Failed Prophecy: Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53 is the other chapter that apologists point to as predicting the death of Jesus, but, like the claims for Psalm 22, we’ll see that this also falls flat.

First, give the apologists their turn. They’ll point to several phrases in Isaiah 53 (and the last few verses of the preceding chapter) that parallel the crucifixion.

Verse 52:14: “there were many who were appalled at him; his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being.” Some say that this refers to the beatings Jesus received, though his ugly appearance is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Verse 53:3: “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.” Jesus should have been recognized as the Messiah, but the gospels tell us that his own people rejected him.

On the other hand, “he was despised” doesn’t sound like the charismatic rabbi who preached to thousands of attentive listeners and had a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. And “a man of suffering … familiar with pain” might’ve been the life of an ascetic like John the Baptist, but this doesn’t describe Jesus.

Verse 53:7: “he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent.” The synoptic gospels agree that Jesus was silent before his accusers (though John 18:34–19:11 doesn’t).

Verse 53:8: in response to the trial and sentencing of Jesus, “who of his generation protested?” Jesus was on his own, and none of his disciples tried to intervene.

Verse 53:9: “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.” This is often interpreted to mean that Jesus ought to have been buried with criminals but was actually buried with the rich. This ties in with the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

Finally, from 53:5 to the end of the chapter, almost every verse gives some version of the idea of the suffering servant taking on the burdens of his people—“he was pierced for our transgressions … by his wounds we are healed” (:5), “for the transgression of my people he was punished” (:8), “he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (:12), and so on.

Taken as this collection of verse fragments, the case looks intriguing, but taken as a whole—that is, letting the chapter speak for itself—the story falls apart.

First, let’s look at some of the verses discarded by the apologists.

Verse 52:15: “so will many nations be amazed at him and kings will shut their mouths because of him.

The nations will be amazed and the kings speechless? Nope, not only was Jesus not internationally famous during his lifetime, history records nothing of his life outside the gospels. True, we have evidence of his followers from historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, but it is curious that we have nothing about the works of Jesus himself from prolific contemporary authors such as Philo of Alexandria, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder. Apparently he wasn’t as famous as imagined prophecy would have him be.

Verse 53:10: “he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.” This is a nice thought—Jesus endures great trials but then, like Job, he is rewarded with children, prosperity, and long life. As Proverbs says, “Grandchildren are the crown of old men.”

Too bad this isn’t how the gospel story plays out.

Verse 53:11: “my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” Let’s revisit this suffering servant thing. Jesus, a person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father, is now God’s servant?

Note that “messiah” simply means “anointed one” and that the Old Testament is fairly liberal with the title messiah. Kings and high priests were anointed as messiahs. Heck, Cyrus the Great of Persia was even a messiah (see Isaiah 45:1). But surely no Christian can accept the logic, “Well, David was a messiah, and he was a servant of God; why not Jesus as well?” Jesus was certainly not in the same category as David.

And here’s the big one: “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great [or many] and he will divide the spoils with the strong [or numerous]” (verse 53:12). Like a warrior who gets a share of the spoils of the battle, the servant will be richly rewarded. This servant is just one among many who gets a portion.

Wait a minute—Jesus has peers? He’s one among equals, just “one of the great”? What kind of nonsense is this? Again, this bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels.

This all makes more sense if the “he” of this chapter is seen as Israel, not Jesus.

And, as with our analysis of Psalm 22, the point of any crucifixion story would be the resurrection, which is not present in this chapter. Only with the naïve confidence of a student of Nostradamus could this baggy sack of a “prophecy” be imagined to be a trim fit.

Religion is the diaper of humanity’s childhood;
it’s OK to grow out of it
— PZ Myers

Photo credit: Jens Cramer

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Maxximiliann

    Small problem. Jesus is not (and never has been) Almighty God Jehovah, The Father: http://bit.ly/13Y8mua

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Where’s the problem?

      • http://www.atheismandthecity.com/ The Thinker

        Joseph’s logic is the problem.

      • Maxximiliann

        You forgot that you claimed “Verse 53:11: “my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” Let’s revisit this suffering servant thing. Jesus, a person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father, is now God’s servant?”

  • utwwhears

    This is such a laughable commentary and easily discernible as someone who has no familiarity with the scriptures, prophecy or what it predicted. I am not stating this out of anger or discontentment, but rather coming from a place where you just lack complete insight and understanding. The right to dispute and research is fine and something the bible tells us to do, check for yourself. But, it is another thing to be disingenuous with the hope of putting misinformation into the public eye for someone who may be grasping for a reason to believe this stuff and find hope that somehow the scriptures and rationale you have quoted are somehow false. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you are not very well researched and hopeful that you are not just an outright liar with an agenda and an attempt to misinform. When I come across things like this I just laugh. I am not a person spewing non-sense based on things that have been told to me and just believe blindly. I am actually well researched and very informed. I would ask anyone reading this information to research for themselves and see if the scriptures hold weight. Don’t even research from a religious perspective, but as a person searching for an honest assessment. Comical.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Actually, what’s comical is your long discussion that makes clear that you disagree … but with zero evidence to show me how your view is correct.

      My suggestion: try again, but this time keep your smugness to yourself. Clearly show me an erroneous statement that I make, and then correct it. Y’know, give the evidence for your position.

    • wtfwjtd

      “I am not a person spewing non-sense based on things that have been told to me and just believe blindly. I am actually well researched and very informed.”

      …right, so you just spewed a bunch of nonsense, and then inform us that you *don’t* spew nonsense, apparently about a bunch of stuff that you believe blindly, without doing any research or being informed. ‘Cause if you really had something informative and well-researched to say about Isaiah 53 or Bob’s commentary, I assume you would have said it. Is that about right?

  • veritatis_splendor

    //Verse 53:3: “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.” Jesus should have been recognized as the Messiah, but the gospels tell us that his own people rejected him.

    On the other hand, “he was despised” doesn’t sound like the charismatic rabbi who preached to thousands of attentive listeners and had a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. And “a man of suffering … familiar with pain” might’ve been the life of an ascetic like John the Baptist, but this doesn’t describe Jesus.//

    First, the verse doesn’t exclude that it alluded to the Passion of Christ, not necessarily to the entire public life of Jesus. Even so, he also lived in poverty and suffering and even at the beginning of his ministry, those from his own hometown rejected him.

    Also, why did you limit the fulfillment of the prophecy to Jesus earthly life? After he ascended, the Church grew and emperors and kings eventually submitted to his name, this despite the initial rabid persecutions against early Church (which should be evidence enough that the Christian religion is the real deal)

    Your rebuttal isn’t a rebuttal at all. What you’re doing is that you’re misinterpreting the verses so that it won’t fit what happened.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Show me an interpretation of the entire set of verses that is better than the one I have above.

