You had to go to the easiest one to refute first? The deficiencies could fill pages for the day - the Christian mistranslation of "almah", the incongruity of an alleged "prophecy" couched in a larger narrative having nothing to do with the alleged "fulfillment", the obvious ability of the 1st century author to craft any old story he wants from "prophecy", the fact that no one at any time ever called Jesus "Immanu-El", the fact that there's nothing whatever unusual in OT times for a child's name to include some derivative of the deistic "El" - the list goes on and on.<quoted text>
Im just wondering why you would even ask that question if you were a Christian for 40 years. Here is just one of many prophecies that was fulfilled.
You said you were a Christian for 40 years. Why do I have to teach a former Christian?
Just one of many.
Old Testament Prophecy:
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name ImmanuelGod with us (Isaiah 7:14).
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place under these circumstances: When His mother Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be pregnant (through the power) of the Holy Spirit(Matthew 1:18).
I challenge anyone without a preconceived bias to read the entire narrative in Isaiah 7-9 and see where a Jesuine prophecy "pops out". It falls apart on it's face.
Interesting sidenote - on the CARM webpage, if one goes to this question, you will find a user discussion in the "Comments" where the apologist moderator finally concedes that it is a "difficult" one on it's own, and relevant only in the total body of prophecy. In other words, a typical apologist cop-out.
If this is your lead-in, we can only imagine what Sunday School level "proofs" you'll disgorge next.