Isaiah 53: Another Failed Prophecy Claim

Isaiah 53: Another Failed Prophecy Claim April 10, 2015

Isaiah 53 is the other chapter that apologists often point to as giving an uncanny summary of the death of Jesus, but, like the claims for Psalm 22, we’ll see that this also falls flat.
bible prophecy
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.

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.

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 says the opposite.

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.

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” (53:5), “for the transgression of my people he was punished” (53:8), “he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (53:12), and so on.

Taken as this collection of cherry-picked 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.

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.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t how the gospel story plays out.

53:11: “my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” So 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 (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?” David was a major figure from the Bible, but 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]” (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—Israel was punished through the Babylonian exile and will be returned to glory and power.

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

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/12/12.)

Image credit: Craig Allen, flickr, CC

"In this case Blomberg would agree...Well that's a big relief to Greg a betcha. //sThat ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"There is no consensus among scholars regarding the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians.Indeed. So therefore it ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"Greg 2 Peter was written by forgery.In this case Blomberg would agree (pp. 490-499) that ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"Thanks for the reply. I enjoy this kind of discussion. I will break this up ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mike

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

    Why does this have to be limited to his life. Its hard to say that this prophecy is false when Christianity is the biggest religion on the planet.

    ¨ Jesus, a person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father, is now God’s servant? ¨

    Well yes, the theme of Jesus being a servant is scattered accross the New Testament. I dont know why you find a problem with this. For example:

    Luke 22:27

    For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is
    it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who
    serves.

    ¨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.¨

    Yea, he repeatedly referred to his disciples as friends.

    I dont buy this prophecy thing, cold reading can accomplish a lot but your refutations are just plain wrong.

    • Jack Baynes

      I don’t see many people shutting up because of Jesus.

    • Its hard to say that this prophecy is false when Christianity is the biggest religion on the planet.

      That verse refers to someone during his life.

      Well yes, the theme of Jesus being a servant is scattered accross the New Testament.

      To God? Jesus as a servant to his disciples is something quite different.

      Yea, he repeatedly referred to his disciples as friends.

      Again, you’re not taking the Isaiah verse seriously.

      “Therefore I [that is, God] will give him a portion among the great and he will divide the spoils with the strong”—how does this map onto the son of God?

      • Mike

        I disagree on all three accounts. The verse doesnt necessarily refer to someone during that time, Jesus spoke repeatedly about serving god and he clearly included himself in the group and Jesus also made it clear that his diciples were his peers. It makes no sense to say this isnt the Jesus of the gospels when he gets down and washes his disciples feet.

        Like I said, you should talk about the flawed nature of prophecy and the subjective interpretations that one can give to general predictions. But instead you chose to cherry pick and misunderstand quotations in order to prove a point. Sound familiar?

        • No idea what your concern is. Perhaps we’re just destined to disagree on this one.

        • Hesychast

          Bob – I’ve read many of your blogs, and you do a good job dismantling many arguments of the current crop of apologists, yet your weakest blogs are the ones where you actually tackle scripture.

          Like this one.

          You are a VERY smart guy who falters when confronted by something that has dual or triple meanings echoing through time. You don’t get it. You deny it. But you can neither explain it, nor understand it. So in effect, you end up just complaining about it.

        • Cognissive Disco Dance

          I think it’s just a case of being so simple and obvious that it’s downright mundane. For instance Jesus didn’t have any offspring. (Duh.) Nor is there any mention of the person being, oh, a freaking god, the LORD bleeping almighty him/herself. (D’oh.) They probably forgot I guess. Anyway apologists will attack anything so’s they can look cool, including attacking things for being obvious. Yes, they will mock obviousity qua obviusoity just so they can have something to run their mouths about. “Dude don’t you know it’s like way more complicated woah dude your being too obvious dude woahhhh it’s deep dude Wayne’s World Wayne’s World SLAYER METALLICA *takes apologist bong hit*”.

        • You sound like Mike. And, like Mike, the problem isn’t coming through.

          The claim is that Is. 53 describes the gospel story so accurately that it can only be explained supernaturally. You’ve done nothing to support this or to explain why my dismantling doesn’t work. Show me specifics.

    • Cognissive Disco Dance

      Why does this have to be limited to his life. Its hard to say that this prophecy is false when Christianity is the biggest religion on the planet.

      Why does it have to be limited to Christianity’s life? Could be a totally different religion about a zillion years from now. Jewish people think it’s a prophecy about the nation of Israel by the way. (Israel being the “servant”.) Anyway you nailed it with “Its hard to say that this prophecy is false”. It’s hard to say any prophecy is false lol. Especially vague poetic “revenge porn” ones like that one. (Are there even any Biblical “prophecies” that aren’t “revenge porn”?)

      I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!” And divide the spoils…

    • Rudy R

      His refutations are just plain wrong? How about the prophesies that apologists seemingly neglect to mention (courtesy of aish.com):
      1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
      2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
      3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
      4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9)

      Convincing enough for ya?

      • Hesychast

        Aish.com is an pro-Jewish/antiChristian site, so asking that a Christian to explain or defend their views is like asking you to defend Westboro Baptist Church. Feel free to jump in with your arguments defending Westboro, than we’ll talk.

        • Rudy R

          Instead of attacking the messenger, why don’t you try to attack the message. Those four failed prophesies are the issue and are part of the reason ALL Jews don’t accept Jesus as the messiah. Bob quoted prophesies that are vague and can be interpreted, depending on your agenda, to support your view, but the four I listed are more specific and you’d have to show your blatant bias to not concede this is damning evidence against Jesus as the true messiah.

        • Greg G.

          How is asking a Christian to defend against anti-Christian views like asking an atheist to defend the views of WBC? Would you defend the views of the WBC? Their views are derived from the same scriptures every other Christian reads.

      • Without Malice

        Christian get around those with the teaching about the second coming. Jesus may not have done everything the messiah was expected to do on the first go around, but he will when he returns. All pure BS of course. The coming of the messiah which was supposed to bring world peace etc, was never meant to be a two act play with a multi-thousand year intermission. The Catholics are always saying that the Church should be seen as the Kingdom of God on earth. Well, if the Catholic church, which is beyond doubt one of the most corrupt and vile institutions on the face of the earth and always has been, is equal to the kingdom of God on earth . . . God help us.

  • Snowflake

    I don’t think they know much about sheep either. …”And as a sheep before it’s shearers is silent… The sheep I know of are pretty sassy. Probably gay, atheist sheep.

    • Pofarmer

      Yeah, I cleaned out a sheep barn today. Anything but silent.

      • Snowflake

        Yeah, I knew I liked you from your name. I’m sure it did not smell so sweet.

        I’m more a cow person, but sheep are cute also. So are chickens, goats and pigs.

        • Pofarmer

          A day in the life. Pigs are only cute when they’re little. My favorite critters are goats, as much as they are pains in the butt.

        • Snowflake

          HaHa. That was great! The goat part. It made my day!

          I worked on my sister’s farm. I still like the cows, even if I’ve been kicked, stepped on, squished between cows and hit in the face with a tail more times I can count.

          She no longer has the farm but I get my fix at the county and state fair.

        • I like the draft horses at the county fair.

        • Snowflake

          They are pretty amazing, with their strength. The various 4-H animal shows are great also. We don’t have animals but cats and a snake. We do show in other areaas. I felt like such a Fundie when I won blue ribbons for various pickled vegetables.

        • Kodie

          I watched pig races once at the county fair. They have these fast fast piggies, running around a track, and then when that’s over, they race these pot belly pigs who aren’t interested in running at all, and play silly music for those silly (smart) pigs. It’s like this though – county fairs are really about the farming, but for us suburbanites, it’s about other attractions, like nostalgia for washed out pop bands, talent shows, rides, and food. The few times I’d been, it was like getting to go to an amusement park without the 4-hour drive to New Jersey. I hardly remember any animals, but the 4-H milkshakes always get the highest ratings of all the food stands.

        • wtfwjtd

          Cows can have impressively deadly aim with their tails! I guess those biting flies give them lots of practice.

        • Greg G.

          After 45 years, I’m mad at that cow now. I figured it was an accident at the time.

  • Otto

    It looks a lot more like the gospel writers after the fact trying to make the Jesus story fit the supposed messiah Prophecies.

    • Greg G.

      I think the Suffering Servant songs were the very basis for the idea of Jesus. It wasn’t applied after the fact, it caused the phenomenon.

      • Otto

        I get that but it seems like details in the Gospels were added and/or embellished after the time he was supposed to be alive in an effort to fit the Jesus narrative to the songs so they could claim he was in fact the one everyone had been looking for.

        You are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am so feel free to tell me I am off the mark.

        Do you believe the gospels were an attempt to make a spiritual ‘being’ physical and historic? I have heard that from people like Robert Price (I forgot what the scholarly term is that they use)? What is your take?

        • Greg G.

          “Euhemerization” is the word you are looking for though you should check the spelling.

          I don’t think the first century Christians thought there was a first century Jesus. The early Epistles have a different character when they are read with an eye for sarcasm and without reading the Gospels back into them. I think the Old Testament was read as a hidden mystery and the history of someone who lived between David’s time and Isaiah’s time. Carrier and Doherty argue that the early first century Christians thought of Jesus as an entirely heavenly being in the deep past. Either way, they read the OT as history about Jesus being crucified but as prophecy about his coming as the Messiah.

          I think Mark was writing an allegorical story, not history. Mark did a masterful piece of work combining Hebrew scripture, Christian literature, and Greek literature into a lively narrative in a chiastic structure.

          About a generation later, Mark was taken as history and the other gospels were written in that context with added embellishments.

          I’m learning new stuff all the time and might change my mind as I go.