      • veritatis_splendor

        I read the entire Isaiah 53 and I couldn’t see a verse that absolutely cannot apply to Jesus.

        How in the world can Jesus not serve and do the will of God the Father? Which logic on earth prohibits this?

        In Philippians 2:5-11:

        “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
        6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
        7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
        8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
        9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
        10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
        11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

        Christ died in the Gospel, but was resurrected. So God ultimately “prolonged his days,” in fact until forever. In Galatians 3:26, Christians were told “For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” The “offspring” in Isaiah may not be referring to children through the flesh (ie, biological children), but spiritual children of God through baptism. In heaven, Christ has witnessed how his offspring continued for generations onto the present day.

        Christianity holds that Jesus will be the King of the New Heavens and the New Earth, and his kingdom will last forever. He will share this kingdom with those who are saved through him. This explains Isaiah 53:12

        Romans 8:17 “Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I read the entire Isaiah 53 and I couldn’t see a verse that absolutely cannot apply to Jesus.

          That’s nice. Now reread it and show that every verse can be applied to nothing else but Jesus.

          Let’s pretend that we’re honest seekers of the truth who will follow the evidence where it leads. If God were going to put in the passion + resurrection story, it would be clear. This isn’t.

          If something this obtuse were given to you as “fulfilled prophecy” from another religion, you think you’d buy it?

    • Pofarmer

      “despite the initial rabid persecutions against early Church (which
      should be evidence enough that the Christian religion is the real deal)”

      Why? Even if Candida Moss isn’t right, that Christian Persecution was highly overstated, why would someone attempting to squelch a competing belief system indicate that it is genuine?

  • veritatis_splendor

    What was ignored: that THESE so-called “novelists” died attesting that what they witnessed were true.

    Easy to accuse them of lying. But can you suffer and die for a blatant lie?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      ‘Cause it didn’t happen. The “Who would die for a lie?” argument falls flat.

      • veritatis_splendor

        What you wrote there was just that SOME other sources contradict SOME details of how SOME of the apostles died. In no way will the conclusion from this premise be “it didn’t happen.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I argue that there is insufficient reason to believe the “who would die for a lie?” argument.

        • Pofarmer

          People die for false beliefs all the time. How many are willing to die for Islam? How many are willing to suffer because of the Caste system in Hinduism? How many were willing to die for Hitler, or Stalin? Being willing to die for something doesn’t in any way indicate that that something is true.

  • eleventh hour hero

    failed prophecy? i call this failed propaganda.

    utwwhears succinctly summarises my review of this article

    “This is such a laughable commentary and easily discernible as someone who has no familiarity with the scriptures, prophecy or what it predicted”

    To me bobby you are just another one of those modern age free thinking atheists that wish for a godless world in which you are servant to nobody but yourself. A common characteristic amongst atheists – they despise following a religion and are disgusted by being superseded in knowledge and truth known to even the most simple people around the world. It’s ok bob, we understand you are an honest seeker of the truth, who will follow the evidence where it leads, and thats a good thing. But when evidence presents itself to you, you absolutely refuse to accept it. Then you all be hypocritical and try and bash creationists for refusing “scientific evidence” for evolution. It’s clear to me that you thrive on discrediting anything which favours the reality of Jesus Christ and the truth in Christianity to get by day by day. I can tell you now, this will be an infinite process for you until the day you cease spinning your own biased and arrogant interpretations of holy scripture to fit your false world view and humanist perspective. I repeat, it will be a journey that has no end for you until you relax your guard and humble yourself to accept a universal truth. Its ok bobby, there is no shame in admitting an incorrect understanding in the face of everyday, ordinary people who have known the truth their entire life. I understand atheists pride themselves on claiming to have a superior understanding and knowledge of the world and to submit to religion and christianity in particular, is personally a very tough thing to do. Some find it impossible IRRESPECTIVE of the mountain of evidence which points in favour of the christian religion. But you and I both know many atheists in the past have made the conversion and are living a life that is immeasurably more fulfilling and awake then they had before. So here it is, if you are scraping the bottom of the pit to find more reason to reject religion and christianity and you have to resort to twisting scripture to give your side some credence, then I really suggest perhaps taking a couple of weeks or so to drop your guard and sword, drop the pride, drop the arrogance, destroy the pedestal, be humble and get to know more christians, ordinary everyday christians, and get to know their story and come to their understanding as to why they see truth in what is written. Ask them about their lives ask them about their hopes and just get to know them. Oh and please, no trying to push a ludicrous atheist agenda onto them while you are at it, remember we are being humble and dropping our pride for this.

    btw what’s with all the irrelevant tags to this article?
    same sex marriage, abortion, frank turek, santa claus ?!?! what the fuck?

    • Pofarmer

      Might I suggest coming to the current thread n fallacious thinking?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Your name is apt. Good thing you swooped in at the 11th hour to set things straight.

      My response to utwwhears was that it was much wind with zero content. He didn’t like the post—that’s all he conveyed. My post was full of errors? I invited him to actually, y’know, show them to us. Crickets.

      And you’re worse. He at least spent the time to compose drivel. You can only copy someone else’s.

      If you’d actually like to point to specific errors, do so. Or shut up.

  • dfdfdfdfd

    *test*

  • me

    “God is a loving God and He is also a just God”. Then someone please tell me why in the book of Exodus and Joshwa does he order his chosen people to kill evey living thing in the promised land. They killed every living thing-old men woman innocent childern-even all the animals. Now beheading, killing and extermination of cultures was a common theme at the time and appears in historical tex, but I got a real problem reconsiling the fact that people use the bible( which is full of violance) as a guide to their lives. A book that tells u to believe in myths, magic, and fantasy ( man who lives in the belly of a fish for 3 days, magician that flies over Rome , trees that turn into monsters, demons that come out of people and jump into sheep etc.) Now either history is wrong–and I bellieve its not–or God is an eveil vicious creature in that the bible is certainly full of enough violence to give rise to the question–what kind of God–if there is one-would permit and or order such a thing.

  • thewordsservant

    the whole “JESUS” story is not over

    • adam

      Yes, it was over almost 2000 years ago, when Jesus FAILED his own prophesy to ‘this generation’ and to ‘those standing here’

      • Pofarmer

        Done, Kaput, failed, history, finito. It is, most certianly, over.

        • adam

          What do they say?

          Ye shall know them by their fruits……

  • Jerry

    LOL. Jesus is one of the most influential persons in history. All of this is fulfilled.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Huh? You think Is. 53 says that?

      You’ll have to show me the verse.

    • adam

      You write influential as if it is a good thing.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt5gLf455Q8

      • Aaron Siering

        The first problem with this hypothetical is that knowledge of the Holocaust would never have become widespread. The Nazis took great pains to keep this secret even from their own citizens, and even the towns where it was happening there was the type of familial cognitive dissonance that has always allowed mankind to evil things to one another. There is no hypothetical where anybody is okay with the Holocaust. If the Nazis had won the facts of the Holocaust would have been suppressed.

