, however, claim that there is no relationship between the character Jesus and the reference to Yeishu.

Again, it seems as though the author would indicate the major instances of the life of Jesus, and when he couldn't find a passage to force incorrectly into the situation, he made one up.

******************************
Prophecy #6: A prophet announces a Christ who comes out of the wilderness
******************************

Matthew 3:2-3:3
And saying, "Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight'."


The correct translation from Isaiah 40:3
"A voice calls in the desert, 'clear the way of HaShem, straighten out in the wilderness a highway for our God."

If you read a few versus before, you will see that Isaiah is speaking to King Hezekias (remember him as a baby in the first "prophecy?"). Here is the entire quote in context:

"Console, console my people', says God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and call to her, for she has become fully away from her host. A voice calls in the desert, 'clear the way of HaShem, and straighten out in the wilderness, a highway for our God'."

Isaiah was not speaking about John the Baptist. He was telling Hezekias to be a shepherd to his own people, to lead them back by calling out to his people. He was charged with ending their exile and bringing them home. Again, this is another out of context quote. Neither John nor Jesus led the Jewish people out of Exile.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe that there is no distinction between Jesus and God. Because of that, they require no leap of faith to have "a highway for our God" to mean that John was clearing a way for Jesus.

*******************
Prophecy #7: The Christ leaves Nazereth and moves to Capernaum
******************

Matthew 4:13-4:16
And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the seacoast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim. That it might be fulfilled which Isaiah the prophet spoke, saying "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light; those who sat in the land of the shadow of death, a light shone upon them."

The correct translation from Isaiah 8:23-9:1
"For there is no weariness to that [king of Assyria] which oppresses [Israel]. Like the first time, he dealt mildly with the land of Zebulun and the [neighboring] land of Naftali. And the last one he dealt harshly, by way of the sea at the other side of the Jordan, they who became like the Gentiles. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, a light shone upon them.

This is another case of a quote being pulled out of context. One might think that this was a messianic prophecy.

The Hebrew: G'lil HaGoyim, has been translated by Christians as "Galilee of the Gentiles" in order to fit it with the 20 cities of Galilee (given to Hiram by King Solomon) in the Christian text. However, G'lil generally means "a rolling together", a joining of tribes, a combining of small parts into a larger whole, etc. Hence I use the translation "became like". This also makes more sense, given the context of the non-Messianic sentence. Leaving it a "Gallilee", while not changing the fact that this is non-Messianic, does not fully express the reason that the people are in darkness (they became like the Gentiles).

The original text referred to the children of Israel who were oppressed by the kingdom of Assyria and were living in spiritual darkness (living like the Gentiles). It also refers to the oppressed eventually returning (t'shuvah) to the light of their Creator. Yet in Matthew, the authors text has chopped it up to make is sound like the Messiah shall come from a particular place to bring light to the darkness of the waiting people. Notice what a difference one can make by leaving and changing a few words.

*****************
Prophecy #8: The Christ personally heals the sick
*****************

Matthew 8:17
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, "Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses."


The correct translation from Isaiah 53:4
"Indeed, our illnesses he carried, and our pains; yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God, and oppressed."

To take this sentence literally would mean that the people seeing Jesus viewed him as plagued, damned by the Creator, and someone to be avoided. But that doesn't work in the context of the Christian text (he's healing and not oppressed), which is why it was chopped up before being used.

Isaiah was using "he" to refer to all of bnei Yisrael as a single entity (hence the masculine tone). And as we have seen, "he" is often used to represent the Jewish people.

If you read the sentences that proceed and follow this one, you will see that Isaiah is telling the Jewish people how they are viewed as an entity by other nations. It speaks of the other nations looking at the load that the Jewish nation had to bear, realizing that it is a load that they too should have borne. It says that the nations had incorrectly perceived that the Jews were rightfully mistreated by other nations and by God, and that God had abandoned them.

