TedM

Let's cut to the chase. Why did you start this thread? If it is really to convince the undecided that it is illogical to conclude that Jesus died to save mankind on the basis of anything, then I don't know why you even used Isaiah 53:4, since it is considered to be a prophecy, and that is it's value to the Christian argument. If your point has nothing to do with that argument, then I already said in my first point I agree with you, but that your point is of little value because it is obvious to just about everyone--skeptics, believers, and undecideds alike that one can't prove that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. So, am I missing your point or not?

Maybe that is true in some cases but clearly not in all. I must admit to not having given this issue much thought, so maybe I'd come around to your point of view in time. It's clearly not a black and white issue since it involves a lot of variables--the cognition of the patient, the life-expectancy of the patient, the level of suffering, etc..

ted

Johnny Skeptic

FOR THE THIRD TIME, IT HAS LITTLE VALUE TO THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT. Consider the following that I previously posted on two occasions:

Do you get it now, Ted, or should I rewrite what I said so that you can understand it? Let me try again. The vast majority of conservative Christians DID NOT become Christians to any great extent because of Isaiah 53:4. In fact, a sizeable percentage of conservative Christians in the U.S. and in various parts of the world HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ISAIAH 53:4. The vast majority of conservative Christians who know about Isaiah 53:4 WOULD STILL BE CHRISTIANS EVEN IF THE VERSE HAD NEVER BEEN WRITTEN.

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman wrote a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham said "'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

The authors cite a substantial amount of documented research that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age are major factors that accounts for religious beliefs.

Consider the following from page 210:

"A Gallup Poll that inquired into one key measurement - how important a role people say religion plays in their own lives - showed that women (66%) are far more likely than men (48%) to attach great importance to religion, and that men (18%) are more than twice as likely as women (8%) to say that it is not very important to them. Age differences are also significant. Less than half of those under age 30 (46%) say that religion is very important to them, whereas among those who are 50 and older, 70% consider religion of great importance in their lives."

Kosmin and Lachman's research does not indicate supernatural factors at work, but rather the natural factors of geography, family, race ethnicity, gender and age, the very same factors that account for the spread of all other religions.

You are definitely missing my point. My topic reads “There is ‘no evidence at all’ that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53:4.� Obviously, that wasn’t clear enough for you. Let me state my topic another way:

1 - There is no evidence at all that Jesus fulfilled one single supposedly messianic prophecy, including Isaiah 53:4.

2 - There is no evidence at all that more than a relative handful of people in the first century believed that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53:4.

3 - There is no evidence at all that the first few thousand people who became Christians did so primarily or even largely due to believing that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53:4.

4 - Today, there no evidence at all that even 1/10th of 1% of the people who became conservative Christians did so primarily or even largely due to believing that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53:4.

5 - There is no evidence at all that 60% Christians have ever heard of Isaiah 53:4.

Now then, Ted, do you finally understand what I mean? Please don’t tell me for the umpteenth time what some people believe. Everybody ALREADY knows what some people believe. Why must you state the obvious so much?

Do you believe that a higher power helps us with our burdens? Do you believe that after people die, Christians and skeptics will be in the same boat? You do not believe that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, but do you believe that he spiritually rose from the dead? Do you really care what anybody believes? Do you have any children? If so, what world view did you teach them? If not, if you did have children, what world view would you teach them? Ted, the only way that a person in his own opinion can make the world a better place in which to live is to try to convince people who disagree with what he believes to believe what he believes. Are you trying to do that, or are you perfectly content to stand idly by and be a casual observer of Christianity and the war of world views that is going on in the United States that has resulted in this country becoming the Divided States of America? To what do you attribute these divisions. What do you believe that rational minded people should do about the divisions? The is also a war going on “within� the Christian Church between liberals and conservatives. What would you suggest to both sides that they do about their differences, or do you really care that people have differences?

TedM

I guess it depends on what you mean by evidence. Clearly, if he lived, he died. Clearly, his followers say he died for the sins of others. Clearly a number of similarities to Isaiah 53 and other prophecies are strong. If by 'evidence' you mean 'undisputable evidence', of course you are right, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

These 4 points are all about how others responded to Isaiah 53:4, something your original post and others here seemed to be uninterested in. It's curious that you are now including them.

For the last time, if you want to further your agenda, I think you would be better served by talking about the quality of the evidence and how it makes your assertions more probable than those of Christians like you have in some of your other posts, instead of this kind of post, which sounds more like a rant than anything else..

As I said in my earlier posts, as far as I can tell you primarily are talking about a lack of proof. I'm not sure why that is supposed to be a convincing or even meaningful argument to the 'undecided' crowd since almost everyone already knows there isn't proof, but to each his own..

I'll let you have the last word cause I'm outta here...

ted

Chili

Hello Johnny, that division started with Luther who was officially the first one to claim eternal salvation because he thought that Jesus died for his sins. Ever since that day protestants have been fighting over the best way to get 'there' which in reality is their favorite spot in hell.

