I recently got into an argument with an internet atheist and he had a few objections.

Atheist said:
Okay, so if we start reading from Matthew. Matthew 1:23 says “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bare a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (which means God with us)” problem with this right off the bat, this is the only time in the whole bible that God is called Immanuel. Which means he was not called that. Isaiah 7:14 says “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bare a son and shall call his name Immanuel” a little off, but not bad. Let’s see the next verse 15 “He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted” problem. God cannot have chosen the evil in the first place. However, fairly forgivable. Let’s go and look at the Context. Isaiah 7:5-10 “Because Syria, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has devised evil against you, saying, “Let us go against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it” thus says the Lord God: “It shall not stand, and shall not come to pass, for the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin, And within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all” Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as Heaven” The sign that the Lord was about to give was to show Ahaz specifically that his trouble with Syria would be over. This was not a Messianic prophecy. No. This was a prophecy about Ahaz only.

TheSire:

This issue of how the New Testament uses the Old Testament has always been subject to debate. Some to answer the problem of this passage present the concept of double fulfillment, Isaian allegory, or older commentators think that Christ is really what Isaiah is talking about. After presenting a couple of alternatives D. A. Carson presents the option I would agree with:

The most plausible view is that of J.   A. Motyer (“ Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7: 14,” TynBul 21 [1970]: 118– 25). It is a modified form of the third interpretation and depends in part on recognizing a crucial feature in Isaiah. Signs in the OT may function as a present persuader (e.g., Ex 4: 8– 9) or as future confirmation (e.g., Ex 3: 12). Isaiah 7: 14 falls in the latter case because Immanuel’s birth comes too late to be a “present persuader.” The “sign” (v. 11) points primarily to threat and foreboding. Ahaz has rejected the Lord’s gracious offer (vv. 10– 12), and Isaiah responds in wrath (v. 13). The “curds and honey” Immanuel will eat (v. 15) represent the only food left in the land on the day of wrath (vv. 18– 22). Even the promise of Ephraim’s destruction (v. 8) must be understood to embrace a warning (v. 9b; Motyer, “Context and Content,” 121– 22). Isaiah sees a threat, not simply to Ahaz, but to the “house of David” (vv. 2, 13), which is caught up in faithlessness. To this faithless house Isaiah utters his prophecy. Therefore, Immanuel’s birth follows the coming events (it is a “future confirmation”) and will take place when the Davidic dynasty has lost the throne. Motyer shows the close parallels between the prophetic word to Judah (Isa 7: 1– 9: 7) and the prophetic word to Ephraim (9: 8– 11: 16). To both comes the moment of decision as the Lord’s word threatens wrath (7: 1– 17; 9: 8– 10: 4), the time of judgment mediated by the Assyrian invasion (7: 18– 8: 8; 10: 5– 15), the destruction of God’s foes but the salvation of a remnant (8: 9– 22; 10: 16– 34), and the promise of a glorious hope as the Davidic monarch reigns and brings prosperity to his people (9: 1– 7; 11: 1– 16). The twofold structure argues for the cohesive unity between the prophecy of Judah and that to Ephraim. If this is correct, Isaiah 7: 1– 9: 7 must be read as a unit— i.e., 7: 14 must not be treated in isolation. The promised Immanuel (7: 14) will thwart all opponents (8: 10) and appear in Galilee of the Gentiles (9: 1) as a great light to those in the land of the shadow of death (9: 2). He is the Child and Son called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” in 9: 6, whose government and peace will never end as he reigns on David’s throne forever (9: 7). Much of Motyer’s work is confirmed by an article by Joseph Jensen (“ The Age of Immanuel,” CBQ 41 [1979]: 220– 39; he does not refer to Motyer), who extends the plausibility of this structure by showing that Isaiah 7: 15 should be taken in a final sense; i.e., Immanuel will eat the bread of affliction in order to learn (unlike Ahaz!) the lesson of obedience. There is no reference to “age of discretion.” Further, Jensen believes that Isaiah 7: 16– 25 points to Immanuel’s coming only after the destruction of the land (6: 9– 13 suggests the destruction extends to Judah as well as to Israel); that Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, Isaiah’s son (8: 1), are not the same; and that only Isaiah’s son sets a time limit relevant to Ahaz. If Motyer’s view fairly represents Isaiah’s thought, and if Matthew understood him in this way, then much light is shed on the first gospel. The Immanuel figure of Isaiah 7: 14 is a messianic figure, a point Matthew has rightly grasped. Moreover this interpretation turns on an understanding of the place of the exile in Isaiah 6– 12, and Matthew has divided up his genealogy (1: 11– 12, 17) precisely in order to draw attention to the exile. In 2: 17– 18 the theme of the exile returns. A little later, as Jesus begins his ministry (4: 12– 16), Matthew quotes Isaiah 9: 1– 2, which, if the interpretation adopted here is correct, properly belongs to the Immanuel prophecies of Isaiah 7: 14; 9: 6. Small wonder that after such comments by Matthew, Jesus’ next words announced the kingdom (4: 17; cf. Isa 9: 7). Isaiah’s reference to Immanuel’s affliction for the sake of learning obedience anticipates Jesus’ humiliation, suffering, and obedient sonship, a recurring theme in this gospel.

Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4558-4586). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For more on this topic check out these articles:

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child!”

Is Isa 7:14 prophetic?

