I have a nephew who has some pretty interesting questions about an apparent contradiction between Isaiah's prophecy in 7:14 and Matthew's account of its fulfillment in Matthew 1:20-23. Here is his concern. Any comments would be appreciated. Something I haven't really understood about a prophecy concerning the name of the Messiah. Maybe you can help answer it. In Isaiah 7:14 it says "14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." In Matthew 1:20-23 it says "20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." What I am not understanding from this prophecy is that in Isaiah 7:14 it says that the Messiah's name would be Immanuel, and his name would be part of the sign of how the people would recognize who He was. In Matthew 1:21, they don't name Him Emmanuel they name Him Jesus. That would to me seem like a contradiction, and that that part of prophecy wasn't fulfilled. The other thing that would seem like a contradiction is that right after the passage says that His name will be Jesus, it says this was done so it would fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying there shall be a virgin who conceives a child and they shall call His name EMMANUEL. It just seems like that was a pretty clear contradiction right there, saying that they shall call His name Jesus to fulfill the prophecy that they shall call His name Emmanuel. Now to me, it would make sense that his name be something different since it was in Greek, but I would think that it should still have the same meaning. Since those two passages say that the two names mean something different, that still doesn't make sense to me. Is there something I'm not getting out of this? Thanks for the help!