Yes. And he was. (Matthew 1:22-24)
So the only evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled, is basically saying, "Oh ya, he was also called Emmanuel."
Am I getting this right? Becuase it sounds a lot like that doomsday guy, who, whenever the world doesn't end when he says it will, goes, "Oh, I did the math wrong, it's 6 months from now!" It's justification after the fact, it's forcing the story to fit the prophecies, but in a shockingly shallow and rather clumsy manner.
It wouldn't even be a problem, but you're so adamant that there's nothing wrong, at all, in the Bible, and basically ignore this. If you didn't hold that position, I would consider it such a minor, and irrelevant point, because it in no way important to your theological beliefs.
Actually, it's the exact opposite of any of those doomsday guys. In those cases, they say, "oops, I made a mistake. The prophecy wasn't fullfilled yet. But this next time, for sure!"
With the Matthew passage, it is the opposite. It is, "here is the prophecy, and here is exactly how it
was fulfilled."
But I understand your general point, which is, how do we know Matthew 1:22-24 wasn't intentionally made up and inserted after the fact to make it look like a prophecy was fulfilled when in fact nothing of the sort actually happened in real life? And that's an absolutely fair point. A few points in response. First, by itself, it isn't a strong example. But it wasn't raised as a point in support of Biblical historicity. Rumborak raised it as a counterargument, after which, I explained where he was incorrect. Second, while it doesn't prove anything
by itself, there are so many examples of fulfilled prophecy that it becomes impossible to ignore or explain away all of them. In addition to being far too numerous, many are far too specific in terms of naming actual persons, places, and timeframes that, given that they were known
during the time eyewitnesses were still alive, it would have been a simple matter to debunk at least some of them if they were not in fact true.