        The second problem is that Israelis it seems never supported a holocaust of their own. This is simply a type of rhetorical hyperbole used in that language in that culture. For even after there was supposedly a genocide carried out against the the Canaanites a few chapters later we read without irony Canaanites living among the Israelites.

        The third problem is the argument assumes that Judeo-Christianity is the reason for any of the immorality in the world as opposed to a counter-balance that did to the degree that it was actually internalized help retard it. A distinction needs to be made between the claims of Judeo-Christianity and those who persons and cultures who profess to be Christians but act in a way that is contrary to claims.

        So there is a pattern here both with this video and that of the original blog, both need to rely on anachronistic readings of the Bible to support their argument.

        • adam

          “The first problem with this hypothetical is that knowledge of the Holocaust would never have become widespread.”

          Doesnt matter to those who did it or those who directed it from what they BELIEVED ‘god’ wanted them to do.

          ” If the Nazis had won the facts of the Holocaust would have been suppressed.”
          Doesnt matter to those who did it or those who directed from what they BELIEVED ‘god’ wanted them to do.

          “The second problem is that Israelis it seems never supported a holocaust of their own.”

          Matters not.
          Their ‘god’ did, thats the point.

          “The third problem is the argument assumes that Judeo-Christianity is the
          reason for any of the immorality in the world as opposed to a
          counter-balance that did to the degree that it was actually internalized
          help retard it.”

          LOL

          A counter balance to WHAT?

          The Romans killing a character called Jesus in a book?

          “A distinction needs to be made between the claims of Judeo-Christianity
          and those who persons and cultures who profess to be Christians but act
          in a way that is contrary to claims.”

          Christianity?

          Morality?

          It is really under biblical ‘morality’ ANYTHING goes except for blasphemy of the holy ghost.

          Yes, you can genocide and be forgiven.
          Yes, you can murder, rape and be forgiven.

          You can genocide every single individual in any group except lets say a baby and its mother, you can beat that baby to death, rape its lifeless body, then carve that baby up and eat it, cut off that mothers head and
          shit that baby down her throat…..

          And STILL be forgiven.

          So the biblical morality is the REAL case where anything goes…
          .
          .
          .
          Again except for blasphemy of the holey ghost,

          THAT is so horrible, that it is UNFORGIVABLE.

        • Aaron Siering

          Yea, I am not interested in anything you have to say. You have demonstrated that in your prejudiced to be rabidly irrational. There is no reasonable argument you’d be willing to accept and no rational discourse to which you can be engaged. What I said stands for any reasonable third party to consider.

        • adam

          “Yea, I am not interested in anything you have to say.”

          Of course not you have demonstrated in your prejudiced to be rabidly irrational and afraid of truth.

          “There is no reasonable argument you’d be willing to accept and no rational discourse to which you can be engaged.”

          Of course there is – the TRUTH.

          Which you are rabidly opposing by your prejudice.

          ” What I said stands for any reasonable third party to consider.”

          Yep, your shite stands as shite.

        • Greg G.

          Video is restricted on the network I am on so I haven’t seen the video so I don’t think I am following your argument. I’m barging in anyway.

          The second problem is that Israelis it seems never supported a holocaust of their own. This is simply a type of rhetorical hyperbole used in that language in that culture. For even after there was supposedly a genocide carried out against the the Canaanites a few chapters later we read without irony Canaanites living among the Israelites.

          Archaeology does not support the genocide story. There was no abrupt change in culture during that time. There were sites that had pig bones and some that didn’t but that was the only difference they have found.

          I saw a video many years ago where Israeli students (I think it was done in Israel) were told the story of the Canaanites without identifying characteristics and were asked what they thought. The students thought it was a horrible thing. Then they were told that it was from the Bible and the Hebrews had done the killing. They all started to rationalize it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is simply a type of rhetorical hyperbole used in that language in that culture.

          So the Bible is unreliable then.

        • Aaron Siering

          It depends what you mean by unreliable. Is it unreliable as a scientific document? Absolutely, it is. The Bible expresses itself in the terms of what was the contemporaneous scientific worldview of the time, but what it expresses through that worldview are the profoundest human truths in all of literature. As for understanding what it means to assert well their are a couple ways to go about it, but for our purposes here we can say it is necessary to understand what it was suppose to mean within the culture that produced it doing our best to avoid anachronism.

          The other thing to keep in mind is the Bible is a book composed by the Catholic Church, and it was always meant to be understood in terms of the liturgy. It is subset of the tradition that was handed onto the Church through the Apostles. So I would assert that even the singular focus of the Bible representing itself as source of truth is as, I’ve commented elsewhere, to understand Christianity through puritanical filter.

          Anyway, I certainly believe the Bible to be totally reliable, but how its reliable is as a liturgical book. Which is to say that its something like a family history that is meaningful to my family as we meet together for communal meals. It is a reliable means for us to understand ourselves as a family better, and along these lines it is amusing that people who are not actually part of the family, if only because they don’t want to be, believe that its a book that has anything to say to them or that they believe that they are even in a position to understand anything about.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Is it unreliable as a scientific document? Absolutely, it is.

          Good, but you said it was unreliable as a historical document.

          what it expresses in through that worldview are the profoundest human truths in all of literature.

          That’s one opinion. It’s not mine.

          I certainly believe the Bible to be totally reliable, but how its reliable is a liturgical book.

          So what you mean is that it’s not at all reliable, except as a liturgical book.

  • David

    This is a horribly inaccurate that shows you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you even read the Gospels?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      You’ve got to give me more than this. “This is stupid!” doesn’t help anyone. Give me specifics.

      • Jake

        Honestly, I was wondering the same thing. Here’s my take.

        “On the other hand, “he was despised” doesn’t sound like the charismatic rabbi who preached to thousands of attentive listeners and had a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. And “a man of suffering … familiar with pain” might’ve been the life of an ascetic like John the Baptist, but this doesn’t describe Jesus.”

        The fact is… He was despised, and he was a man of sorrows. He was familiar with pain. All through the gospels, you will see Jesus’ demeanor is that his heart is poured out for the hurting and the suffering. You depict him as though his preaching was self-indulging, like he was living it up and soaking in glory. His life and ministry were driven by compassion, not self-glorification. You’ll see over and over he tells people not to speak about what he was doing (healings, miracles, etc.). He wasn’t after the glamorous life. In fact, he was vey close with John the Baptist. John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus is told about it, and what happens next? There is a crowd of people that desperately need him, and he heals their sick and feeds them. Have you ever lost someone close to you? You know what that feels like? You want to be alone. You want to grieve. Yet he again poured out his life for others in a moment where he would have been perfectly justified in taking a minute for himself. Try to ague that this isn’t a man of sorrows. By the way, his “triumphant entry” happened on a donkey. That’s the modern-day equivalent of riding into town in a beat up, rusty Honda Accord. Not exactly a lavish entry.