        • Otto

          Yep that’s the word.

          When you say Mark is allegory can you explain that just a bit. Allegory to the OT narrative?

        • Greg G.

          How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity, by R. G. Price

          That explains much of the allegory of Mark. (Note: That is not Robert M. Price)

        • Greg G.

          I think Mark made up several characters by taking a character from another source, altering the situation, and adding an OT verse or two,

          But for real characters, he may have made them the opposite of how they were. The description of Pilate in Philo and Josephus is nothing like the guy who takes advice from the Jewish rabble or the death of a troublemaker or innocent bystander. Paul describes Cephas, James and John as pillars of the community and shows them as leaders which is a good indication that they were not ignorant fishermen.

          I am mulling over the ending of Mark and I discussed it a while ago HERE.

      • wtfwjtd

        Hey Greg, a conversation between with you and lorasinger I was reading the other day got me to thinking. Lora was talking about how much of Christian mythology doesn’t even come from Judaism, which I hadn’t given much thought to before. For example, the idea of human sacrifice, and the consumption of blood to commemorate it, would no doubt be seen as a very revolting concept to a first-century Jew. If Jesus was an actual historical figure, how would this be presented and play out in first century Palestine? Imagine if James really was the brother of Jesus–“my brother was a human sacrifice to God for the sins of mankind, and all I got was a lousy T-shirt!” I mean, how would you sell this?
        Paul, OTOH, presented a much more celestial version of Jesus, and didn’t specifically target Jews in the process, unlike the James/Peter faction. I would think this would be an easier sell, especially since he was presenting his narrative to people who were more or less accustomed to the idea of a dying and rising savior-god.
        I guess is where I’m going with this, is that I’m having a hard time conceptualizing just how a small band of Jews would be able to sell the idea of an actual man being a human sacrifice to the God of Israel. God specifically states that human sacrifice is an abomination to him, I believe, somewhere in Deuteronomy, and also specifically prohibits the consumption of blood. Wouldn’t these rogue Jews have an easier time selling the idea of a celestial Jesus being sacrificed in the heavens long ago?

        I must admit, I have a hard time letting go of the idea that there is probably a grain of truth buried somewhere in the Jesus legends,and that there probably was an actual guy in there somewhere. But thinking about it like this, that would seem to be an mighty difficult sell to a people who find the whole idea of human sacrifice, and the consumption of blood, revolting. What are your thoughts on this?

        • Greg G.

          In 1 Corinthians 1:23, Paul says, “but we preach Christ crucified”. I’m not sure the “we” includes the Jerusalem apostles. I think that the Epistle of James was a response to Paul’s Galatians letter and that James is the best source for what the Jerusalem faction believed. James never discusses crucifixion. Paul didn’t get his gospel from any human, he got it from revelation from the scriptures.

          In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul is discrediting James and Cephas. In Galatians 3:1, Paul says “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!” I think that idea had been challenged and it was apparently Cephas and/or James.

          It seems to me that the Jerusalem faction were Jews who thought the Messiah was coming, that they had to follow the Jewish law with circumcision, food customs, and all that but they did not know of any crucifixion. Those are things Paul argues against.

          I posted something recently that I am beginning to think that Mark was an allegorical explanation for what happened to the Jerusalem faction. The chiastic structure suggests one more line about the women doing something. One would expect the last two lines to be

          1. “they told the disciples what they learned
          2. and they all went to Galilee and lived happily ever after.”

          Instead, we have “and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” with a pregnant pause suggesting they all died in Jerusalem because of their fear.

          Since Paul used the Roman mail system, his gospel was preserved while the Jerusalem cult was just another sect in the Temple with a rare need to mail their beliefs and teachings.

        • wtfwjtd

          “…I am beginning to think that Mark was an allegorical explanation for what happened to the Jerusalem faction. ”

          That’s interesting Greg, and does make some sense to me. I was also wondering, as I posted in a reply to Bob above:

          I was also wondering when and where the Lord’s supper routine originates–is it only in the gospels and Paul, or does the Jerusalem faction mention it as well?

          Can you shed any light on this?

        • Greg G.
        • wtfwjtd

          Thanks, I replied above.

        • wtfwjtd

          Where else in the NT is the word “disciple” used? I don’t believe Paul ever used it, but I don’t know about the other epistles. I am speaking of using the word in reference to a direct follower of Jesus.
          Paul mentions “the twelve” one time, and even that may be a forgery. “The twelve” what? It seems that the idea of there being literally 12 disciples of Jesus is a literary device, convenient for the gospel’s story line. The characters of Peter, James, and maybe John, seem real enough, and could be part of a grain of truth that’s woven into an otherwise fabricated narrative. The probability that James and John actually were brothers seems remote; once again, it’s a convenient literary device to talk of “Zeus’s boys”, the dioscuri. Cephas also seems to be a real character, although I had always been told that this was just another reference to Peter. The rest of the disciple band seems just to be made up out of whole cloth.

        • Greg G.

          The words “disciple” and “disciples” are not used after the Book of Acts. A disciple is a student of a teacher but Jesus was never thought of as a teacher by the early epistle writers.

          Paul’s Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews by A.A.M. van der Hoeven has an interesting take on “the twelve” being Temple officials.

          I think the multiplication of people named “James” mainly refers to different references of one James. You are right that he was probably not John’s brother or Jesus’ brother either. Mark wrote him as John’s brother as he took Peter, James, and John as the main characters after Jesus because Paul called them “pillars” as a group. Paul called James “the brother of the Lord” and many took him seriously, probably from the get go, so even Mark had a small part for a brother of Jesus named James. Mark 10:32-45 may have taken Paul’s disdain for the pillars even further by making them vainglorious, wanting to sit with Jesus in power, like Elisha’s request from Elijah in 2 Kings 2. Peter’s promise not to deny Jesus is similar to 2 Kings 2, as well where Elisha promises three times not to leave Elijah but does when Elijah is taken up where Peter promises once but denies him three times.

          I think Peter was known as Cephas but Mark called him Peter. Paul always called him Cephas except for one place where he used Cephas three times in a short span of verses and once in the middle, he was called Peter. I suspect someone made the connection between them after reading Mark and put that in as a margin note on his copy of Galatians, then it got copied into the text during the next Xeroxing. I think Carrier makes this argument. I recall reading that theory fairly recently but it was longer than a senior moment ago.

          I questioned Richard Carrier in a blog comment about that Galatians passage and whether Peter and Cephas might be different people a few years ago when I was beginning to study the NT. He said that the names are rare and they mean the same thing so they are likely to be the same person. Within a month, I stumbled across Bart Ehrman saying the same thing in one of his books. (I think I had read over it quickly a couple of years before and that made me question it when I saw it in Galatians.) So when I look at van der Hoeven’s article on why Jesus called Simon “Cephas” as a nickname for Caiaphas, I wonder if “Cephas” might be a spelling variant of “Caiaphas” so that the Cephas Paul knew was actually the high priest during Pilate’s time in Judea. That puts the “pillar” comment in a whole different light and makes you wonder who James was that intimidated Cephas. That may have been part of a motive for the Josephus account of James, brother of Jesus Damneus, being killed by Ananus, the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, if John 18:13 is right. James was considered a threat by the family that had dominated the high priest position for most of the first century. It’s a circumstantial argument with plenty of speculation to go around but

          MIND = BLOWN

        • wtfwjtd

          We get some info in Galatians; Paul says that after God “revealed his Son to him” he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It was 3 years before he even bothered to go to Jerusalem, saw only Peter and James, and stayed for 15 days. He said he was personally unknown to the churches in Judea. After leaving Jerusalem, it would be another 14 years before he would again return.
          That doesn’t sound like a man who knew the actual disciples of Jesus at all. It seems like he is trying to emphasize that all he learned about Jesus, he figured out himself from the scriptures. He may have even been inferring that Peter and James were copycats, and ripped off some of their stuff from him, and then added in the bits about keeping Jewish law. (Sounds a lot like modern Christians, doesn’t it?)
          Peter and Cephas seem to be one and the same then; I couldn’t recall how that had been decided, but that seems reasonable enough. You are right, the whole thing about the high priest and his rivals is an interesting angle, it does make you wonder.
          Apparently Paul didn’t spend any time at all in Judea though, at least that’s what he says.

        • Greg G.

          Paul was in Jerusalem for 15 days the first time and went back 14 years later to divide up the turf, according to Galatians.

        • wtfwjtd

          Yes, and nearly got into a brawl with just these brief forays. He makes it very plain that there was bad blood between him and the boys from Jerusalem .

        • Pofarmer

          And yet, apologists will argue that Paul spent years learning from Jesus disciples.

        • wtfwjtd

          “…apologists will argue that Paul spent years learning from Jesus disciples.”

          Yep, that’s rubbish. Paul makes it crystal-clear that he spent virtually no time with anyone in or from Judea, and figured out *everything* he knew about Jesus by himself.

        • I think the multiplication of people named “James” mainly refers to different references of one James.

          I have the same suspicion. Just to bring in another view on this, my own preferred hypothesis/speculation/wild guess is that this James actually was the brother of Jesus. This is the James that Paul was getting into arguments with, and who was against Paul’s relaxing of Jewish laws, and head of the Jerusalem church or at least of the Judaizing faction. Since Mark is opposed to this view and to the James faction, he has Jesus deny the importance of familial relationships, particularly in regard to his own family, and depicts Jesus’ brothers negatively as being non-believers; thus negating James’ claim to authority in the church which is derived from being the brother of Jesus.

          Since the “pillars” are well known by name, Mark replaces James with another guy (“you heard James was one of the big three apostles? No, that was this other James”). Luke-Acts attempts to reconcile all this, so he has James son of Zebedee killed off early in Acts, and replaced by James the brother of Jesus.

