Johnny Skeptic

Isaiah 53:4 says "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." I challenge any Christian to reasonably prove that Jesus actually died for the sins of mankind. The claim is utter conjecture and quesswork, and it has no basis in fact whatsoever.

freigeister

Why don't you take your challenge to a Christian website, Theologyweb say?

Johnny Skeptic

Following your own same line of reasoning, you should suggest to Christians at the Theology Web that they post their challenges to skeptics here at the IIDB.

I debated Christians at the Theology Web for over two years. I opened over 60 threads. An unknown computer hacker has prevented me from accessing the Theology Web. I tried rejoining under some different names, but it didn't work because the hacker can identity my computer. I bought another computer and hooked it up to the same moniter and was able to sign in under a new name but I haven't made any posts yet. If I use the same arguments under my new name that I use at this forum, the hacker will block me again. Does anyone know how I can defeat the hacker?

There should be no need to go to the Theology Web, although eventually I probably will. If I do, I will still debate here as well. Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse (Roger used to debate at the Theology Web), and Gakusei Don (Gakusei Don used to debate at the Theology Web), are as good at debating as any Christian at the Theology Web with the possible exception of James Holding regarding some, but not all, Bible topics.

My argument is irrefutable. No Christian can even come close to reasonably proving that Jesus actually died for the sins of mankind. Only the return of Jesus could prove that.

TedM

That is true. The significance of the verse however, is in the fact that Isaiah was perceived by some Jews during Jesus' time as having written that about the Messiah they expected to come. Jesus' portrayal of the suffering servant is consistent with that, as would be others who might have been considered to be the Messiah and who suffered in some way. How many other people of the Jews do you know that suffered, were thought to be the Messiah, and who were also thought to have died for sins? Your argument really doesn't address the significance of the verse to Jews during Jesus' time.

As I see it, Isaiah 53 is a great apologetic tool for good reasons.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

I disagree. What people perceive does not automatically have anything whatsoever to do with the truth. That goes for all religious beliefs, no matter what the religion, and for all political beliefts. Most people used to perceive that the earth is flat. The members of the Flat Earth Society still do. All that matters is whether or not Jesus actaully fulfilled Isaiah 53:4, not how many people believe that he fulfilled Isaiah 53:4.

As skeptic scholars have long noted, it is likely that the Gospel writers "made" Jesus fulfill what they viewed to be messianic prophecies. Surely you must know that a unique claim need not necessarily be a true claim. There isn't any evidence at all that more than a relative handful of Jews "did" accept Jesus. If they did, they for the most part sure disappeared pretty quickly in subsequent centuries. How do you account for that?

Today, it is a great apologetics tool only where gullible and uninformed people are concerned. Kosmin and Lachman worte a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' They cite a lot of documented research that conclusively proves that the major factors that account for religous beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age.

Documented research has also shown that religious conservatives are underrepresented in Mensa and college educations, particular graduate degrees. While 40% of the members of American Men and Women of Science are Christians, on 7% of the members of the much more prestigious Natioanal Academy of Sciences are Christians. The main requirement for membership in the National Academy of Sciences is quality original research. At this time, conservative Christian winners of Nobel Prizes in the sciences are conspicuous by their absence, even though lots of Christians are scientists and are members of American Men and Women of Science. I have no doubt whatsoever that if research were conducted regarding SAT scores, Christians would be grossly underrepresented in the highest 5% of students regarding the math section, and to a lesser but still significant degree regarding the verbal section.

Ted, you are not a Christian. You are a Deist, and you are merely a casual observer of Christianity. Howwever, I and the vast majority of other skeptics "are not" casual observers of Christianity, especially conservative Christianity. There is a lot at stake regarding how many conservative Christians there are. Conservative Christians are the chief opponents of homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicides. Those issues are the main reasons why I attack the Bible. Religion is provably the most destructive social issue in human history.

In summary, you are only concerned with what people believed back then, but I am only concerned if what people believed back then was true, and I am also concerned with preventing as many people as possible from becoming conservative Christians. In short, your agenda and my agenda are completely different.

TedM

The title of this thread is "there is no evidence at all that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53:4". You then say in your first post "Isaiah 53:4 says "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." I challenge any Christian to reasonably prove that Jesus actually died for the sins of mankind. The claim is utter conjecture and quesswork, and it has no basis in fact whatsoever."

I've addressed why people back then AND today might believe this was fulfilled by Jesus. Of course NO ONE can prove that he did. How could they? The concept that ANYONE died for the sins of mankind is unprovable. Why even challenge that? Your post isn't about truth. It is about proof. I don't see how you can meet your agenda with a post like this. All it does is says "hey you can't prove that this is true". Well, that's not going to change anyone's mind because everyone knows that if you could prove that Jesus died for the sins of mankind no one would be arguing the point. The angle you have taken--requiring proof that can't be given--is of little value.

My post addresses why this passage has any meaning that people perceive to be true. As I said, Isaiah 53 is a pretty good apologetic tool. The reason has nothing to do with proof. It has to do with similarities, whether real or made up. You've written quite a few times about how Isaiah 53 wasn't fulfilled by Jesus. I can't help but think the reason you have done this is because it is obvious that there are similarities, and you know that Christians see those similarities as evidence for their beliefs. Your comeback appears to be: Prove it. It's a judgement call, not subject to proof.

ted

jonesg

The success of the (jesus's) message is your proof.

If it were not true or real it would have petered out long ago.

The trouble is, you don't know what the message is.

For some, the bible is bunk, except when quoting Isaiah 53 that is, then its irrefutable. Those are slick and oily motives .

Nero's Boot

The Qur'an has lasted over a thousand years. Does that make it legit? The Upanishads are older than either Bible or Qur'an. Does that mean we must all be Hindus? The Buddhist Nikayas are almost as old. Should we be Buddhists?

--really, JonesG, I expect better arguments out of people NB

freigeister

Well, ya, of course!

chimaira

http://messianicprophecy.netfirms.co...ject_isa53.htm