        Despised is the perfect word for him as well. The religious leaders hated Jesus with a passion! Do you know why? Because he was a threat to everything they had built. The religious leaders of that time used their power to elevate themselves over the people. Jesus came in and showed humanity that God’s plan is for the common man as well as the well-off to experience God, love, and healing. He didn’t use his power as a means to belittle people around him, but to elevate and heal. For this reason, he was absolutely, 100% despised and rejected. They sneered at him. They tried to stone him. They tried to throw him off a cliff. Charismatic rabbi? They wanted him dead. Not just silent, dead. That verse completely and perfectly describes Jesus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The fact is… He was despised, and he was a man of sorrows.

          Meh. Ask any Christian to summarize his life, and “he was despised” will be way down on the list.

          For something to be a prophecy, it had better fit like a glove. Isaiah 53 fits like a sack, I’m afraid.

          You’ll see over and over he tells people not to speak about what he was doing (healings, miracles, etc.).

          And yet Jesus uses miracles as evidence (John 10:37–8).

          Yet he again poured out his life for others in a moment where he would have been perfectly justified in taking a minute for himself. Try to ague that this isn’t a man of sorrows.

          Uh, he’s God. On the day that John the Baptist died, how many thousands of other people also died? Even if he cared just about the Jews like Yahweh, that’s a lot of people to worry about. And who cares if John died? Jesus would see him soon.

          And why marvel about the pressure on Jesus? He was perfect. A load that would be difficult for you or I would be trivial for him.

          By the way, his “triumphant entry” happened on a donkey. That’s the modern-day equivalent of riding into town in a beat up, rusty Honda Accord. Not exactly a lavish entry.

          Or so the story says. I wonder … do you suppose that Mark threw the donkey thing in to imagine that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy (Zech. 9:9)?

          Despised is the perfect word for him as well.

          By everyone? If not, then you see my point.

          The religious leaders hated Jesus with a passion! Do you know why?

          Yeah, because it’s a story. The different figures in the story are just puppets who move around as the author (writing 40 years after the events, whatever they were) dictates.

          he was absolutely, 100% despised and rejected

          “Many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields. Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting: “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!”

          Doh!

        • Greg G.

          By the way, his “triumphant entry” happened on a donkey. That’s the modern-day equivalent of riding into town in a beat up, rusty Honda Accord. Not exactly a lavish entry.

          A king rode a warhorse when they went to battle. They rode a donkey to show they came in peace. In 1 Kings 1:32-34, Solomon rode a donkey to his coronation. Judges 5:10; Judges 10:4; Judges 12:14; and 2 Samuel 16:2 talk about royalty riding donkeys. Mark made up the story, basing it on Zechariah 9:9-10. Early Christianity thought Isaiah 53 was historical. Even Origen argued for it.

  • Charles

    Verse 53:3: “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.” Jesus should have been recognized as the Messiah, but the gospels tell us that his own people rejected him.

    Hi Bob, Can you provide clarification of your stance on this statement? Are you saying Jesus was not rejected by his own people?

    • Greg G.

      He addressed that in the very next paragraph:

      On the other hand, “he was despised” doesn’t sound like the charismatic rabbi who preached to thousands of attentive listeners and had a triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. And “a man of suffering … familiar with pain” might’ve been the life of an ascetic like John the Baptist, but this doesn’t describe Jesus.

      • Luke Holton

        The issue with his argument, is he was despised at the end. If you read in scripture his followers decreased over time as his people became more and more hostile too him. Do you really think a man with thousands and thousands of followers at the time could be so easily taken and killed?

        • Greg G.

          The gospels tell us there were thousands greeting him a week before his arrest. His arrest, in the Synoptic gospels but not in John, was after the Passover meal when most people would be enjoying the meal, relaxing afterward, or sleeping, and the gospels tell us he was nearly alone in Gethsemane.

          I think you are mixing the Synoptics story with the John version. they are two different stories. In John, Jesus begins the ministry with the Cleansing of the Temple and makes to other annual trips to Jerusalem. The ministry in the gospels are just a few months and the Cleansing of the Temple happens in the final week. Jesus turns off a lot of followers with his Bread of Life discourse in John but that never happens in the Synoptics.

          Mark tells us that the name “Bartimaeus” means “son of Timaeus”. Then he has Jesus pray “Abba, Father”, using Aramaic and Greek. That teaches his readers that Barabbas means “son of the father”, linking him and Jesus as in the scapegoat Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16:5-22, where one goat is killed for the sins of the people and the other is released into the wilderness. But the Atonement ritual is later in the year, not at Passover in the spring. John tried to fix that by having Jesus arrested, crucified, and dead on the day before Passover, when the Passover lambs are killed. However, that doesn’t work because the Passover is not a sin offering.

        • adam

          ” Do you really think a man with thousands and thousands of followers at the time could be so easily taken and killed?”

          If it makes the story more interesting, of course.

        • Luke Holton

          Israel being reborn, look it up for yourself. It was prophesied and happened. That is just one. If you try to deny it you are just kidding yourselves.

        • adam

          But biblical Israel has NOT been reborn, so you are LYING again.

          http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=65

        • Pofarmer

          You’re talking in less than a weeks time for Pete’s sake.

        • Luke Holton

          Where do you get that it was a weeks time? You after the sermon on the mount when he started teaching harder things he continually lost many that followed him. I am not sure where you can even claim it was a week.

        • Pofarmer

          Supposedly huge crowds thronged to see him enter Jerusalem. That was the beginning of passover week.

  • http://sarasohaib.wordpress.com/ Sara Sohaib Awan

    She was despised and rejected by womankind, a woman of suffering, and familiar with pain.”Meriam women kind ruined.

  • Aaron Siering

    Your argument is fallacious because it assumes a mistaken understanding of the literary genre of Prophecy. The one that Protestants invented in the modern age.

    Prophecy in the scriptures is the counterpoint to history and like their history the actual events are not as important as the theological meaning for those events in their present. Now if there may very well be some comment by the theology that the prophecy was meant illuminate (again in their present) and the future event that is then associated with it. However the way you go about trying to associate the two versions of the events, in a level of detail that would be alien to them, does great violence to the text, and is not a way anybody would have understood it before the modern age. It is certainly not something that would have made sense to either the people in Isaiah’s time or the people in Christ’s.

    In short then your argument relies on an anachronism, and this is why I assert that it is fallacious.

    So really your argument goes more toward demonstrating a contradiction underlying Protestant, or modernist Biblical exegesis, and to this end I would agree with you: if you are going to attempt to read the Bible in the way you’ve just demonstrated then major contradictions will emerge.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Are you saying that New Testament writers were wrong to apply pesher to the OT? I agree.

      your argument relies on an anachronism, and this is why I assert that it is fallacious.

