This has always bothered me about this reading: the Isaiah passage says they will name him Immanuel, but they named him Jesus instead. How does this fulfill that? Most churches just pretend Immanuel is just another name for Jesus, but that's pretty imaginary.

Meanings of names were much more important when the Bible was written than they are now. Jesus as Josh noted means "God saves" and Immanuel means "God with us" which is exactly what Isaiah's prophesy was about.

The Hebrew name 'Immanuel' has no special significance (see Judges 6:12-13).

Many Hebrew names were possessed of like signification... 'Immanuel' (God is with us), 'Boel' (God is in him), 'Abijah' (YHVH is my father), 'Zebadiah' (Gift of YHVH), 'Ahijah' (brother of YHVH), 'Elijah' (my God is YHVH)...

Just for interest...'Satanael' (Adversary of God).

In any case, Mary and Joseph did not name the child Immanuel, but Jesus. The child Immanuel, born as the primary fulfiment of the 'sign' is addressed in Isaiah 8:8.

Because of the discovery of a complete copy of Isaiah amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the passage in question refers to an 'almah', a 'young woman', theologians are now forced to admit publicly what their forbears knew at least 1800 years ago:

no Hebrew prophet predicted a 'virgin birth'; none of the contemporaries of Jesus had ever heard of 'virgin birth'; it was never preached by any of his disciples.

Matthew, for a compelling reason that had nothing to do with 'virgin birth' recorded that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. Luke, for the same compelling reason, recorded the name of the biological father of Jesus to demonstrate that he was entitled to sit upon the throne of David.

Two genealogies of Jesus are recorded. There is no conflict between the two. One is the genealogy of his supposed father, the other is the genealogy of his biological father. Confusion was introduced by the later imposition of the doctrine of 'virgin-birth'.