          In short, the character of James son of Zebedee, and Mark’s depiction of James the brother of Jesus, are the product of the same inter-sect rivalries we see in Galatians.

        • Yes, the Jesus story would’ve been a hard sell within a Jewish environment, but Paul was in a Greek one. Doesn’t this address some of your concerns?

        • wtfwjtd

          “…the Jesus story would’ve been a hard sell within a Jewish environment, but Paul was in a Greek one. Doesn’t this address some of your concerns?”

          Well, yes it does,in a way, but…in the early days of the movement, you had the Paul/Barnabas faction, and you also had the competing Jerusalem/Jewish faction, that was headed up mostly by Peter/James. I was thinking more in terms of the Peter/James faction; they should have been much closer to the historical guy, if there was one. I’m just trying to wrap my head around how an actual, historical person would have been an easier sell for them than an ethereal character. And I guess that’s my point, really–it seems to me that an ethereal character would have been an easier sell for them. I just don’t see how an actual “blood -n- guts ” story of human sacrifice would have been sold in that environment. And who would buy such a story anyways? Rome executed thousands of prisoners; why would this one be any different? Exactly how would you tie the narrative to this one guy? I mean, he was so obscure that no historian of his time makes any reference whatsoever of him.

          On a related note, I was also wondering when and where the Lord’s supper routine originates–is it only in the gospels and Paul, or does the Jerusalem faction mention it as well?

        • Greg G.

          On a related note, I was also wondering when and where the Lord’s supper routine originates–is it only in the gospels and Paul, or does the Jerusalem faction mention it as well?

          Justin Martyr claims the Mithras cult stole the idea from the Christians. Plutarch mentions that the Mithras cult was popular with the pirates around Cilicia in the first century BC and that they originated some rites that were continued to the time Plutarch wrote near the late first or early second century, though he doesn’t specify what those rites were. Paul says he visited Cilicia after he became a Christian. So he may have stolen it from them.

          On the other hand, the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is quite likely to be an interpolation. It is very much like the parallel passage in Mark 14 and in Luke, but it really looks like something Mark would have made up by combining Psalm 41:9 about breaking bread with a friend who “lifts his heel” plus Isaiah 53:12 with “he poured out himself to death” for the wine part.

          But offering wine and bread to the gods doesn’t seem to have been a new phenomenon. See Jeremiah 44:15-18 and:

          Jeremiah 7:18
          18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.

          So the Last Supper is a smorgasbord of possibilities.

        • wtfwjtd

          But what your saying is, we have no Biblical evidence of it ever being attributed to the Jerusalem faction? Now, that’s very interesting.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t think we have a lot of information about the Jerusalem sect’s side.

          What about?

          Hebrews 13:9 (NRSV)
          9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them.

          Their rites may have just been what the Jews of the day practiced.

        • wtfwjtd

          That Hebrews passage does seem strangely distant from the specific ritual that Paul seemed to have in mind. But, if Paul’s words in Corinthians are an interpolation, it would seem that the whole rite originated much later and was then rather clumsily inserted into the fabric of early Christianity, would it not? That’s another thing that was bugging me–not only would the Jerusalem faction have a hard time selling human sacrifice, but piling a cannibalistic ritual on top would seem extra-ridiculous. I just don’t think I can buy any of that.
          Once again, for the Pauline faction, it would be a much easier sell, as the pagan crowd would likely be more accustomed to bread-and-wine religious rituals. It looks like in some ways that the followers of early Christianity were lite-beer salesmen, with one group stressing “less filling” and another group emphasizing the “tastes great” aspect.

        • Pofarmer

          The Eucharist is included in the Didache as well.

        • wtfwjtd

          That’s a late first-century work, isn’t it?

        • Pofarmer

          They date it 50-120, but, yeah. It’s generally considered to ne about 100.

        • Greg G.

          I suspect it was just something Mark invented and later Christians began to follow it, after the Jerusalem sect was obliterated.

        • Greg G.

          I’ve been looking at it a bit more. I am trying to recall where Paul chides people who pig out too much at the gathering for the meal.

          In I Corinthians 10:14-17, Paul talks about idol worship and passing around the wine and breaking bread.

          From 1 Corinthians 10:18-22, Paul gives an exhortation, asks some questions, then answers the questions with the same metaphor except that for the third sequence, there is no answer. We find the answer in 1 Corinthians 11:30. The first part of chapter 11 is some rules about women that kinda contradicts an earlier passage about women speaking in church. That has been suspected to be an interpolation from the Pastoral era. So we have more than one reason to suspect interpolation from 1 Corinthians 10:23 to 1 Corinthians 11:29 which includes the 11:23-27 passage that sounds like Mark and Luke. The interpolater must have thought it was a good place to put it due to its similarity to 1 Corinthians 10:14-17.

          So Paul may have borrowed a custom of sharing a meal, breaking bread, and having a toast to thanksgiving from the Mithras cult in Cilicia and Mark made it an even more solemn ritual.

          I hope that makes some sense. It is bed time, my eyes are too tired to check for tpyos.

        • wtfwjtd

          “I am trying to recall where Paul chides people who pig out too much at the gathering for the meal.”

          You are thinking of 1 Cor 11:20-22: “20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not…!”

          This sounds a lot more like a meal than the Eucharist that we know about today. Perhaps Paul had blended customs as you suggested? From this it does sound like it.

        • Pofarmer

          I have even heard preachers talking about the churches originally had a meal with every service.

        • wtfwjtd

          I can see how that idea would have some merit, it would be a good way of community building, which religion has always excelled at. Even today church dinners are an important function, though most of the time the religious ceremony surrounding them has been dropped.

        • Greg G.

          Which just goes to show that the Salvation Army is the only authentic church.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, that’s the passage I had in mind but it is in the midst of the suspected interpolation. So that is likely from a second century author.

        • wtfwjtd

          So as a suspected interpolation it’s of limited value, at least in evaluating Paul’s mindset. If that is the case, about all we can say is that maybe these dinners had gotten out of hand, and a second century author is trying to reign things in by “expanding” what Paul supposedly said.

        • Greg G.

          Yes. Or maybe an old fogey wanted to have a more relaxing sabbath.

        • Greg G.

          Wikipedia says:

          Almost all Jewish holidays, especially the Passover Seder where all present drink four cups of wine, on Purim for the festive meal, and on the Shabbat require obligatory blessings (Kiddush) over filled cups of kosher wine that are then drunk.

          Leviticus 24:5-9 describes the Showbread of the Tabernacle. Wikipedia discusses the origin of the showbread here. On that same page, it appears the Dead Sea Scrolls group may have had a ritual with some showbread.

        • Pofarmer

          Well, yeah, it seems like they repurposed a couple of things that would have already been present at the passover meal.

        • wtfwjtd

          “…the Last Supper is a smorgasbord of possibilities.”

          lol!

        • Maybe Paul’s work happened first, and then a Jewish faction repackaged it for a Jewish audience.

          Just thinking out loud.

        • wtfwjtd

          It seems that in the time of Paul, there was at least two rival factions going at the same time–Paul’s faction, and the Jerusalem Jewish faction. It appears that the Jewish faction was wiped out just shortly after the time of Paul–maybe in the events of around 66-72? Greg was speculating that maybe the gospels were a later account of the early story of the Jewish faction; writers could say what they wanted about the Jewish faction because 1) the Jewish faction would not be around to dispute it and 2) Since they were wiped out they were no longer rivals with the Paulean faction.

          This sounds plausible to me, and yes, as you point out, you could re-work elements of the story to appeal to a Jewish audience (or whoever else) you wanted to appeal to.

          I would speculate, that maybe Acts was thrown in to try and tie the story of the two early factions together. It’s the only book of the New Testament that I’m aware of where we actually have the two groups trying to work somewhat together.

        • I’m out of my depth here, but can we speculate that it all started with Paul? That is, there was no early Jewish Christian movement that Paul tried to suppress (that was all stories whipped up after the fact).

          That does raise other questions (What prompted Paul to go in that direction?) of course.

        • wtfwjtd

          “…can we speculate that it all started with Paul? ”

          I have toyed with that idea, but it would seem to have a few loose ends. The opposition Paul was getting from the Jerusalem group seemed to be real enough, but, OTOH, perhaps he needed a little resistance to stir up some interest. He was claiming that his message was the true one, as opposed to all those silly false ones floating around out there. Then again, as we know, there were multiple messiah claimants in Palestine during his time, so it was obviously a popular idea.

          The idea of stories whipped up after the fact has the advantage of explaining the movement’s mystery beginnings. And, you could give some credit to other parties that would be of no threat to your current situation, as they would have long since passed from the scene. Whether those parties actually existed or not wouldn’t really matter for the purposes of your narrative.

        • Good point. Paul’s own internal debate with the Peter/james faction (in Galatians?) is a mark against that hypothesis.

        • wtfwjtd

          I think I’ve seen you say something to the effect, that Paul was Christianity’s front man, and did more to spread it than anyone else. I definitely agree with this; no other character looms anywhere nearly as large as Paul does when discussing the movement’s origins, period. Everyone else, including the Jesus character, is more or less a footnote compared to Paul, IMO. So understanding Paul, his actual writings, and his movements is key to understanding the early days of Christianity.

    • Without Malice

      Of course, they even had him come from Nazareth so he could be called a Nazarene, not realizing that a Nazarene was, like Sampson, a member of a Jewish sect, and not someone from Nazareth. There is virtually nothing Jesus said or did that could not have been taken from a different source. The man appears to have no real biography at all. Just how does God live among man for over thirty years without doing or saying anything noteworthy until the last year of his life? His family outlived live by decades, yet we know nothing of his life when we should reasonably expect to know damn near every detail.