      My argument? You do realize that I’m rejecting the clumsy finding of prophecy in the OT, right?

      • Aaron Siering

        Actually no I didn’t read you that way. I guess I took the heading “failed Prophecy” too much at face value.

  • Nudist

    A couple of questions: why would anyone record prophesy in the past tense? Secondly, is there any record anywhere of successful prophesy? So much of the Old Testament prophecy actually appears to be written at the same moment it’s fulfillment was written… it’s a lot easier to get it right that way.

    • Greg G.

      Retrodiction is far more accurate and specific than prediction.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      No nudists here, sir or madam! This is a family site.

      But to your question, I’ve seen no successful prophecy. I’m amazed that Christians pursue this avenue when the “prophecies” they trot out are so weak that even they’d see it if they came from another religion.

      • Greg G.

        No nudists here, sir or madam! This is a family site.

        At least, the respondent doesn’t have a graphic avatar.

      • Nudist

        A month passed and somehow I missed your response… Anyway, I just wanted to say in regard to “No nudists here, sir or madam! This is a family site…” that nudist resorts and beaches welcome families! We believe lawmakers who imply human bodies are “indecent” are hypocrites in the extreme. “Victorian” modesty, and Puritan prudery should be as unwelcome to an enlightened citizenry as stoning for adultery.

        While reading Plato’s Republic, I discover this passage discussing the needs of society. As a preface, Socrates has begun by postulating that people associate and create societies because, as a rule, all people are different and have special interets and talents, and the success of their venture requires these individuals to contribute to society at large. First they need food producer / gatherers, as well as shelter builders, weavers and shoemakers, etc.

        Here’s the particular quote (Socrates speaking) I found interesting:

        “…we must press on with our inquiry. So let us first consider how our citizens, so equipped, will live. They will produce corn, wine, clothes, and shoes, and will build themselves houses. In the summer they will for the most part work unclothed and unshod, in the winter they will be clothed and shod suitably.”

        Ah, for the good old days. (This quote circa 421 BC)

        Even earlier, supposedly, read Isaiah 20:3 ““As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush,…”
        The world will be a better place when people are recognized for what they say and what they believe rather than for the clothes they (may or may not) wear.
        Here’s a thought… when it comes to seduction, isn’t it true that 99.999% of all seductions are instigated by people in clothes falling for other people in clothes… co-workers eyeballing each other, high school kids lusting after each other, patrons and waitresses, drinkers and bar maids, etc.?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I was kidding. In fact, when the Seattle Atheists has a booth at the local University of WA street fair, we’re often put in the same row as the local naturist group (I believe that’s what they called themselves—perhaps you can correct me). They’re nice people.

      • Luke Holton

        You are blind if you have never seen a successful prophecy and totally don’t understand the word then.
        “Then he said to me, ‘Son of man, these bones represent the people of Israel. They are saying, ‘We have become old, dry bones – all hope is gone.’ Now give them this message from the Sovereign Lord: O my people, I will open your graves of exile and cause you to rise again. Then I will bring you back to the land of Israel. When this happens, O my people, you will know that I am the Lord.” Ezekiel 37:11-13 (NLT)
        Israel was reborn
        “‘Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day? Has a country ever come forth in a mere moment? But by the time Jerusalem’s birth pains begin, the baby will be born; the nation will come forth. Would I ever bring this nation to the point of birth and then not deliver it?’ asks the Lord. ‘No! I would never keep this nation from being born,’ says your God.” Isaiah 66:8-9 (NLT)

        • adam

          “You are blind if you have never seen a successful prophecy and totally don’t understand the word then. ”

          Then enlighten us.
          I’ve never seen a successful prophecy either.

          “‘Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day? ”

          Nope.

          You are lying about history.

          “The History of Israel encompasses the Jewish history in the Land of Israel, as well as the history of the modern State of Israel. Modern Israel and the West Bank are roughly located on the site of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is the birthplace of the Hebrew language and of the Abrahamic religions, and contains sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Samaritanism, Druze and Bahá’í Faith.

          Although coming under the sway of various empires and home to a variety of ethnicities, the Land of Israel was predominantly Jewish until the 3rd century.[1] The area became increasingly Christian after the 3rd century and then largely Muslim following the 7th century conquest
          and until the middle of the 20th century. It was a focal point of conflict between Christianity and Islam between 1096 and 1291, and from the end of the Crusades was part of the Syrian province of first the Mamluk Sultanate and then the Ottoman Empire until the British conquest in 1917.

          A Jewish national movement, Zionism, emerged in the late-19th century. Following the British capture of Ottoman territories in the Levant, the Balfour Declaration in World War I and the formation of the Mandate of Palestine, Aliyah (Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel) increased, causing Arab–Jewish tensions and a collision of the Arab and Jewish nationalist movements. Israeli independence in 1948 ]””https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

          And you need to understand, it wasnt the ‘love of God’ that created Israel, but Jewish terrorism.

          After World War II, between 1945 and the 29 November 1947 Partition vote, British soldiers and policemen were targeted by Irgun and Lehi. Haganah and Palmah first collaborated with the British against them, particularly during the Hunting Season, before actively joining them in the Jewish Resistance Movement,then finally choosing an official neutral position after 1946 while the
          Irgun and the Lehi went on their attacks against the British.[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

        • Luke Holton

          Large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many of them World War II veterans and Holocaust survivors, now began arriving in the new state of Israel, and many joined the IDF. So how am I lying about history? The country of Israel was reborn. Jewish terrorism is simply your opinion. Almost every country that has come to be today has done so through war. Just google Israel reborn it isn’t that hard. You managed to find Wikipedia.

        • adam

          ” The country of Israel was reborn. ” not instantly or even quickly like you LIED about

          “Jewish terrorism is simply your opinion.”

          Nope, historical FACT, I provided a link where you could educate yourself.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2fc0c20c12ec1e2dc02d579fef09f94ad96a2b78dbc86586c7eaec2aee711e23.png

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You are blind if you have never seen a successful prophecy and totally don’t understand the word then.

          Does that apply to you as well? Are you blind if you don’t see and understand a prophecy brought to fruition by the other guy’s god?

        • Luke Holton

          What prophecies would those be? And if they did come to fruition how can you even try to claim atheism? Honestly it amazes me more how atheist blindly follow many main stream Scientific theories as if they have actually been tested and proven over time. Most in the Theory of evolution are just hypothesis, yet Atheist act like theist are idiots for even believing there is a God. You can’t even come up with a good story of how we all came to be. Most of the theories are seriously out there. What a joke.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You get an A for confidence, but you need to make sure that you’re backing the right horse.

          What prophecies would those be?

          It’s a hypothetical.

          And if they did come to fruition how can you even try to claim atheism?

          It’s a hypothetical.

