False Prophecies in the New Testament — Six Cases Where the Gospel Writers Fabricated, Distorted, or Misapplied Old Testament Texts
The New Testament writers did not hesitate to cite the Old Testament falsely — combining texts from different chapters, omitting halves of prophecies, inventing texts that do not exist, and applying to individuals what the original said about groups. These are not errors of ignorance. They are the techniques of men who were confident their audiences would not check.
For a long time there has been a desire to collect in one place the false Gospel prophecies cited by the writers of the four Gospels and the Epistles from the Old Testament, as these prophecies appear in four forms:
- Texts that are present in the Old Testament and were cited legitimately to establish Christian doctrine — this is not discussed here.
- Texts present in the Old Testament but falsely and slanderously cited by the Gospel writers, applied to events in Jesus’s life in order to delude simple listeners that they are established Old Testament prophecies.
- Texts cited by the Gospel writers and apostles claiming to come from the Old Testament — but which, when examined, are not found there in text or in meaning.
- Prophecies in the New Testament that Christ supposedly spoke about events after his crucifixion and resurrection — which have still not been fulfilled.
The cases below address categories two, three, and four.
Introduction — Four Categories of False New Testament Prophecy
Case One — Peter’s Fabrication About Judas Iscariot: Combining Psalms 69 and 109
In the Book of Acts, Peter stood before the crowds and spoke about the fate of Judas Iscariot:
Peter claimed that the fate of Judas had been prophesied by David in the Psalms. He was wrong — and the deception is visible on examination.
The First Text Peter Used — Psalm 69:25–28
The text speaks of a group, not an individual. The pronouns are plural throughout: “their dwelling place,” “their tents,” “their iniquity,” “they shall not enter.” David himself confirms he was speaking about a group of enemies:
Enemies — plural. Peter forced a text about a group of David’s enemies into a statement about one individual, Judas Iscariot.
The Second Text Peter Used — Psalm 109:8–15
Peter then combined this with a completely different psalm:
Peter combined two texts from two different psalms and projected them onto Judas. But by doing so, he also committed to prophecies about Judas that he could not fulfill — that his sons would be orphans, his wife a widow, his descendants cut off. The Gospels contain no information anywhere about whether Judas was married or had children.
Three Different Accounts of Judas’s Death
Peter also failed to notice that his account of Judas’s death contradicts the Gospel of Matthew on the same events:
Matthew says Judas hanged himself. Peter says he fell headlong, burst open, and his bowels gushed out. These are not the same death. And the church father Papias — a disciple of John, the author of the Gospel of John — recorded a third account entirely different from both:
Three different accounts of Judas’s death — hanging in Matthew, falling headlong in Acts, being crushed by a chariot in Papias — from three different early Christian sources. No two of them agree. And Peter’s prophetic citation to support his version was a fraudulent combination of two psalms about groups of enemies.
Case Two — Luke’s Incomplete Citation of Isaiah 50 for the Passion Prophecy
The writer of the Gospel of Luke tells us that Christ predicted in advance what would happen to him, with the claim that all of it was written by the prophets:
Luke’s text claims that six things were all prophesied: delivery to the Gentiles, mockery, reviling, spitting, flogging, and rising on the third day. The Christian interpreter Tadros Yacoub Malati points to Isaiah 50:6 as the Old Testament source:
Isaiah 50:6 covers three of the six things Luke claimed: flogging (I gave my back to those who struck me), mockery/plucking of hair (my cheeks to those who plucked), and spitting (I have not hid my face from shame and spitting).
The text contains no mention of:
- Delivery to the Gentiles
- Killing
- Rising on the third day
The two most important claims in Christian theology — the crucifixion and the resurrection — are entirely absent from the Isaiah text that Luke invoked as their prophetic basis. Luke claimed “everything will be fulfilled that is written by the prophets” and then cited a source that covers only half of what he was claiming.
This has one explanation: Luke was a Gentile — the only non-Jewish Gospel writer — who wrote his Gospel in Greek for Greeks who had no Jewish background and no facility with Hebrew scriptures. He was fully aware that they would not search the Old Testament to verify his citations.
Case Three — Peter’s False Application of Joel’s Apocalyptic Signs to Pentecost
In the Book of Joel, chapter 2, a prophecy about the last day of the Lord is given with specific cosmic signs:
When the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples at Pentecost, Peter stood before the crowds and declared:
Peter claimed that the day on which the Holy Spirit descended was what was spoken in the Book of Joel. This claim fails on three grounds:
Furthermore, the prophecy is a prophecy about the day of the Lord’s coming — God’s own arrival for judgment. Peter used the first clause (pouring out of the Spirit) as if it had been fulfilled while silently setting aside the second and third clauses (cosmic signs and the Lord’s coming) as if they had not also been required.
We are now more than two thousand years after Pentecost. The Lord has not come. The sun has not been turned to darkness as a cosmic sign of his arrival. Peter cited a prophecy he could not fulfill — and extracted from it only the portion that appeared to support his immediate claim.
Case Four — Matthew’s Invented Nazarene Prophecy That Does Not Exist in the Old Testament
Matthew 2:23 states:
This prophecy — “He shall be called a Nazarene” — does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament. Not in the Torah of Moses, not in the Psalms, not in any of the books of the prophets. No scholar has ever located it.