  • Kodie

    It seems to be a popular theme or plot of a story. Just like many people think stories, plays, movies, songs, etc., told since Jesus up to the present time are “about Jesus”, as if this is an original idea, that either originated as Jesus, or originated in a prophesy before Jesus, about Jesus. People who believe Jesus is the real deal, the original story, often suffer from seeing Jesus in other stories, prior and later than Jesus, in toast, in stains, in food container lids, in tree knots, etc. This one has the “advantage” of being part of the biblical saga, and not influenced by Jesus coming later to influence it.

  • Dan

    Didn’t you just cherry pick above? Haha.

    • I need more than that to work on. If there’s a problem, make your concern specific.

  • Hesychast

    The actual text of Isaiah 53 is the only rebuttal required:

    Isaiah 53 New King James Version (NKJV)

    53 Who has believed our report?
    And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
    And as a root out of dry ground.
    He has no form or comeliness;
    And when we see Him,
    There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
    3 He is despised and rejected by men,
    A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
    And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
    He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

    4 Surely He has borne our griefs
    And carried our sorrows;
    Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
    Smitten by God, and afflicted.
    5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;
    The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
    And by His stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
    We have turned, every one, to his own way;
    And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

    7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
    Yet He opened not His mouth;
    He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
    And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    So He opened not His mouth.
    8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
    And who will declare His generation?
    For He was cut off from the land of the living;
    For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
    9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
    But with the rich at His death,
    Because He had done no violence,
    Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

    10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
    He has put Him to grief.
    When You make His soul an offering for sin,
    He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
    And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
    11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied.
    By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
    For He shall bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
    And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
    Because He poured out His soul unto death,
    And He was numbered with the transgressors,
    And He bore the sin of many,
    And made intercession for the transgressors.

    • Greg G.

      The actual text would be in Hebrew but we don’t have that. The New Testament authors would have been reading the Septuagint.

    • Jack Baynes

      Seems to agree pretty well with the translation Bob used.

    • Action item: look up “rebuttal.”

    • Greg G.

      10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;

      I have argued that if there is an omnipotent being, the existence of suffering proves it is a sadist. Now I even have biblical support.

      • Ron

        From Strong’s H2654

        chaphets

        I. to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with

        A. (Qal)

        ii. of God
        a. to delight in, have pleasure in
        b. to be pleased to do

        “Your Honor, the people rest.”

    • Cognissive Disco Dance

      Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

      Multiple phony capitalizations of pronouns duly noted. “Isaiah” doesn’t say it’s a god? Then by golly we’ll pretend it by upper case hook or by upper case crook. Badda bing badda boom, now it’s a god.

    • Cognissive Disco Dance

      The actual text of Isaiah 53 is the only rebuttal required:

      Hard to say if that’s a rebuttal or if it’s a debunking of prophecy haha just kidding.

  • Greg G.

    Here are many of the verses from the New Testament that quote or allude to the Isaiah 53 song. How does one tell the difference between a prophecy, a retrodiction, or people not knowing anything but taking anything they can find to have something to say about Jesus?

    Isaiah 52:13
    13 See, my servant shall prosper;
        he shall be exalted and lifted up,
        and shall be very high.

    Philippians 2:9
    9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
        and gave him the name
        that is above every name,

    Isaiah 52:15
    15 so he shall startle many nations;
        kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
    for that which had not been told them they shall see,
        and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.

    Romans 15:21
    21 but as it is written,
        “Those who have never been told of him shall see,
        and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”

    Ephesians 3:4-5
    4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

    Isaiah 53:1
    1 Who has believed what we have heard?
        And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

    John 12:38
    38 This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah:

    “Lord, who has believed our message,
        and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

    Romans 10:16
    16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”

    Isaiah 53:2
    2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
        and like a root out of dry ground;
    he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
        nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

    Philippians 2:7
    but emptied himself,
        taking the form of a slave,
        being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,

    Isaiah 53:3
    3 He was despised and rejected by others;
        a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
    and as one from whom others hide their faces
        he was despised, and we held him of no account.

    Matthew 16:21
    21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

    Matthew 27:29
    29 and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

    Luke 18:31-33
    31 Then he took the twelve aside and said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon. 33 After they have flogged him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.”

    John 1:10-11
    10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

    Hebrews 5:8
    8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;

    Isaiah 53:4
    4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
        and carried our diseases;
    yet we accounted him stricken,
        struck down by God, and afflicted.

    Matthew 8:17
    17 This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.”

    John 19:7
    7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.”

    Isaiah 53:5
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
        crushed for our iniquities;
    upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
        and by his bruises we are healed.

    Matthew 27:26
    26 So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

    John 3:17
    17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

    John 19:1
    1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.

    Romans 4:25
    25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

    Romans 5:1
    5 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

    1 Corinthians 15:3
    3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

    Hebrews 9:28
    28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    1 Peter 2:24-25
    24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

    Isaiah 53:6
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
        we have all turned to our own way,
    and the Lord has laid on him
        the iniquity of us all.

    Romans 4:25
    25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

    1 Peter 2:24-25
    24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

    Isaiah 53:7
    7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
        yet he did not open his mouth;
    like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
        and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
        so he did not open his mouth.

    Matthew 27:31
    31 After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

    Mark 14:61
    61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

    John 1:29
    29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

    1 Peter 2:23
    23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

    Acts 8:32
    32 Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this:
    “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
        and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
            so he does not open his mouth.

    Isaiah 53:8
    8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
        Who could have imagined his future?
    For he was cut off from the land of the living,
        stricken for the transgression of my people.

    Mark 14:49
    49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.”

    Acts 8:33
    33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
        Who can describe his generation?
            For his life is taken away from the earth.”

    Isaiah 53:9
    9 They made his grave with the wicked
        and his tomb with the rich,
    although he had done no violence,
        and there was no deceit in his mouth.

    Matthew 27:38
    38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

    Matthew 27:57-60
    57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.

    Mark 15:27
    27 And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.

    Mark 15:43-46
    43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

    Luke 23:32
    32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.

    Luke 23:50-53
    50 Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51 had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid.

    John 19:18
    18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

    John 19:38-41
    38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid.

    1 Peter 2:22
    22 “He committed no sin,
        and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

    1 John 3:5
    5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

    Revelation 14:5
    5 and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless.

    Isaiah 53:10
    10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
    When you make his life an offering for sin,
        he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
    through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

    John 3:17
    17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

    Acts 2:23
    23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.

    Isaiah 53:11
    11     Out of his anguish he shall see light;
    he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
        The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
        and he shall bear their iniquities.

    John 1:29
    29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

    John 10:14-18
    14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”

    Acts 7:52
    52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers.

    Acts 10:43
    43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

    Romans 4:25
    25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

    Isaiah 53:12
    12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
        and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
    because he poured out himself to death,
        and was numbered with the transgressors;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
        and made intercession for the transgressors.

    Matthew 26:28
    28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

    Matthew 26:38-39
    38 Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.”

    Matthew 26:42
    42 Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

    Matthew 27:38
    38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

    Mark 15:27
    27 And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.

    Luke 11:22
    22 But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder.

    Luke 22:37
    37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”

    Romans 8:34
    34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

    Philippians 2:9
    9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
        and gave him the name
        that is above every name,

    Hebrews 9:28
    28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    1 Peter 2:24
    24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

    Verses from NRSV

    • That’s probably the longest comment on this blog, ever.

      • Greg G.

        I doubt that it is my own longest post on this blog. This was pretty easy, just copy and paste from another source, and some JavaScripting to put in the HTML. The hardest part was removing the extra line returns Disqus put in when I pasted it into the box.

        • Paste into Notepad first, then copy and paste that into Disqus. Whatever freaks Disqus out is removed by that simple process.

        • Greg G.

          Ah, I collected everything in Notepad but copied that into a scripted browser window, then copied the result into Disqus. That explains what happened, I guess.

  • Without Malice

    How to fulfill a prophecy in two easy steps: step one – read prophecy. Step two – make up story to fit prophecy.

    • Matthew is full of claims of fulfilled prophecy.

      You don’t suppose … ?

      • wtfwjtd

        “Matthew is full of claims of fulfilled prophecy.”

        My favorite: Jesus riding into Jerusalem, circus-style, astraddle the backs of two donkeys. Just like Barnum & Bailey!

        • Without Malice

          Yeah, that hilarious. I guess Matthew, or who ever wrote that story, didn’t know that “on an ass, and a fold of an ass” was a common poetic device to name the same object twice in a little different way.

        • Greg G.

          Mark used Zechariah 9:9 for Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem to represent 1 Kings 1:33-48 where Solomon rode a donkey to signify that he was the successor to David. Both Mark and Matthew were reading the Septuagint so maybe Matthew didn’t catch the Hebrew doublet.

          Instead of picturing a circus performer riding two matched horses in the center ring, I see something cooler. I picture different sized donkeys and Jesus straddles them in a Captain Morgan pose.

      • Without Malice

        Oh, no, of course not. I mean someone wouldn’t just make up things to fit a pre-arranged story line. The next thing you know someone will be saying Daniel was written in the middle of the second century BC and just written to make it appear it was being written during the Babylonian captivity. Oh, wait a minute.

      • Greg K.

        I know this is off topic, but it’s interesting that the Jewish religion doesn’t have the violent radicals like Christianity and Islam–at least that I am aware of. I don’t think I have ever heard of a religious Jewish or an ethnically Jewish person bombing, shooting up places and people. Earlier this year, in Portland, Oregon, a Christian beat his boss to death with a shovel because he was Muslim. It is particularly ironic Christianity has violent extremists since they are supposed to be about forgiveness or is what the Jesus crucifixion story is supposed to teach people. I know very little about Judaism, and even less about Islam. If I was forced to pick out of the three I would have to pick Judaism for several reasons as of right now. Mainly because they don’t preach to others, and don’t believe some dude rose from the dead and ascended up into Heaven.