          Honestly it amazes me more how atheist blindly follow many main stream Scientific theories as if they have actually been tested and proven over time.

          It amazes me how fundamentalist Christians blindly follow the not-evidence of religion when it’s actually science that has a track record. What has Christianity taught us about reality that has been shown (through evidence) to be true?

          Most in the Theory of evolution are just hypothesis

          And you say this as someone with a doctorate in biology? Or are you just making shit up?

          yet Atheist act like theist are idiots for even believing there is a God.

          It is a little odd believing in something so fundamental without good evidence. But perhaps you have some? Show us.

          You can’t even come up with a good story of how we all came to be. Most of the theories are seriously out there. What a joke.

          Now this gives me pause. The scientific consensus—that is, the consensus of the people who are actually qualified to understand the evidence—all say that evolution is our best theory of how life came to be the way it is. But now Luke tells me that that’s quite stupid. I dunno—Luke’s argument sounds pretty compelling. I’m hesitating . . .

        • Luke Holton

          Actually they all don’t. There are many highly educated Phd scientist that don’t agree with the dogma that is evolution. So what makes them incorrect and many mainstream scientist correct? Scientist have been getting things wrong for generations. What makes you truly think that just because they are educated to this point in history they are correct? Many have changed their theories over time over and over. We aren’t even close to really understanding everything.

        • Susan

          There are many highly educated Phd scientist that don’t agree with the dogma that is evolution.

          Feel free to cite their scientific papers on the subject of evolution. Also, give us examples of “dogma” on the subject of evolution in the relevant fields.

          So what makes them incorrect and many mainstream scientists correct?

          Who are they?

          Many have changed their theories over time over and over.

          Of course. When their models are supported by evidence.

          We aren’t really close to understanding everything.

          That doesn’t mean we can’t understand anything and that you get to just make shit up (as creationist web sites do).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha…another woo woo creationist fuckwit has just arrived. Let the chewing commence.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Brilliant!

        • adam

          “There are many highly educated Phd scientist that don’t agree with the dogma that is evolution.”

          And just what is their Phd in?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6865a4cce3282762d39ccbf755e5a9a9ac316fdc6eeed7b3093b367aedf73658.jpg

          “So what makes them incorrect and many mainstream scientist correct?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba84f8055b4d39d6678611c48e8069dd2234f9f79dc706a30b4b5d3546aa5665.jpg

          “Scientist have been getting things wrong for generations. ”

          Like what?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f078e39c7bdab50f818933b99b5e11535933fa26a1f0007001fc3c5ae3f09aa.jpg

          “We aren’t even close to really understanding everything.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e354fc7cc2b98ee33f9a417062b3d79eafde2b48cf1d653e36212bc07a77cf2.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Mal

          It’s not so much about these scientists getting it wrong but about deliberately presenting false findings and theories. They are not ignorant; they are mischievous liars trying to justify scientism.

        • epeeist

          It’s not so much about these scientists getting it wrong but about deliberately presenting false findings and theories.

          And the biologists, cosmologists, physicists, archaeologists an palaeontologists who have done this are?

          They are not ignorant; they are mischievous liars trying to justify scientism.

          And those claiming that science can answer all questions are?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s patently obvious you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, or understand how science works. Ah, well, ho-hum!

          You are just another knuckle dragger, one of a number that has been frequenting this forum just recently.

          Is there a Knuckle-Draggers-R-Us meeting place where ya all meet and conspire to invade a particular site one at a time?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Is there a Knuckle-Draggers-R-Us meeting place where ya all meet and conspire to invade a particular site one at a time?

          I’m pretty sure Meetup.com will show the closest meeting.

        • Mal

          You are just an Ignorant name caller. You must be from a group called Ignorant-R-Us.

        • Susan

          You are just an Ignorant name caller. You must be from a group called Ignorant-R-Us.

          Very impressive. You are one in the long line of people who think themselves clever for pouncing on Ignorant Amos’s carefully chosen name.

          Your argument is a disaster. As IA has pointed out. Because you haven’t done your homework (something that “Ignorant” Amos makes great pains to do).

          Acknowledging ignorance is an excellent first step that IA took years ago. Because of that, it’s obvious that he has learned an awful lot. Still, he recognizes his ignorance (as we all should on subjects beyond our paygrade)

          I’m ignorant about most things. But that doesn’t mean I’m buying the snake oil that you might have bought in your unexamined ignorance.

          Every black belt is a white belt in their approach.

          If you’d like to talk about science, please actually talk about science.

          .

        • Mal

          I was talking about scientists who present incorrect views. And if your IA really does his homework then he would not have judged me so harshly. Acknowledging ignorance and then broadcasting it is not a great virtue.

        • epeeist

          I was talking about scientists who present incorrect views.

          Which scientists, and why are their views incorrect?

        • Mal

          Which scientists? The ones that present incorrect views. For example, the large body of scientists who claim that our CO2 is the cause of something they call ‘Global Warming’. And the ones who draw figures of early humans as bent, stooped and who provide false missing links.

        • epeeist

          For example, the large body of scientists who claim that our CO2 is the cause of something they call ‘Global Warming’.

          You don’t seem to have provided any information on why the large majority of climate scientists who accept AGW are wrong.

          And the ones who draw figures of early humans as bent, stooped and who provide false missing links.

          So what did early humans actually look like, and how do you know?

          And what “false missing links” are you referring to?

          Oh, and a few names for the scientists who are deliberately providing false information wouldn’t go amiss.

        • Mal

          We could begin with the authors who present these views as ‘facts’ in science text books.

        • epeeist

          We could begin with the authors who present these views as ‘facts’ in science text books.

          Well we could, if you actually named some authors and some of the false facts that they put in their books. Let’s try and easy one shall we, a link to the paper by Arrhenius on heat absorption by carbon dioxide. This is the foundation on which the idea of global warming is built. Is it wrong, and if so why?

          But you aren’t going to provide a critique of the paper or a list of authors or false facts are you, what is going to happen is that you are going to carry on with your vague hand waving and feeble attempts to poison the well.

        • Mal
        • epeeist

          Which is not an answer to whether Arrhenius is correct or not. It is the usual creationist/denier trick of posting anything even though it isn’t apposite to the question being asked.

          I note that you still haven’t named any authors or told us why they are wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          A site dedicated to rejecting the consensus view of climate science. Yeah, that sounds objective.

        • Greg G.

          Mal has never met a conspiracy theory that was too far-fetched to believe.

        • Mal

          Is consensus science?

        • Michael Neville

          It is the general opinion of scientists, remaining accepted until modified or superseded. Everything in science is provisional, unlike religion where everything is absolute.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Looks like they have an agenda–that was my point.

          As for the scientific consensus, it’s the option that we outsiders to the field must take. On what grounds could we possibly reject it?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, like climate change is pointed to by “science”??