You see, in Catholicism we are told to pick up our cross daily and follow Jesus so we may, finally, as much as take him down from there and place ourselves upon it and die to the sins of our world. Does that make sense to you?

Johnny Skeptic

Which proves what?

Upon what did they base their evidence? How many people were his followers by 70 A.D. Possibly very few.

Similarities to whom? Most certain not to you? If there "are" similarities, why aren't you a Christian?

Pretty good evidence would be the return of Jesus, but I assert that that will never happen, and for two millennia skeptics have been correct about that.

The majority of people who visit various threads DO NOT make posts, so you don't have any idea what you are talking about. My 4 points are likely quite interesting to a lot of Christians and skeptics because my arguments adequately prove that Isaiah 53:4 IS NOT a useful apologetic argument because the verse is a "post hoc" argument. In other words, the argument is mainly used by people who were ALREADY Christians before they became interested in Isaiah 53:4, and people who would have become Christians EVEN IF THE VERSE HAD NEVER BEEN WRITTEN.

Ted, you can rant with the best of 'em. I am not at all impressed with anything that you have posted in any thread. My very best arguments against fundamentalist Christianity can be found in my thread titled 'Apologists assume too much about the nature of God.' My arguments in that thread are not anything like my arguments in this thread. I concede the Resurrection for the sake of argument and end up having much better arguments than if I had asserted that the Resurrection did not happen.

You are assuming what I DID NOT say. I never mentioned word "proof." My position is that the evidence for the Resurrection has never been sufficient for over 75% of the people in the world for the last 2,000 years.

And quite conveniently I might add. Who do you think you are kidding? You are afraid to reply to the following from my previous post:

Ted, other than you, I have NEVER come across ONE SINGLE PERSON at the Internet who refused to state and defend his world view. To be quite frank, I don't like you. If you were my neighbor, I would never speak to you, and if I had children, I wouldn't let them visit you. I have much more respect for conservative Christians than I have for you because at least they are standing up for what they believe in, and they are trying to make the world a better place in which to live according to their own views. In my opinion, you contribute nothing whatsoever of value to this forum. All that you ever do is state what some people believe, which everyone ALREADY knows, NEVER whether or not they SHOULD believe what they believe. Have you nothing better to do with your time? If you reply to this post, I will reply one more time, but that would be it. You are not worth bothering with.

Amaleq13

Please avoid personal comments and stick to the actual arguments presented. Whether one likes or dislikes the person offering an argument is entirely irrelevant to the strength of the argument and has no place in a rational discussion.

-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

TedM

Thanks Amaleq13. I've made my points here, and am still not even sure what the argument is beyond "no one can prove Jesus died for man's sins", so I don't know what more there is to discuss regarding the original post. Johnny, I'm sorry my responses irritated you. I really was just trying to discuss the relevance of your initial post and what I thought the significance of the passage is.

take care,

ted

Johnny Skeptic

The relevance of my initial post is that Isaiah 53:4 cannot be reasonably proven to have been fulfilled by Jesus, that it cannot be reasonably proven that Jesus fulfulled any other supposedly messianic prophecy, that the verse is merely a "post hoc" apologetic argument, in other words an argument used by people who were "already" Christians before they got interested in the verse, many of whom never heard of the verse before they became Christians, and that it takes a lot more than just Isaiah 53:5 to convince non-Christians to become Christians.

As I proved in my thread titled 'Apologists assume too much about the nature of God,' even if skeptics conceded the Resurrection for the sake of argument, Christians still lose hands down. Read it an you will find out for yourself. The Resurrection is completely irrelevant unless it is accompanied by reasonable proof that God is good. As I said in that thread, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. I also showed that claims of miracles that are attributed to Jesus are easy to discard, including the feeding of the 5,000.

I have no idea why you are so evasize about your own beliefs. I have never known anyone else like that. Are you this evasize with family members and friends? I am quite certain that you approve of Christians much more than you approve of skeptics because you believe in a higher power and you believe that after Christians and skeptics die, they are both in the same boat, whatever that boat is. If you will please answer just one question for me, do you believe that there is a higher power who cares about mankind?

Wads4

Yes but were the Jews justified in making that assumption? Was a Messiah expected as far back historically as Isaiah's day, or was it a concept that developed later when under Macedonian and Roman rule,-I'm not sure, not being an expert. Wasn't the expected Messiah in any case anticipated to be a conquering warrior who would deliver Israel from it's oppressors, rather than a pacifist teacher (apart from his more violent acts against swine, fig trees etc). But then perhaps he was a member of the zealots of the Qumran community, building resistance to Roman rule? Why else would they crucify him as if he was a political agitator? So many alternatives; How do we sort out the truth?

Wads4

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

Not necessarily. Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism don't show much sign of petering out. So are they all true, and if so don't they at least in part clash with Christian views?