I do realize that the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint text translation when the quoted the OT, and I also realize that the translation was written by Jews, so obviously there are problems that arise in translation. That isn't what I am talking about though, although it probably did contribute to the problems in the NT when it was referring back and quoting the OT. I will give an example, todays Christians take Isaiah 7(Virgin birth) completely out of context. Lets assume it is "virgin birth" because we all know the "young woman" argument. So I will summarize that passage for you:
For a battle of Jerusalem, Ahaz was scared because he was outnumbered. God sent Isaiah to him to make sure he would be assured that he wouldn't fall. God said that as long as he has faith, Judah will not fall. So God requested Ahaz to give a sign to let him know that God was with him. Ahaz chose not to because that would be testing God. Isaiah then said that there will be a sign for you victory, and the sign will be this: That virgin over there will get pregnant and have a son, Immanuel. He said that if Ahaz keeps faith, he will promise that the Kings against him will fall before that kid even knows the difference between wrong from right.
Why do Christians resist from reading that passage and consistantly take it out of context to promote its "quote" from the New Testament? It isn't a messianic prophecy, and there is no reason to believe it was. Christians put NT standards first when interpreting it. I say put OT standards when testing the NT, not the other way around.
Matthew and Luke also had geneologies of Jesus(which accounts for 4 or 5 prophecies). I will first explain why they don't make sense. This is according to 2 different geneologies, where one fits 25 generations in the same time the other fits 40 generations. The life expectancy of people, in the days of Christ, was somewhere usually in their 20's. It is obvious that the average age of conception was lower than that. In the Bible, one geneology shows fathers who had kids at the average age of 40, 25 times in a row. Then the other side were fathers, each at the average age of 25, having kids 40 times in a row. It is plausible to believe in Matthew, but not at all Lukes. I personally do not trust eithere of the geneologies though. It seems as if it was just made up.
What about OT standards? Both passages pervert, change, and take away from the more correct order which is in 1 Chron 3. Again, these people obviously didn't understand the OT correctly.
One of the prophecies is "heir to the throne of David." Luke 1:32-33. Realize that in Matt 1, the geneology includes somebody named Jeconiah. Read Jeremiah 22:24-30. Jesus, according to Christians, is a decendent. According to the OT, he cannot be heir to the throne of David.
Lots of the "fulfillments" are simple quotes from the OT, not actual fulfillments. For example, Christians use Isaiah 11:10 and Romans 15:12 as an example of this.
Lots of other verses are taken out of context, mistranslated, misunderstood, changed, or it just doesn't make sense; Micah 5:2, Isaiah 53, 2 Samuel 7, Psalms 22, Gen. 49:10, and hundreds of others Christians scew with.
People can put NT theology on the OT all they want for it is probably the only way to put them together, but Christians are being hypocrites if they judge the NT by OT standards, when infact what they are doing is putting NT standards on the OT.