        • Some Jewish congregations allow atheists as members, so that’s pretty cool. But there are ultra orthodox groups in Israel and Hasidic groups in New York that seem to cause trouble, though perhaps you’re right that it’s not with guns.

    • Greg G.

      Alternatively
      1. Read any OT verse
      2. Invent an event around it so it looks like a prophecy.

  • wtfwjtd

    Great take-down of Biblical “prophecy”, especially the part about cherry-picking. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about, tossing out the icky, inconvenient bits and only keeping the “old favorites”?

    I also think that your “Paul is Dead” post is a good description Biblical “prophecy” and interpretation. Hey, if Christians can cherry-pick, then I can have my cake and eat it too:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/07/bible-interpretation-works-like-the-paul-is-dead-rumor/

  • PlanetoftheAtheists

    I always assume that much (if not all) of these ancient wordings were mistranslated, rewritten, misinterpreted and just plain made-up. There is not a single compelling reason to take anything the Bible says at face value, even if your intention is to refute it.

    • Greg G.

      One compelling reason to take the Bible at face value is when you are trying to refute an interpretation that takes the Bible at face value.

  • Greg G.

    Here’s a new argument to back up the Bible; Proof By Mortification at SMBC.com

    • wtfwjtd

      Ah yes, that explains everything.

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      Hey, Greg, can you check out this post:
      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/06/better-atheist-fact-checking.html

      My comments should be at the top of sort by Newest.

      • Greg G.

        I posted something HERE.

        Was there anything in particular I should address? I have a copy of the “James as a Disqus response to Galatians” but I’m reluctant to drop such a load as a new commenter.

      • Greg G.

        Dang it, Giauz. Do you see what you’ve done? Now I am engaged over there.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Heheh- sorry =^*

    • Matthew46

      Which bible? – The Catholic bible with 73 books, the KJB with
      66 books, the Ethiopean bible that Includes the book of Enoch, and Macabees 1& 2, the Vulgate bible, The Septuagint that INCLUDES 12 more books in the Old Test. and has LONGER versions of Daniel, Ezekiel or the very worst translation – the KJV. And there are dozens more. Which Bible are you talking about?

      • Greg G.

        If you read the comic at the link, it would include every Bible that includes the Gospel of Mark, particularly the passage about Jesus getting pissed off at a tree.

  • Without Malice

    The key to understanding Isaiah 53 is found in Isaiah 41 (actually written by different people – first Isaiah and second Isaiah): But you, Israel, “my servant”, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant”, I have chosen you and not cast you off. And yet again in Isaiah 49:3 – “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” This shows that in Isaiah the “servant” spoken of in chapter 53 is the same servant being talked about in the other chapters; and that servant is Israel itself. 53 was never meant to refer to the messiah.

    • Greg G.

      Try telling that to the early first century Christians.

      Ephesians 3:3, 5, & 9
      3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,

      5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

      9 and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

      They seem to have thought it was history camoflaged as an allegory.

      • curtcameron

        Except Ephesians was probably not written in the first century.

        • Matthew46

          Ephesians was written as a letter to one of the seven churches established by Paul which was backsliding into paganism. James and the apostles, as the party of the circumcised, preached what was essentially Judaism while Paul’s teachings incorporated a man god and human sacrifice, ditching circumcision and with it the covenant, so the reference to “mystery made known to me by revelation” sounds more like Paul who valued his ‘revelations” far above the knowledge of the apostles who actually knew Jesus and studied under him.

    • Tom Byrd

      Actually, most scholars identify II Isaiah as chapters 40-55, so chapter 41 is as much a part of II Isaiah as is chapter 53. As to your main point, this unknown prophet (who probably lived and wrote in Babylon) did indeed identify the “suffering servant” as the nation Israel.

  • Sophia Sadek

    Isaiah is also the text cited as the transition in Jewish culture from henotheism to strict monotheism. I am fascinated by the way that advocates of monotheism consider it to be the greatest invention since sliced bread (I should say, before sliced bread). Pantheists and polytheists tend to be more open-minded and honest about the inadequacies of their respective traditions.

    • Greg G.

      Thank you. You have finally answered the question, “What was the best thing before sliced bread?”

      Now it becomes, “What was the best thing before monotheism?”

  • Matthew46

    Re: “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” (53:5), “for the transgression of my people he was punished” (53:8), “he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (53:12), and so on.
    …..
    There are two major mistranslations, deliberate or not, is not known. First,
    .
    Isaiah 53:8 in the Christian bible reads “…for the transgression of my people he was stricken.” Is this the correct translation from the Hebrew bible? No. The correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 (from the Hebrew bible) is: “as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted.” The correct translation is THEY, not He! This Hebrew word for “they” appears over 40 times in the Hebrew bible – always translated as “they”!
    ..
    Psalm 22:16 from the Hebrew Tanakh when correctly translated reads “They surrounded my hands and feet like a lion” (the word “ka’ari clearly means like a lion, as evident from its use in Isaiah 38:13 and other writings, even in the KJV). David was pursued by his enemies and often referred to them as “lions” (see Psalms 7 & 17). Yet, when read out of context the KJV mistranslates: “They pierced my hands and feet.” The passage was altered to indicate Jesus.

    • Thanks for the input. Finding the authentic translation is difficult–was the source the MT, the LXX, Dead Sea scrolls, or what? What biases did the translation team have? Etc.

      • Matthew46

        It seems sensible to me that when it comes to translation of the Jewish old testament scriptures, in order to get the correct translation, to go directly to the Jewish rabbis, either Tovia Singer, Stuart Federow, or Rabbi Skobac from the Outreach Judaism site or from Whatjewsbelieve.org. Their intent is to familiarize their own people with their religion and I find them to be an endless source of information. There is also a book called; Judaism and Christianity; a Contrast (Federow). Actually you can read psalm 22:16 in the Mechon-Mamre online which is a direct Hebrew to English translation as well.
        .
        Some of the rabbis I’ve mentioned have lectures on you tube as well. Rabbi Singer tends to drag on and on but Rabbi Federow is more cut and dry and I relate to his explanations best but you have a choice. Try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nFFBM4cW0

        • Greg G.

          The New Testament writers favored the Septuagint and they were known to wing it, so they weren’t always quoted correctly from either versions. Christians didn’t follow the Hebrew text all that much until Jerome in the 5th century favored it.

          Modern Jews don’t have the same beliefs nor read the Hebrew texts as any of the known Jewish sects of the Temple during the last half century of its existence.

        • Matthew46

          When the temple was attacked in 70 AD, two of the three main sects gradually faded away. The Sadducees who served in temple function (but didn’t make the laws) were the temple priests and the Essenes/Ebionites faded into history and only the Pharisees remained. These were the lawmakers of the time, the heart of Judaism and Judaism remains essentially as it always was. The original Septuagint was translated to Greek by Hebrew scholars for the library in Alexandria for I believe it was Ptolemy. It consisted of only the first five books of the present “old testament”. Isaiah and psalms were not included, but were added by later Christian scholars who re-translated the Septuagint which then began to take on a Christian slant. Judaism is based on Torah, plus they have the Talmud which acts as a companion book to it, much like Sharps is to the Christian bible. The Talmud explains the scriptures of the Jewish bible.

        • Greg G.

          After the Temple was destroyed, the door was opened for Synagogue Judaism, which was probably more diverse than Temple Judaism. Their interpretations of their scriptures are no more correct than the different Temple sects. The archaeology does not support the historical accounts in the OT, yet they still stick to their story. A religious person who can look at their own religion objectively is rare.

        • Matthew46

          The same sect, The Pharisees remained, doing exactly what they were doing before the temple went down. The Romans struck the temple, thinking that was the heart of Judaism, but it was not, housing only the Sadducee priests who didn’t believe in afterlife anyway and who were collaborators with the Romans. The James/Jesus/apostles group were the Essenes/Ebionites who were dispatched by Paul’s Pauline Christians in the end. Their interpretation of their scriptures have always been done by the Pharisees and it was this group who were the underpinnings of Judaism today. The Talmud also carries explanations for their interpretations and it has been around for almost 2000 years. Archeology doesn’t support any supernatural claims and the artifacts show that the history has been exaggerated too. But the dead sea scrolls tell a story that is more in line with what the Ebionites/Essenes believed. Pauline Christianity, with its pagan underpinnings came out the winner and has played the biggest con game ever.

        • Greg G.

          I think Christianity may have come from a mix of the Essene/Ebionites with some Pharisee thought, such as the idea of resurrection. Paul would have supplied that.

          Galatians 5:14For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

          That sounds like the teaching the Pharisee, Rabbi Hillel, who said, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

          But James appears to be responding to Paul’s statement in Galatians by saying it is a good start but not sufficient:

          James 2:8-10 (NRSV)8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

          Josephus likens the Pharisees to the Greek Stoics and Paul exhibits some knowledge of Greek philosophy – Paul and his use of Greek Philosophy.

        • Matthew46

          According to Josephus there were three sects of judaism at the time where he was investigating them to choose one for himself, in about 53 AD. He named pharisees, Essenes (same as Ebionites according to Eisenman), and Sadducees. All were under Torah law/Moses law. There is no resurrection of sacrificial men gods, nor of men gods at all in judaism.

