Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 09-11-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Ok. I agree these things can't be proven, and require a lot of reading between the lines, and conjecture.

Quote:

, 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,

I"m not sure how the "when" is relevant. The writer of Isaiah wrote it about someone around 500-800 BC depending on who you believe was the writer, so it was meant to apply to some one or perhaps the nation of Israel. I think early Christians saw it as applicable to Jesus, and that is why we see Paul, Mark, and the author of 1 Peter all refer to it--to support the concept as applied to Jesus. The phrase may not be used much today to support Christianity until after one believes, but it certainly could be used as one of many supports to believe. But, as I said I don't see the relevancy of when Christians use it, only that that do use it sometimes.

Quote:

and that it takes a lot more than just Isaiah 53:5 to convince non-Christians to become Christians.

So? What Christian is going to argue against you about that?

Quote:

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'm sure you make some good points. Christianity is a combination of many beliefs about God and supernatural acts. Some people believe in all of the tenants because they believe in a few first. I agree that it doesn't make it a 'winning' approach, but that's the nature of belief. I"m not interested in reading about it at this time though, and would prefer to stick with this thread.

However, since we are plugging other threads, feel free to read my analysis of Isaiah 53 at http://mypeoplepc.com/members/tedrik...yth2/id16.html
It could use some cleaning up, but you may find it to be of some interest.

Quote:

I have no idea why you are so evasize about your own beliefs. I have never known anyone else like that.

I just don't think they are relevant to my agenda for this site. I'm not interested in arguing for or against the same kinds of topics you are.

Quote:

you will please answer just one question for me, do you believe that there is a higher power who cares about mankind?

I like to think so. Can't prove it. Not positive there is. Definitely is hard to reconcile with certain injustices.

take care,

ted

TedM · 09-11-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

My understanding is that a Messiah was expected as far back as Isaiah, but not one like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In time, when the messiac predictions didn't come true, some Jews began to reinterpret known messiac passages in different ways and some other passages as messiac for the first time.

Quote:

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).

I think by Jesus' day the Suffering Servant was part of messiac expectation for some Jews.

Quote:

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?

That's what makes Jesus so fascinating--he can be seen as fulfilling many different aspects of the Messiah, depending on the different alternatives one thinks really happened.

ted

Johnny Skeptic · 09-11-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I just don't think they [my views] are relevant to my agenda for this site. I'm not interested in arguing for or against the same kinds of topics you are.

That is obvious, but the point is, what are your agenda, and would you care to discuss them in a new thread?

TedM · 09-11-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

That is obvious, but the point is, what are your agenda, and would you care to discuss them in a new thread?

I've already stated that I am interested in the history of early Christianity. I recall others saying they have much the same interest. As for my world views and such, you are the only person who seems to care. I'll respond to your pm with a pm.

ted

cass256 · 09-12-2005, 11:27 AM

Where in Isaiah 53:4 does it say anything about wether or not anyone died for sins? What was the point of taking a phrase from the Bible and asking a question that has no relevance to it? I fulfill isaiah 53:4, israel fulfills it. Why use it to disprove an unrelated point? At the very least you could have tried to use the related verse! Even if jesus was never considered smitten of god, that doesn't disprove he died for everyone's sins. Were you just trying to brag and feed your ego? (nothing personal, but anything else doesn't make sense.)

TedM · 09-12-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cass256

Where in Isaiah 53:4 does it say anything about wether or not anyone died for sins? What was the point of taking a phrase from the Bible and asking a question that has no relevance to it? I fulfill isaiah 53:4, israel fulfills it. Why use it to disprove an unrelated point? At the very least you could have tried to use the related verse! Even if jesus was never considered smitten of god, that doesn't disprove he died for everyone's sins. Were you just trying to brag and feed your ego? (nothing personal, but anything else doesn't make sense.)

I think he meant 53:5. A careless mistake.

Edit: The reference to suffering for sins is more clear in 53:5, but that may also be what 53:4 is talking about.

cass256 · 09-12-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Comman, tell the truth! You are still a Christian and wanted to prove that faith alone saves people, because quotes like that do not provide evidence either way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2005, 11:27 AM	#35
cass256 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: home Posts: 265	Where in Isaiah 53:4 does it say anything about wether or not anyone died for sins? What was the point of taking a phrase from the Bible and asking a question that has no relevance to it? I fulfill isaiah 53:4, israel fulfills it. Why use it to disprove an unrelated point? At the very least you could have tried to use the related verse! Even if jesus was never considered smitten of god, that doesn't disprove he died for everyone's sins. Were you just trying to brag and feed your ego? (nothing personal, but anything else doesn't make sense.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.