The virgin shall conceive and bear a son

Atheist said:
Now if we go to Matthew 2:6 you find another prophecy
oh boy
“And you O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
The prophecy comes from Micah 5:2
“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from old, ancient days”
that’s, oof, that’s a bit of different wording
One says he will rule Israel, the other says he will be a ruler to shepherd Israel
Quite a bit of 2 different things
Jesus has never ruled over Israel. Arguably you could say he will
but this doesn’t change the fact Matthew misquoted this very badly.

TheSire said:

Let’s take a scholars input:

While expectation that the Messiah must come from Bethlehem occurs elsewhere (e.g., Jn 7: 42; cf. Targum on Mic 5: 1: “Out of you shall come forth before me the Messiah”), here it rests on Micah 5: 2 (1 MT), to which are appended some words from 2   Samuel 5: 2 (1Ch 11: 2). Matthew follows neither the MT nor LXX, and his changes have provoked considerable speculation. 1. “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (LXX, “house of Ephrathah”) becomes “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah.” Hill says this change was made to exclude “any other Judean city like Jerusalem.” But this reads too much into what is a normal LXX way of referring to Bethlehem (cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 91). “Ephrathah” is archaic and even in the MT primarily restricted to poetical sections like Micah 5: 2. 2. The strong negative “by no means” (oudamōs) is added in Matthew and formally contradicts Micah 5: 2. It is often argued that this change has been made to highlight Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. Indeed, Gundry’s commentary uses this change as an example of Matthew’s midrashic use of the OT, a use so free that he does not fear outright contradiction. There are better explanations. Even the MT of Micah implies Bethlehem’s greatness: “though you are small among the clans [or rulers, who personify the cities; the KJV’s “thousands” is pedantically correct, but “thousands” was a way of referring to the great clans into which the tribes were subdivided; cf. Jdg 6: 15; 1Sa 10: 19; 23: 23; Isa 60: 22] of Judah” sets the stage for the greatness that follows. Equally, Matthew’s formulation assumes that, apart from being Messiah’s birthplace, Bethlehem is indeed of little importance (cf. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1: 475– 76, noted by Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 91– 92). To put it another way, though the second line of Micah 5: 2 formally contradicts the second line of Matthew 2: 6, a holistic reading of the verses shows the contradiction to be merely formal. Matthew 2: 6 has perhaps slightly greater emphasis on the one factor that makes Bethlehem great. 3. Matthew adds the shepherd language of 2   Samuel 5: 2, making it plain that the ruler in Micah 5: 2 is none other than the one who fulfills the promises to David. It is tempting to think that Matthew sees a pair of contrasts (1) between the false shepherds of Israel who have provided sound answers but no leadership (cf. 23: 2– 7) and Jesus, who is the true Shepherd of his people Israel, and (2) between a ruler like Herod and the one born to rule. The words “my people Israel” are included, not simply because they are found in 2   Samuel 5: 2, but because Matthew, like Paul, faithfully records both the essential Jewish focus of the OT promises and the OT expectation of broader application to the Gentiles (see comments at 1: 1, 5, 21). Jesus is not only the promised Davidic king but also the promised hope of blessing to all the nations, the one who will claim their obeisance (cf. Ps 68: 28– 35; Isa 18: 1– 3, 7; 45: 14; 60: 6; Zep 3: 10). That same duality makes the desires of the Gentile Magi to worship the Messiah stand out against the apathy of the leaders, who did not, apparently, take the trouble to go to Bethlehem. Of course, the Jewish leaders may have seen the arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem as one more false alarm. As far as we can tell, the Sadducees (and therefore the chief priests) had no interest in the question of when the Messiah would come; the Pharisees (and therefore most teachers of the law) expected him to come only somewhat later. The Essenes alone, who were not consulted by Herod, expected the Messiah imminently (cf. R.   T. Beckwith, “The Significance of the Calendar for Interpreting Essene Chronology and Eschatology,” RevQ 38 [1980]: 167– 202). But Matthew plainly says that, though Jesus was the Messiah, born in David’s line and certain to be Shepherd and Ruler of Israel, it was the Gentiles who came to worship him.

Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4817-4847). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Atheist: 
I’ll note one last prophesy before I go
Matthew 2:23
“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.”
This prophecy doesn’t exist anywhere in the Bible but here.

TheSire:
The issue is that Matthew 2:23 seems to quote a non-existent OT prophecy. The issue is a bit more complicated than he makes it. I don’t think it was meant to be a quotation from a single Old Testament passage, but rather is speaking on an Old Testament theme. R.T. France has written:

The quotation-formula differs from all Matthew’s other formulae in two respects: instead of a single prophet (named or anonymous) he speaks here of “the prophets,” and the participle legontos (“who said”) which leads into all the other quotations is here missing; in its place is hoti (“that”), which sometimes functions as the equivalent of our quotation marks, but can also indicate not so much a direct quotation as a paraphrase or summary of what was said. These two distinctive features together suggest strongly that what Matthew is here providing is not a quotation of a specific passage but rather a theme of prophecy (as in 26:56, where again plural “prophets” are mentioned and no particular passage is cited).269 This conclusion is the more appropriate in view of the fact that “He shall be called a Nazorean” does not in fact occur anywhere in the OT, nor, as far as we know, in any other contemporary literature. As a matter of fact, Nazareth, as a rather newly founded settlement, is never mentioned in the OT, or indeed in any other non-Christian Jewish writing before it appears in an inscription listing priestly courses in the third or fourth century A.D. The search for a specific OT source for “He shall be called Nazorean” is therefore likely to be futile.

France, R. T.; Matthew (Kindle Locations 2484-2494). Kindle Edition.