          Galatians is written at about the time where in 5:4, Paul is telling us that Christians who try to live under old testament law are cutting themselves off from Jesus Christ and he is creating a new covenant for his converts wherein they do not need to be circumcised and are thus not under the law of Moses/old covenant any more. He is substituting faith in the new man god he has invented as the ‘new” covenant. Jesus, the man, who said that the old (eternal covenant) was forever, has by this time been dead for a couple of decades. Paul here is making his break with Judaism and is creating his Christianity.
          ..
          James represents the apostles who followed and knew Jesus group who remain practicing Jews, as Jesus was. James said “Will faith save you? Faith without works is dead. As well, when asked how to see the hereafter, Jesus listed the commandments – parts of The Law. He didn’t ask the man to have faith in Him.
          .
          The Ebionites (Essenes) said that Paul was a Greek convert who wanted to marry the high priests daughter so a knowledge of Greek philosophy might well be part of the parcel. As well, the Christianity he invented is based on other Greek sacrificial men gods, sons of Zeus/Jupiter with human women. No real surprise there. In any case, the dead sea scrolls point to his having been the “spouter of lies” who is at last excommunicated by the “teacher of righteousness” who would be James the Just, brother of the Lord.

        • Matthew46

          The problem starts when Christians, following a different story, looking at it through Christian colored glasses read a meaning from the scriptures that was never meant and isn’t even there. The two religions are diametrically opposite so a great deal of syncretization is used by the Christians. The Jews are taught their religion early, as children, and it is they who know the difference between the two. Christians don’t. if you know what Jews have always believed, you will realize that the two have nothing in common except for a name hijacked decades after the man was dead, out of history and even then one is a man, the other is a god.

          Considering that this is based on the scriptures within the Torah which has been in effect since before the Christian religion even was a thought in Paul’s imagination, tell me how the roots of Christianity can be judaism.
          .
          One Person cannot die for the sins of another.
          A blood sacrifice is not required for forgiveness of sins.
          The messiah is one of many, all of them human.
          God hates human sacrifices.
          People are born pure and without original sin.
          God is one and indivisible.- No offspring, no son.
          God does not become human and humans do not become God.
          ..
          The bottom line is that there are NO sacrificial man gods in Judaism – every person is responsible for his own behaviour and where he will go after death. That concept is pagan and the Jesus story is simply the last of the pagan man god sacrificial stories.

        • Greg G.

          These are what modern Jews believe but the beliefs of first century Jews were more diverse.

          One Person cannot die for the sins of another.

          But an animal can die for the sins of others. It is what Yom Kippur is about. Leviticus 16:5-22. It would be a leap but not a big leap, with the influence of Greek or Roman literature, to think that a human is more noble than an animal so a human death could be more noble.

          A blood sacrifice is not required for forgiveness of sins.

          But Yom Kippur does involve a blood sacrifice for sins.

          The messiah is one of many, all of them human.

          Those messiahs were not connected with Philo’s Logos that he got from Greek philosophy.

          God hates human sacrifices.

          There is the teaching of Jephthah who felt obligated to follow through with his promise even though he didn’t intentionally promise to sacrifice his daughter. In another story, the Hebrews were defeating the (Moabites?) in battle after battle with God’s help until the opposing king sacrificed his son. So one could arrive at the opposite conclusion from reading the scriptures.

          People are born pure and without original sin.

          That seems to be something Paul came up with on his own. I don’t think the idea is found in the general epistles.

          God is one and indivisible.- No offspring, no son.

          Philo called the Logos the first-begotten son of God.

          God does not become human and humans do not become God.

          The idea that God and Jesus are the same seems to be a late development in Christianity.

          Modern Jewish beliefs are irrelevant to the development of Christianity.

        • Matthew46

          Animals were killed in the prescribed manner for INADVERTANT SINS only and even flour could be offered. They were bled ON AN ALTER BY PRIESTS, a portion was burned and the priests took the rest to eat themselves. human sacrifice was forbidden. Human sacrifice was practiced by pagans and it is paganism that is the basis of Christianity.
          ….
          Philo’s logos translated means “the thoughts and actions of god.” It does not indicate an individual as Christians understand it to be.

          The story of Jephthah is a lesson in keeping ones word. He promised to put to death whatever came first to welcome him, never thinking it would be his daughter, but a word is a word and he kept his promise.
          ….
          On the contrary, “original sin” is the invention of the Catholic church to ensure that no one escaped its clutches.
          ..
          As far as the term “Logos” goes, I think you had better re-think and re-research that one. “Logos” has more far reaching significance than you imagine and the belief in Jesus isn’t of the paramount importance you ascribe to it. Try this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#SH11d
          …..
          The idea that God and Jesus are the same is primarily a feature of fundamentalism because although one and one makes two, Christians claim to be monotheistic so somehow the two had to become fused into one. Even the trinity as described in Matthew 28:19 is a forgery that was done to accomodate the spinnery

          The statement that God has one substance but three persons looks superficially like a meaningful statement, but until someone succeeds in expounding this meaning we have no reason to suppose that it signifies any more than the assertion that colourless green ideas sleep furiously; the concept of a three-in-one deity is no more than a linguistic deceit, devised to reconcile the fact that Christianity makes contradictory claims. McDonald,
          James (2009-11-01). Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Faith in the Christian Church
          …..
          Because Judaism hasn’t changed because it is based on the same Torah which has never lost anything in translation and has been understood in the same way for 2000 years, we can pick what is Jewish out of new testament writings.

          Whatever is left is the fabrication of Pauline converts.
          The fabrications include:
          The man god, born of a virgin (pagan)
          The saviour who is really a god (man does not become a god, nor does god become a man; common in pagan Rome)
          The man god is a son of god (God is one and indivisible – has no offspring – no son; again pagan in origin)
          Jesus originated the Eucharist (Jews are forbidden to consume blood; again Mithraic origins and eating the blood of the god)
          The messiah died for the sins of mankind (Every person has to atone for his own sins – no one else can do it for him; again pagan custom of sacrificing innocents)
          .
          The bottom line is that Christianity is based on Roman paganism.

        • Greg G.

          Animals were killed in the prescribed manner for INADVERTANT SINS

          That’s not the Yom Kippur ritual.

          Isaiah 53:5 also talks about the Suffering Servant having punishment on him to make us whole.

          Exodus 28:3838 It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall take on himself any guilt incurred in the holy offering that the Israelites consecrate as their sacred donations; it shall always be on his forehead, in order that they may find favor before the Lord.

          __________

          Philo’s logos translated means “the thoughts and actions of god.”

          Philo’s Logos was how God interacted with the world. The Gospel of John relies on this concept and appears to use his idea for “his only begotten son”.

          Philo was either invited or was important enough to invite himself to go to the Roman Emperor to speak on behalf of the Temple at some point, so he was known in Jerusalem.

          __________

          My point stands regarding Jephthath.

          ____________

          Yes, the church may have come up with “original sin” but the concept begins with 1 Corinthians 15:45ff with “the first Adam”.

          ____________

          As far as the term “Logos” goes, I think you had better re-think and re-research that one. “Logos” has more far reaching significance than you imagine and the belief in Jesus isn’t of the paramount importance you ascribe to it.

          I think Christianity was cobbled from several ideas from various scriptures and interpretation by different sects, plus Greek influences, plus Philo’s ideas, but they didn’t necessarily rely fully on any of them.

          See section 11 at the page you linked. That is the very page that showed me the relationship between Philo and Christianity.

          _________________

          I agree with you about the Trinity being a late. Eusebius’ Demonstratio Evangelica 1:4 quotes Matthew 28:19 without the Trinity reference. 1 John 5:7-8 has another interpolation.

          _________________

          Because Judaism hasn’t changed because it is based on the same Torah which has never lost anything in translation and has been understood in the same way for 2000 years, we can pick what is Jewish out of new testament writings.

          It has been understood one way for almost 2000 years because many sects were wiped out in 70 AD or died out shortly after. The early Christians understood it yet another way. It is irrelevant how it is understood since the second century. Their beliefs are wrong according to the archaeology.

          __________________

          The fabrications include:
          The man god, born of a virgin (pagan)

          This comes from the later gospels.

          The saviour who is really a god (man does not become a god, nor does god become a man; common in pagan Rome)

          That does not come from Isaiah 53. Paul argues that Jesus was resurrected in 1 Corinthians 15:12-34, citing and alluding to Jewish scriptures.

          The man god is a son of god (God is one and indivisible – has no offspring – no son; again pagan in origin)

          But the Christians repeat this claim many times and Philo also suggested that God had a son.

          Jesus originated the Eucharist (Jews are forbidden to consume blood; again Mithraic origins and eating the blood of the god)

          Much of 1 Corinthians 10 & 11 appear to have been interpolated. The Eucharist seems to have been taken from the gospels, probably from Luke who got it from Mark. Bread and wine offerings to the gods can be found in Jeremiah 7:18 and Jeremiah 44:15-18.

          The messiah died for the sins of mankind (Every person has to atone for his own sins – no one else can do it for him; again pagan custom of sacrificing innocents)

          Isaiah 53 can be read that way even if the idea first came from a different culture. Philo reconciled the Jewish scriptures with Greek philosophy. Reading Isaiah 53 in terms of other cultural influences is no different.

          The bottom line is that Christianity is based on Roman paganism.

          Paul uses the Hebrew scriptures for all his information about Jesus. The opposition to him, such as the Epistle of James also uses the Hebrew scripture. The gospels, starting with Mark, use lots of scripture and the Homeric epics to create a legend. The Roman paganism comes in later when the church has formed.