          But this is small fry. Do us all a favor and take care of the really nonsensical “science”: quantum theory. You know about it, right? Things are in two places at once, they seemingly communicate instantaneously, they can tunnel through barriers–I mean, it’s nuts.

          Go.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You can’t even accurately describe what it is you are complaining about. What chance is there that you have what it takes to make a judgement on what is correct?

        • Mal

          Not complaining about anything. Just presenting my opinion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t ya just love Dunning-Kruger in effect?

        • adam

          then expose those lies and be a hero, instead of a magical wishing zero.

        • Mal

          The numerous false missing links, global warming caused by our CO2, macro-evolution, Copernican Principle, gays are born that way etc.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What is the “Copernican principle”? Surely you’re not rejecting the heliocentric solar system?

          I suggest you pick just one of these scientific concerns out of the pile labeled “Things that science says that make Jesus cry.” Expand on your reasoning.

        • Mal

          I am not rejecting heliocentric solar system but in view of new findings I have an open mind. A closed mind is not a scientific one.

        • epeeist

          I am not rejecting heliocentric solar system but in view of new findings I have an open mind.

          New findings? You have a reference to these do you?

        • Mal
        • epeeist

          Well one rather thought it was that.

          Let’s ask a couple of questions:

          1. Are things that vary with the reference frame real or not?

          2. In a geocentric universe what is the velocity of Neptune around the earth?

          Let’s ask another one while we are at it:

          What are the scientific qualifications of any of those who made the film?

        • Mal

          The responses came from top scientists being interviewed. You have not faulted the views presented.

        • epeeist

          The responses came from top scientists being interviewed.

          Who have said they were interviewed under false pretences.

          You have not faulted the views presented.

          Oh but I have, it’s just that you don’t know enough (any?) since to realise it.

          I note that you haven’t even attempted to answer any of my questions.

        • Mal

          ‘False pretences’ has been debunked. Documents were produced by the producers.
          I answered your questions by stating that the responses came from the scientists in the documentary.

        • epeeist

          ‘False pretences’ has been debunked. Documents were produced by the producers.

          So you could easily give me a citation that shows this to be true.

          I answered your questions by stating that the responses came from the scientists in the documentary.

          I asked you a) whether things that vary with the reference frame were real or not, b) what the orbital velocity of Neptune would be in a geocentric universe and c) what the scientific qualifications of DeLano and Sugenis are.

          You have answered none of these.

        • Greg G.

          ‘False pretences’ has been debunked. Documents were produced by the producers.

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2458876/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

          The video the producers posted rebutting the charge that they misled the scientists and narrator of this movie actually confirms that they did indeed keep the participants in the dark as to the true purpose of the documentary. It shows that the contract signed by physicist Lawrence Krauss was carefully worded to avoid any mention of geocentrism, either directly or indirectly, merely stating that the documentary would cover various theories and controversies concerning cosmology. There are indeed plenty of scientific theories–mainstream and controversial–in the field of cosmology, and Professor Krauss has contributed his viewpoint to more than a few science documentaries covering them, but geocentrism isn’t one of them. As the producers were no doubt banking on, Professor Krauss would not have even considered the possibility that this vague catch-all language in his contract masked their single-minded purpose of promoting the long debunked pseudo-scientific claim of geocentrism.

        • epeeist

          http://www.imdb.com/title/t

          Since you are linking to IMDB I think it is worthwhile noting their estimates of how much the movie made, namely $86,172.

          Also worthwhile noting that the part of the blurb that states “astonishing new scientific observations” is a load of bollocks, there have been no such observations, unless of course Mal is able to provide us with a reference that isn’t totally irrelevant.

        • Greg G.

          I’d like to see the “new scientific observations” even if they aren’t “astonishing.”

        • Mal

          But the documentary is not about ethnocentrism. Did you see it? I did.

        • Greg G.

          But the documentary is not about ethnocentrism. Did you see it? I did.

          Who said it had anything to do with ethnocentrism?

          PS: If watching it causes that much brain damage, I think I will pass.

        • Mal

          Yes, I have suffered a stroke that has slightly affected my vision. I meant geocentrism. And I thought you would have thought so.

        • Greg G.

          How did your vision problem make you type “ethnocentrism”? I would have thought you would have thought I meant “geocentricism” even if you misread it as “ethnocentricism”.

        • Mal

          No, It was auto corrected and I did not notice it. But, I did tell you that I made a mistake.

        • Greg G.

          The opening of the video at http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ says, “Science has found evidence that Earth is the center of the Universe.”

          You typed, “But the documentary is not about ethnocentrism.” If you meant to type, “But the documentary is not about geocentrism,” your sentence is even more wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Along with Krauss, at least two of the mainstream scientists who appear in the film aren’t so happy about it. Max Tegmark, a brilliant MIT cosmologist and science communicator, is spoken of admiringly by DeLano in the radio show. When I asked about his appearance in the film, Tegmark emailed: “They cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda or that people like Sungenis were involved.” Ditto for South African mathematician and cosmologist George Ellis, a well-respected professor at the University of Cape Town who wrote The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking. “I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense,” he wrote me. “I don’t think it’s worth responding to — it just gives them publicity. To ignore is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda.”

        • Mal

          The documentary had not even been released or seen by them when they were supposed to make those comments.
          They have not continued with those comments.

        • Greg G.

          When the producers tried to debunk the scientists claims, the video accidentally confirmed the scientists’ claims. Once the film was thoroughly debunked, there was no need to spend the rest of their lives talking about it. It became meaningless.

        • Mal

          No, they caught out and hence no further noises from them.

        • Greg G.

          I recall the event being in the news, then never a peep until you brought it up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The documentary had not even been released or seen by them when they were supposed to make those comments.

          It isn’t a documentary.anymore than Disney’s “Fantasia” is a documentary.

          But why do you think that it matters if those comments were made before the crap was released? Do you think there was some overwhelming data in the movie that could overthrow the years of physics studied by those individuals?

          Mal, the expert folk whom that lying wee bastard DeLano hoodwinked do not support a geocentric solar system…end of.

          Myself, and a few others here, have personal experience dealing with DeLano on two internet forums. He is an asinine fuckwit and anyone who takes his nonsense serious is also an asinine fuckwit too.

          He was banned from one of those sites by the Catholic administrators because he was too much of an asinine fuck with for even that conservative venue.

          Rick DeLano is the producer and writer for the documentary film, THE PRINCIPLE. The film challenges conventional cosmological theory concerning gravity and the universe. It includes exclusive interviews from Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis, who wrote “Galileo was Wrong,” Max Tegmark, a physics professor at MIT, and many other thought leaders from mainstream and alternative science. Rick DeLano has received criticism for THE PRINCIPLE from the established scientific community, as well as religious institutions who want to maintain the Copernican model of the universe.
          Even holy rollers think he is an asinine fuckwit ffs.