Isaiah 53 is a commonly used passage by some Christians. Typically they will show you a badly translated version that talks about the suffering servant being pierced and beaten, giving you the idea that Jesus fulfilled this passage, when in reality it had nothing to do with any human being (or semi-deity), but with the nation of Israel. If you would start reading from the beginning of chapter 52 (from a well translated version, if you cannot read Hebrew), you would see what is really going on. Again, this is an example of taking a small sentence out of context.

Again, notice that a partial sentence was used to "prove" that the Messiah would heal the sick by his personal appearance. But as we can see in the full sentence, the verse says is nothing about a person healing the sick.

*******************
Prophecy #9: The Christ will hide from the Orthodox Jews!
*******************

Matthew 12:18-21
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 sends forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.


The correct translation from Isaiah 42:1-4
"Thus, My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires. I have placed My spirit upon him, and he shall dispense justice to nations. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise his voice, and he shall not make his voice heard outside. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench. With truth shall he execute justice? Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long."

While this passage is Messianic (admittedly, a rarity) it still does not refer to Jesus because it is not a prophecy that Messiah will run and hide from the observant Jews! Notice that the Christian version declares that he will be quiet, establish justice, and nations will trust anything that comes in his name. The word "name" ("shaim") is not in this verse, but the word for "instruction" is. The Christian version sees Jesus as a redeemer. Yet the passage was used in the Christian bible to show the reason why Jesus was quietly hiding from the Pharisees after telling them that their laws were invalid and the laws of Jesus were valid.

This brings up an important concept concerning Torah and mitzvos. The Christians claim that Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, but they hardly keep any of the mitzvos. If Jesus didn't say it, then to a Christian it's not mandatory. It doesn't matter what he did (like celebrating Passover), but what he said. Even though they may use the Torah to take some mitzvos that they think are good, to them it's still the "Old Testament" (e.g.: superceded by the "New Testament"). And if Jesus violated the Torah, then it's justified doing the same today. You can even do it in the name of Jesus.

As we can see from the original verse (which had some of the distinctions removed!), Jesus was not fulfilling a prophecy of rising above all nations, but was simply hiding from the observant Jews who were after him for violating one Torah law after another. And as far as not being broken until justice was restored in the land, Jesus never fulfilled that anyway. His body was broken, and justice was not restored to the land.

******************
Prophecy #10: The Christ will speak in parables
******************

Matthew 13:35
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."


The correct translation from Tehillim (Psalms) 78:2
"I will open my mouth with a parable. I will utter riddles concerning days of old."

This is a prelude to telling of the miracles that God provided to the Jewish people. It was not a prophecy, nor does it justify the use of parables to speak only to those who are ready to listen! This quote was a real stretch!

While the Christian version indicates that Jesus was telling mystical secrets, the actual quote simply states that David was about to tell the story of God's miracles starting from Exodus and during the period in the desert. This is one of the quotes that some people use to indicate that Jesus was a mystical teacher, when in reality it is a misuse of Scripture made by the speaker himself.

********************
Prophecy #11: The Christ will arrive, riding an ass
********************

Matthew 21:5
"Tell the daughter of Zion, 'Look! Your King is coming to you; mild tempered, and mounted upon an ass, yes upon a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.

The correct translation from Zechariah 9:9
"Be exceedingly happy, daughter of Zion; Shout, daughter of Jerusalem. Behold! Your king shall come to you. He is righteous and victorious; humble and riding an ass. But [it is] a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden."

While there is only a small change between translations, the major difference is that the Christian version infers someone who is simply mild tempered rather than someone who has just lead Jews into battle and has returned unscathed due to God's assistance (hence, the translation of "salvation" into "victory"). The first has the "King" capitalized while the Jewish version makes no such suggestions. The first version starts with what sounds like an announcement to Zion who does not know that the person coming is the Messiah. The Jewish version shows that the Jewish people knew who the Messiah was before he rides into town. The Messiah has led them to victory, and he is returning.