The Christian interpreter Tadros Malati attempted to rescue Matthew by arguing that the word “Nazareth” is derived from the Hebrew word “natzar” meaning “branch,” and that the Messiah is called “the Branch” in several Old Testament texts. He cites:
- Isaiah 11:1: “And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow from his roots.”
- Jeremiah 33:15: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will raise up to David a righteous Branch.”
- Zechariah 3:8: “Behold, I am bringing my servant, the Branch.”
- Zechariah 6:12: “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch.”
This interpretation fails on three levels:
First: Matthew’s concern was geographical — “he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth” — and his statement explicitly connects the city name to the prophecy. His only intention was to attribute the Messiah to the city of Nazareth. The Christian interpreters substituted a linguistic connection to “branch” that Matthew himself did not intend.
Second: None of the four texts Tadros Malati cited actually say “he shall be called the Branch.” Isaiah 11:1 says “a Branch shall grow.” Jeremiah 33:15 says “I will raise up… a righteous Branch.” Zechariah 3:8 says “my servant, the Branch.” Zechariah 6:12 says “the man whose name is the Branch.” Not one of them uses the phrase “he shall be called” — which is the specific wording Matthew attributed to “the prophets.”
Third: Zechariah 3:8 — one of the very texts Tadros Malati relies on — describes the coming figure as “my servant.” This directly contradicts the Christian doctrine that Christ is God rather than a servant of God. A text that calls the coming figure a servant cannot simultaneously serve as evidence for his divinity.
Matthew invented a prophecy and attributed it to “the prophets.” The text does not exist in any form in the Old Testament. When Christian interpreters tried to construct a linguistic bridge to the word “branch,” they produced texts that do not contain the specific phrase Matthew used — and one of which undermines Christian doctrine by calling the figure a servant.
Nazareth, Netzer, and Matthew 2:23: The Failed Christian Defense Refuted
Case Five — Paul’s Citation of a Text in 1 Corinthians 2:9 That No Old Testament Book Contains
Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:
Paul says “as it is written” — explicitly claiming to quote from the Old Testament scriptures. The question is: where is this text in the Old Testament?
The Christian interpreter Antonius Fikry answered this question directly and honestly:
He admitted that it does not exist in the Old Testament. The interpreter Tadros Malati, rather than identifying the source, simply interpreted the verse as though it had been correctly cited, without once attributing it to any Old Testament book.
Paul said “as it is written.” Nothing of this meaning is written anywhere in the Old Testament. The formula “as it is written” in the New Testament is the standard formula for introducing a quotation from scripture. Paul used this formula for a text that does not exist in scripture.
Case Six — John’s Truncated Application of Psalm 69 to Christ’s Thirst on the Cross
The writer of the Gospel of John describes Christ’s thirst during the crucifixion:
John says Christ expressed thirst “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” The Christian interpreter Tadros Malati points to Psalm 69:21 as the source:
The First Problem — John Used Only Half the Prophecy
Psalm 69:21 contains two clauses: gall mixed with food, and vinegar given for thirst. John’s account mentions only the thirst and vinegar. There is no mention anywhere in John’s crucifixion narrative of gall being mixed with food. The prophecy, if it was to be “fulfilled,” required both clauses. John cited it as fulfilled while omitting the clause about food entirely.
The Second Problem — The Meaning of Vinegar Contradicts the Narrative Purpose
If vinegar was given to Christ as evidence of his thirst — as a cruel continuation of his suffering — then the Christian reader is meant to understand it as torture. Yet the Christian interpreter Antonius Fikry stated:
And the Bible Dictionary confirms: “It was the custom of Roman soldiers in their camps to drink a diluted type of vinegar mixed with water. Perhaps a drink of this type was what the Roman soldier gave Jesus while he was on the cross to quench his thirst.”
If vinegar was a refreshing and moisturizing drink customarily given to Roman soldiers to quench thirst, then it was given to Christ as relief, not as torture. But Psalm 69:21 describes vinegar given in mockery and derision — as abuse, not relief.
The Christian interpreter Tadros Malati contradicts himself on this point. In one place he says the vinegar was presented as mockery and derision. In another place he says it was given as compassion to alleviate the severity of thirst. The two cannot both be true simultaneously. The confusion arises because the prophecy in the Psalms describes abuse, while the narrative purpose in John’s Gospel requires suffering — but the historical reality of vinegar-as-standard-soldiers’-drink undermines the suffering narrative entirely.
Case Seven — The Epistle of Jude and the Non-Existent Dispute Between Michael and Satan
The writer of the Epistle of Jude cites what he presents as an Old Testament event:
This text — the dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses — is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. When pressed on the source, the Christian interpreter Antonius Fikry admitted:
He admitted it does not exist in the Old Testament and resorted to “tradition” as the explanation. This creates a fatal contradiction with the New Testament itself, which records Christ explicitly rebuking the Jews for relying on tradition rather than the written word of God:
The writer of the Epistle of Jude relies on oral tradition for an unseen event between an archangel and Satan — exactly the type of unverifiable, unwritten tradition that Jesus condemned the Jews for using in place of scripture.
Antonius Fikry also acknowledged in a different context that the Bible itself is preserved by tradition — that it was tradition that determined which books were canonical and which were not. If tradition preserves the canon, and tradition also supplies texts that the canon does not contain, then the boundary of the canon is entirely dependent on whatever tradition decides at any given moment.