          As for Sungenis, he’s another asinine fuckwit anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust and the moon landings. But I guess that’s where you want to be.

        • Mal

          You are f. Bye
          ull of it

        • Ignorant Amos

          Spoiiiiinnng!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Too gullible for words.

          The top scientists you talk about were misrepresented. DeLano was dishonest..

        • Mal

          They once made that claim but did not go on with it after certain facts were made known to the public.

        • Greg G.

          Do you suppose Mal might have been involved in the production of the film?

        • Greg G.
        • Mal

          You trust your sources while I trust mine.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh fer feck sake…not our auld pal Rick DeLano the lying toe rag.

          Court records for DeLano turned up one unexpected hit: In 2002, a Rick DeLano was listed as a defendant in a $10 million suit alleging he and others had participated in a scheme to misrepresent stock in internet companies. “Defendants Perlman, DeLano, and Levy introduced Plaintiff to several individuals whom they claimed were officers and directors of these fifty-four companies (‘Companies’). Plaintiff alleges that these representations were intentionally and willfully misleading,” according to the records. In the suit, DeLano is listed as a California resident; his current phone number has an area code that puts him in California, too, which would also go some way toward explaining his relationship with the film production company. The case settled for an undisclosed amount.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You have an extraordinarily open mind if you’re now mulling over that whole heliocentric thing.

          And if the entire scientific project rests on your shoulders, you may be taking on too much of a burden. I recommend accepting the scientific consensus.

        • TheNuszAbides

          looks like Hovind is all the consensus Mal needs.

        • Mal

          I do not need peers agreeing with each other. I think the truth is more important than any other consideration.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          A noble sentiment, but how do you decide?

        • TheNuszAbides

          that’s a great starting point. but what do you actually think qualifies you (or anyone who agrees with you) for the pretense of skepticism with regard to evolutionary biology?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A mind so open that everything has fell out by the looks of things.

        • Mal

          A closed mind would have no idea.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s right.

          Who here has a closed mind do ya think?

          If you have an “anything goes” attitude, then you can use anything to explain everything.

          For example. I can assert that Space Ponies did it all.

          Susan can assert that snowflake fairies did it all.

          You can say YahwehJesus did it all.

          BobS can say science did it all.

          There is empirical evidence for just one of those assertions.

          With regards to The Principle, you, an ignorant, are choosing to go with two fraudulent kooks with absolutely no relevant qualifications, in the face of centuries and millions of scientists with mountains of evidence to the contrary. Then your bamboozled as to why a rational human being calls you an asinine fuckwit.

          In spite of being shown the evidence by such scientists right here on this site. Evidence you probably don’t understand, let alone try to refute.

          So yeah, if you are going to act like a clown, people are going to be laughing at you.

        • adam

          “A closed mind is not a scientific one.”

          But YOU are closed to everything but a “God”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e6eceefda06b08605b3653301b5e246ee7fbd6ce2a594a4e6a0d18e41ce10f5.jpg

        • Mal

          Poor statement. A religious person might not read many books about religions but like many scientists who are religious they read many books that interest the.

        • adam

          No, a good statement, seeing as you are OBVIOUSLY not a scientist.

        • epeeist

          What is the “Copernican principle”?

          AKA the “principle of mediocrity”, namely that there are no privileged observers. Though somehow I doubt this is what Mal was referring to.

        • adam

          Ignorant claims is not an expose.

          They are ignorant claims.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          said Mal, as he used a computer. And electricity. And lighting. And the internet. “Show me one thing science has given us!” he thundered.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Show me one thing the Romans have ever done for us?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FbeCdOj0TTU

        • Mal

          There are many good scientists, inventors and thinkers who have knowledge of the very trustworthy natural laws and who use them to do good. I believe that it takes intelligence to create the things you named and a lots more. I also believe that it was due to existence of superior intelligence that provided us with the materials and the laws to make these things – plus more (sun, moon stars, and their importance to us. The problem is not with the study we call science but with some of the people associated with it.

        • Joe

          I also believe that it was due to existence of superior intelligence that provided us with the materials and the laws to make these things – plus more (sun, moon stars, and their importance to us.

          Aliens?

          The problem is not with the study we call science but with some of the people associated with it.

          Let me guess: The people who think differently to your deeply held beliefs?

        • Mal

          If you believe in aliens then that is your prerogative. I believe in a God. You guessed wrong.

        • Joe

          Well, it could just as easily be aliens. Why not?

        • Mal

          If you sincerely believe that then arguments to the contrary will not affect you. My reasoning differs from yours.

        • Joe

          I don’t sincerely believe that. I just wondered how you ruled out aliens as intelligent designers?

        • Mal

          Because I have a very good reason to believe something else.

        • Joe

          What reason is that?

        • Mal

          That God created the world is the reason I do not see another, or even chance (which does not exist in nature) as our originator. You are free to believe what you want.

        • Joe

          That God created the world is the reason I do not see another, or even chance

          You don’t see any other reason? What does a non-god-created world look like?

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Could you give some evidence?

        • adam

          ” I believe that it takes intelligence to create the things you named and
          a lots more. I also believe that it was due to existence of superior
          intelligence that provided us with the materials and the laws to make
          these things – plus more (sun, moon stars, and their importance to us.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf3ab7ed04d447ff091f3cf19fcdefc6aafeccae006445994adc3759435c0aa5.jpg

          So nature is TOO COMPLEX to have evolved any other way than by creation of an EVEN MORE COMPLEX being.

          So OBVIOUSLY, something EVEN MORE COMPLEX had to create your ‘creator’…..

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          There are many highly educated Phd scientist that don’t agree with the dogma that is evolution.

          . . . except, with a handful of exceptions, they’re not biologists. So no one ought to care.

          So what makes them incorrect and many mainstream scientist correct?

          Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! It’s because they’re not biologists.

          Scientist have been getting things wrong for generations. What makes you truly think that just because they are educated to this point in history they are correct?

          Because of the evidence.

          This apparently is a poorly worded form of, “Just because science says something, that doesn’t mean that it’s true.” And that’s right, but what it does mean is that if science says something, that’s the best approximation to the truth we have at the moment.

          Many have changed their theories over time over and over. We aren’t even close to really understanding everything.

          . . . said Luke as he used a computer and the internet. (Gee, maybe science is actually a useful tool for learning about nature. Something to think about.)

        • Greg G.

          From Project Steve:

          NCSE’s “Project Steve” is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of “scientists who doubt evolution” or “scientists who dissent from Darwinism.”

          Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.” Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

          Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

          We’d like to think that after Project Steve, we’ll have seen the last of bogus “scientists doubting evolution” lists, but it’s probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, “How many Steves are on your list!?”

          The creationist list has dentists, not just scientists, and there are many who asked to have their names removed from the list because the claims being made about the list are not aligned with the statement they signed.