The context of this verse in "Matthew" is that the Pharisees and the Sanheidren and the priesthood have thwarted Jesus. He cannot be named a Rabbi, nor a Prophet, and certainly not Messiah. Therefore, using the prophecy stated by Zechariah, he decides to enter the city in a humble, but kingly fashion, with fresh mounts and new clothes. The people before him shout "Son of David!" There is bedlam. Jesus disrupts the Temple activities, and the Jewish authorities see that this man has manipulated the crowd so much, that people are reaching out, people are chanting, people are in a state of ecstasy: "Son of David! Son of David!" The Jewish authorities try to keep everything together.

Some Christians use this verse to "prove" that Jesus is the Messiah. The problem is that this verse speaks of the Son of David (which Jesus was not, much to the chagrin of the onlookers). It is the Messiah who comes back from the war between Gog and Magog. It is Messiah who returns victorious, and riding a beast that does not represent war, a simple beast that the poorest of people can relate to. It is Messiah who is arriving with the intent to destroy all items of war and to cause all of the Jewish people to be united as one.

Jesus did not fight for the Jews. Jesus did not end the friction between Gentiles and Jews. Jesus did not elevate the state of Israel to a status of a place where all Jews return and where all peoples worship the God of the Jews. And just because someone rides into Zion on an ass, doesn't automatically label him as Messiah. Ask the man who loaned Jesus his ass (and colt). That same man rode those beasts all the time, but never claimed to be Messiah!

******************
Prophecy #12: The Christ will be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
******************

Matthew 27:9-27:10
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, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

The correct translation is:

[PROPHECY NOT FOUND]

That's right, it's yet another completely made up "prophecy." Jeremiah never said this! In most Bible indexes, the only reference to this "prophecy" that was mentioned was in Zechariah, which seems very strange, considering that the Matthew is quoting Jeremiah!

Zechariah 11:12 And I said to them 'If you think this was good, give me my wages and if not, then don't.' So they weighed for my hire 30 pieces of silver. And HaShem said to me 'Cast that into the treasury.'

Again, this is another made-up "prophecy". And using a CD-ROM scan against the Tanakh, there are no other instances of "30" and "silver" in Hebrew together in the same set of verses (perek)...

An interesting side note is that in Acts 1:18 we read that Judas took the money and bought some land with it. In Matthew he gives back the money and hangs himself. Not only is this not a prophecy, but also this myth varies with the telling.

**************

So, what conclusions can be drawn by this evidence? My immediate thoughts are, "if the writer of Matthew has deceived the masses with these false prophecies, what other scriptures (Gospels) have been manipulated as such?"...

Keep in mind, now, that this is NOT just some "evil theories" I made up to somehow "disprove the validity of God's Word..." as I have been accused of before. These are not theories, people - they are facts. Get your Bible out and read along - check out the references to the Original Hebrew Translations of the Old Testament references. You can find many good Hebrew Bibles in Barnes and Noble and stores like that. Amazon.com is an excellent place to start too. Or, ask your friendly neighborhood Jew who is well versed in Hebrew Scriptures - they can surely help you out.

And please remember, my purpose is to show you the Truth "Behind the Illusion(s)"; to provoke you to think and no longer allow yourself to be spoon-fed "their" version of the Truth (whoever "they" may be).

And I cannot buy that "leap of faith" excuse - (More like "blind faith"). What kind of faith, TRUE FAITH in God can be based on lies and deception as found in Matthew? And what of the claims that the Bible is God's Word and God's Word is Infallible? Truly these are MAN's words and not God's; for what is better: to "believe in God" or to "KNOW" God? I think both are important.

Now don't get me wrong - I believe that you can find inspiration from Matthew's words - I know I have. But if you are, again, SERIOUS about BIBLE STUDY, then you must know by now that there are some major problems with Matthew. How you deal with that is between you and God...

May God Richly Bless You,

Troy A. Eury
Behind the Illusion(s), CEO
behindtheillusions@hotmail.com


References: Old Testament, Hebrew to English translation; New Testament, Greek to English; Drashi, "The Problem With Matthew", Jewish educator and scholar; Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries"...