          Paul talks about Jesus a lot but it is mostly adulation. Here are the verses where Paul tells something about Jesus with the likely OT sources:

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12 > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10

          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7

          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5

          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26, Habakkuk 2:4, Leviticus 18:5

          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9

          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11

          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49, 2 Samuel 22:50, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, Isaiah 11:10

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9

          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified for sins > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:13* > Isaiah 53:12, Deuteronomy 21:23

          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9

          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5

          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8

          (* indicates that passage contains a direct quote from the Old Testament)

        • Matthew46

          ….
          No, deliberate sins are handled by repentence, asking forgiveness, giving compensation to those hurt and then by private prayer. THAT is Yom Kippur. Inadvertant sins were handled by animal sacrifice but that ended about the time of the second temple fall. The specimen must be perfect and without blemish. A female sheep or goat is required and the sacrifice must be carried out on an alter by priests.
          ……………
          The suffering servant is Israel.
          …………………..
          Philo was a Jew and as such would know that for Jews, God is one and indivisible. ‘Appeared to” is Christian wishful thinking. Read the article on philo and logos.
          ……………

          Your point about Jephthah is a typical Christian one however, you are wrong.
          .
          There were only three sects as per Josephus. The Sadducees disappeared about the time of the fall of the temple in 70 AD. The Essenes/Ebionites also died out although there are some stories about some survivors into the fourth century. They were James and the apostles. The Pharisees went on as before and became the Judaism of today. Paul and his Christians didn’t come along until a couple of decades after Jesus was dead already.
          ………………
          You wrote: ” Their beliefs are wrong according to the archaeology.” Again, you’re wrong. Archeology deals with artifacts, not beliefs. The dead sea scrolls point to James and the apostles as being the Essenes/Ebionites who Paul’s group declared to be heretics and disposed of. In fact, the Damascus paper shows Paul to be the “lying spouter” who the Ebionites called a heretic and who the Damascus paper points to having been excommunicated from the James and apostles group.
          ……………
          As I said, you are looking at the edited and misinterpreted texts of the Christian bible in your hand and reading them just as you have been taught. Certainly you are entitled to your own belief but you are trying to take two completely diametrically opposing religions and weaving them into one – It cannot be done.
          .
          Most of the scriptures you’ve given are either reworked verses from the old testament or verses in the new testament written 40-80 years after the fact by Paul, an admitted liar, and his anonymous converts, his gentile Christians, people who never met Jesus and probably had never set foot in Israel. They are documenting legend, and like the telephone game, an enlarging story with each telling, fabricating as they go. The men gods are in pagan Rome, not in israel and not in Judaism.

        • Greg G.

          No, deliberate sins are handled by repentence, asking forgiveness, giving compensation to those hurt and then by private prayer. THAT is Yom Kippur. Inadvertant sins were handled by animal sacrifice but that ended about the time of the second temple fall. The specimen must be perfect and without blemish. A female sheep or goat is required and the sacrifice must be carried out on an alter by priests.

          Paul’s argument is that the law is too hard to follow. He lists sins and doesn’t distinguish between intentional or inadvertant.

          You need to read Leviticus 16. It is the Old Testament ritual for atonement of sins of the people, Yom Kippur. See the parallel between that and the Barabbas character in the gospels. Mark taught that “bar” means “son of” with Bartimaeus and “Abba” means “father” with the opening of the Gethsemane prayer so his readers would see that there were two people named “son of the father”, one was killed and one was released. Of course that is a farcical tale made more absurd by having it during passover which is not a sin offering.

          The suffering servant is Israel.

          Paul talks about hidden mysteries in the prophetic writings. He and his followers seem to have thought the fact that these mysteries were being revealed to their generation was an omen that the Messiah would come during their generation.

          Read the article on philo and logos.

          I have. I have read what Philo said about the Logos and what the Greeks said about the Logos. Philo was trying to reconcile Greek thought with the Jewish scriptures.

          Your point about Jephthah is a typical Christian one however, you are wrong.

          The example just shows that the Jews were not completely repulsed by the idea of human sacrifice. They used it as a lesson.

          There were only three sects as per Josephus. The Sadducees disappeared about the time of the fall of the temple in 70 AD. The Essenes/Ebionites also died out although there are some stories about some survivors into the fourth century. They were James and the apostles. The Pharisees went on as before and became the Judaism of today. Paul and his Christians didn’t come along until a couple of decades after Jesus was dead already.

          Josephus mentions the Zealots as a fourth sect so he did not do an exhaustive list of all the sects when he described the three.

          Ideas from Jerusalem would have spread throughout the Diaspora. Show me that it was exclusively Pharisee.

          Luke used Josephus extensively, especially in Acts. I suspect that Luke used Josephus’ description of the Essenes to model the life of the apostles. Do you have any other reasons to associate James and the apostles with the Essenes? I agree that he was probably not a Pharisee.

          You wrote: ” Their beliefs are wrong according to the archaeology.” Again, you’re wrong.

          Their beliefs are that Moses led them out of Egypt and that they annihilated the Canaanites and other cultures. The archaeology shows that never happened, thus their beliefs are wrong.

          As I said, you are looking at the edited and misinterpreted texts of the Christian bible in your hand and reading them just as you have been taught. Certainly you are entitled to your own belief but you are trying to take two completely diametrically opposing religions and weaving them into one – It cannot be done.

          That is ridiculous. Religions have influenced one another throughout recorded history but you are saying that two religions that came from the same city and use many of the same scriptures are independent.

          Most of the scriptures you’ve given are either reworked verses from the old testament or verses in the new testament written 40-80 years after the fact by Paul, an admitted liar, and his anonymous converts, his gentile Christians, people who never met Jesus and probably had never set foot in Israel. They are documenting legend, and like the telephone game, an enlarging story with each telling, fabricating as they go. The men gods are in pagan Rome, not in israel and not in Judaism.

          Yes! Paul started with the Messiah idea from the Jewish literature and brought in pagan ideas to make it palatable to the pagans he was trying to reach.

        • Matthew46

          Do you have any other reasons to associate James and the apostles with the Essenes?
          .
          Robert Eisenman and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greg. Read some of Eisenman’s findings, which actually reflect a lot of the writings of Hyam MacCoby and currently Bart Ehrman has lectures also related to the same conclusion.
          ……………..
          Re: you are saying that two religions that came from the same city and use many of the same scriptures are independent.”
          .
          Each of the two religions reads them differently. The Jews read them with the benefit of their native language, which reflects their thinking and their laws and traditions. Christians read the same scriptures from a Christian slant based on their beliefs. Their beliefs, however, are diametrically opposite. i’m saying you can’t get a man god out of the old testament, because the concept was entirely absent. Christians, however, can get that impression from an edited version of the same scriptures and the pagan base upon which Christianity rests
          ….
          Paul may have started with the messiah idea but somewhere he forgot or wasn’t familiar enough with the Torah, that he neglected to take into account that the messiah was to be fully human, another David or Solomon. As well, NT writers manufactured two different lineages for Jesus but weren’t familiar with Jewish lineage laws – that a child gets its lineage ONLY from a natural father, not an adopted one and at the same time claiming that Jesus had no earthly father. There are those who say that the lineage came through Mary but again, they aren’t aware that lineage can come only from the father. Whoever the writers of the gospels were, they certainly weren’t Jews and of course we already know that since they wrote about a man god, that they were Paul’s converts..

        • Greg G.

          Robert Eisenman and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greg. Read some of Eisenman’s findings, which actually reflect a lot of the writings of Hyam MacCoby and currently Bart Ehrman has lectures also related to the same conclusion.

          How does Eisenman get around this?

          In addition to propounding his central thesis that the original Christianity of James was a Jewish nationalist resistance movement and that Paul transformed it into a Hellenistic cult, Eisenman has an auxiliary theory that has likely drawn both impressive book sales and scholarly derision, which is his attempt to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls into the mix. Eisenman identifies James the Just with the Teacher of Righteousness and Paul with the spouter of lies, figures vaguely identified in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, in so doing, Eisenman must strenuously argue against the use of carbon-dating and paleographical methods which suggest that the documents in question were written prior to the Christian era. Fortunately, his identifications for the characters in the Dead Sea Scrolls need not be seen as essential to his thesis.

          i’m saying you can’t get a man god out of the old testament, because the concept was entirely absent.

          The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was not a man god, just a man who was thought to have been resurrected from verses like Hosea 6:2. There is Elijah taken up in a whirlwind. Resurrection is found in the OT:

          Elijah resurrected the son of the widow of Zarephath
          1 Kings 17:17-24

          Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman
          2 Kings 4:35

          Dead Elisha resurrects a dead man in a grave
          2 Kings 13:21

          Ezekiel resurrects a multitude from bones
          Ezekiel 37

          Christians, however, can get that impression from an edited version of the same scriptures and the pagan base upon which Christianity rests

          It doesn’t have to be an edited version. It would have been difficult to look up every verse one wanted to quote or to verify quotes, since they hadn’t invented the numbering system to quote chapter and verse and they often didn’t need to mention the book they were quoting or alluding to. They just quoted a bit of it which may have been an allusion to the context of the passage. The reader was expected to recognize the quote. Paul often misquoted passages in his favor or ignored the context. Christian New Testament scholar, Peter Enns gives a few examples of Paul winging it just that way. Religion is based on illogic. It would not be rational to expect one religion to evolve out of another for completely logical reasons.

          Paul may have started with the messiah idea but somewhere he forgot or wasn’t familiar enough with the Torah, that he neglected to take into account that the messiah was to be fully human, another David or Solomon.

          That doesn’t rule out a resurrected human. Zechariah 3 describes a dream or a vision of someone named “Joshua”, “Yeshua” in Greek, and “Jesus” in English via Greek, who is cleaned up by the angels, the angel of the Lord tells him that he will “rule my house and have charge of my courts”. He is called “my servant the Branch [Ἀνατολήν]. God says he will remove the guilt of the land. In Zechariah 6:11-13, we see “he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule” referring to this same “Jesus”. Verse 12 says, “Here is a man whose name is Branch [Ἀνατολήν].”

          Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues XIV, (62), quotes Zech 6:12, “I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: ‘Behold, a man whose name is the East [Ἀνατολήν]!’” The word translated as “Branch” in Zechariah is the same word translated as “East” in Philo but it means “rising” because they referred to the east as where the sun, moon, and stars rise.

          Modern Judaism may be diametrically opposed to some first century versions of Judaism simply because they have rejected the sect of Judaism that was the root of Christianity. The fact that modern Jews read the scriptures differently now does not mean that ancient Christians read the scriptures all that differently than some ancient sects of Judaism.

          As well, NT writers manufactured two different lineages for Jesus but weren’t familiar with Jewish lineage laws – that a child gets its lineage ONLY from a natural father, not an adopted one and at the same time claiming that Jesus had no earthly father.

          I think Gospel Jesus is a different creature than Epistle Jesus. I suspect John used Mark but had a different view. I think Matthew knew John but rejected most of it in favor of Mark. Luke seems to have known all three, favored Mark the most and mostly rejected John. Matthew would have created the genealogy and the nativity in answer to the conundrum in:

          John 7:40-43 (NRSV)40 When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? 42 Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” 43 So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

          Luke probably rejected Matthew’s genealogy because he made a big deal of the fourteen generations but left out four generations for one set and the last set has only 13 generations unless one counts the Exile as a generation. Or maybe it was the inclusion of Jeconiah, who was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24, Jeremiah 22:30, and Jeremiah 36:29-31. Luke’s genealogy preserves the fourteen generations in two places but uses multiples of seven with God being #1 and Jesus being #77.

        • Matthew46

          Say what you will about Eisenman, but his theory is backed by macoby who both look at the documents from a non-Christian point of view, without the aid of Christian colored glasses, and both make a lot more sense than any god man. it’s natural too, for Christians to pick holes in it because it threatens the very core of their belief. I too trust the dating system first and for that reason then question the event dating in the bible.
          .
          This is no different than the claims about the shroud of Turin where it is claimed this too is the shroud of jesus in spite of the fact that there were at least four more such shrouds in existence in the past
          ………
          The suffering servant is Israel, not jesus. There is absolutely nothing about jesus or any god man in the old testament

          And if you believe the resurrection stories that you’ve given, have i got a bridge to sell you. These are the same primitive stories of magic and legend that the new testament is based on except, of course, for the god man.
          ……..
          Why would Judaism of the first century be ‘diametrically opposed’ to modern Judaism? It’s the same book with the same rules in the same language interpreted by a Talmud with the same interpretations in the same language. NO, Judaism is diametrically opposite to Christianity. They are two distinctly different plants from the same garden and nothing more.
          ………..
          You’re not getting it. Jesus could get his lineage from ONLY A NATURAL FATHER and no one else. It doesn’t matter how many lineages are presented, Christians believe he was the son of God literally. He has NO human lineage and because of that, no claim to the throne of David.

        • Greg G.

          I too trust the dating system first and for that reason then question the event dating in the bible.

          I agree. The only thing in Paul’s writing that is date-able would be the mention of King Aretas but he was king for nearly 50 years. When you look at the gospels as literature, their literary antecedents become apparent, so the mention of Pilate in a work of literary fiction becomes meaningless.

          I prefer to see the arguments of Biblical scholars rather than just their claims.

          The suffering servant is Israel, not jesus. There is absolutely nothing about jesus or any god man in the old testament

          That depends on how you read it. If you read the prophetic writings as “hidden mysteries” (Romans 16:25-26), as Paul and possibly his contemporary Christians, then the clear statement that shows a text is allegory would just be part of the disguise. It wouldn’t be a hidden mystery if it said it was a hidden mystery.

          And if you believe the resurrection stories that you’ve given, have i got a bridge to sell you. These are the same primitive stories of magic and legend that the new testament is based on except, of course, for the god man.

          Of course, I don’t believe the resurrection stories but I know that many people do, and I think the early Christians did. And the early Christians were Jews.

          Why would Judaism of the first century be ‘diametrically opposed’ to modern Judaism?

          Because the different sects of first century Judaism were in opposition to one another. Many beliefs of modern Judaism would be diametrically opposed to at least one sect of first century Judaism even if it agreed with another sect.

          NO, Judaism is diametrically opposite to Christianity.

          Judaism is diametrically opposed to some tenets of Christianity. It is not diametrically opposed to Unitarians on the type of god Yahweh is. Judaism and Catholicism agree on circumcision. They agree on some things and disagree on some things. That is certainly not “diametric opposition”. Holding on to that concept only makes it difficult to see the similarities and their origins.

          They are two distinctly different plants from the same garden and nothing more.

          No, they are as different as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan (Chinese broccoli), which are all Brassica oleracea, selected for different reasons.

          You’re not getting it. Jesus could get his lineage from ONLY A NATURAL FATHER and no one else. It doesn’t matter how many lineages are presented, Christians believe he was the son of God literally. He has NO human lineage and because of that, no claim to the throne of David.

          They were more desperate then for the Messiah than Christians today who believe the Messiah will come during their lifetime. That idea goes back to Hasmodean times when Daniel was written. We have evidence of many generations expecting that to happen. Early Christianity is just one we know of. They were even more desperate being under the thumb of the Romans that some would have accepted any excuse to believe that. We still see that but they had more desperate reasons to believe it then. If they believe a person who had a natural father died and that person with a natural father was resurrected, it was a good enough reason to believe. Most were literate enough to know about that. If David had any living descendants at the time, he was an ancestor to anybody with roots in Judea and the surrounding area. (Matthew had 28 generations but that would be a low estimate of the generations back to David but 2 to the 28th power far greater than the population of Judea during David’s time so it would be unlikely to not be a descendant of David many times over, especially with Solomon’s wives and children.)

          Consider 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and where Paul may have got those ideas:

          15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, [Isaiah 26:20 refers to living people during the coming wrath of the Lord] shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. [Isaiah 26:19 talks about the dwellers of the dust becoming awake and the earth giving birth to the long dead] 16 For the Lord himself, [Isaiah 26:21 is about the Lord coming out of his place.] with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, [Daniel 7:11 says, “the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking”] will descend from heaven, [Daniel 7:13 says, “I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven”] and the dead in Christ will rise first. [Isaiah 26:19 and/or Daniel 12:2, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”] 17 Then we who are alive, [Isaiah 26:20] who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; [Daniel 7:13 “with the clouds of heaven”] and so we will be with the Lord forever. [Daniel 12:2 “some to everlasting life”]

          1 Corinthians 15:51-54 does much the same but with verse 54 having a near verbatim quote from Isaiah 25:8, “he will swallow up death forever” which shows Paul was referring to that part of Isaiah for his eschatology.

          Compare

          Daniel 12:2
          Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

          with

          Jewish War 2.8.14
          They [Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, – but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

          The Pharisees were getting some of their theology from Daniel which came into the Jewish world during Hasmodean times, when the Pharisees were prominent.

          The Sadduccees probably got some of their diametrically opposed theology from”

          Ecclesiastes 9:3-5
          3 This is an evil in all that happens under the sun, that the same fate comes to everyone. Moreover, the hearts of all are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost.

        • Matthew46

          Re: That depends on how you read it. If you read the prophetic writings as “hidden mysteries” (Romans 16:25-26), as Paul and possibly his contemporary Christian…
          .
          Again, this is already Paul’s Christian version of how he believes. It isn’t the Jewish view.
          …………………..
          Of course, I don’t believe the resurrection stories but I know that many people do, and I think the early Christians did. And the early Christians were Jews.
          .
          One group of Jesus followers, called ‘the party of the circumcision”, the Nazarenes believed that Jesus had been resurrected. The Ebionites also of the party of the circumcision, did not. You forget that Paul was the first apostle to the gentiles and his brand of Christianity was the one that is the basis of Christianity today. The James group (Jesus was dead for at least 20 years by then) were still Jews, the only difference from orthodox Jews being that they believed that Jesus was that fully human messiah of Jewish prophecy. The remainder of the Jews were waiting to see whether he fulfilled the prophecies during his lifetime.
          ………………………….
          ‘Diametrically opposed” means the opposite of, Greg. Judaism cannot be diametrically opposed to itself, based on it’s one Torah. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. The Ebionites believed Jesus was the fully human messiah. The Nazarenes believed Jesus was resurrected. The only other sect of Jews was the Pharisees, the orthodox jews. All of them went by the same rules.
          …………………………….
          Judaism and Catholicism agree on circumcision.’
          .
          But for different reasons. To Jews circumcision is based on Genesis 17:10–14 0 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You
          shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is aeight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations,
          whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both
          he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
          .
          But this is a rule of the old covenant and according to Galatians 5:4, any Christian who attempts to justify himself to live under old covenant rules cuts himself off from Jesus Christ.
          .
          For whatever reason the Catholics follow circumcision, I don’t know.
          …………………

          No, they are as different as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts.
          .
          If you believe that, I suggest you go to “Whatjewsbelieve.org” or to Outreach Judaism because clearly you don’t know enough about Jewish laws and beliefs to make that judgement.
          …………………………..
          Greg, you still aren’t getting it. Even today, a child born of an unknown father is considered to be a mamser without lineage. He might inherit goods from an adoptive father but he will never have a lineage.
          …..
          This is getting way way too long, Greg. Let’s shorten up a bit.

        • Greg G.

          Again, this is already Paul’s Christian version of how he believes. It isn’t the Jewish view.

          There is no the Jewish view, especially going back to the first century. Paul said he was a Jew, that means he had A Jewish view.

          The James group (Jesus was dead for at least 20 years by then) were still Jews, the only difference from orthodox Jews being that they believed that Jesus was that fully human messiah of Jewish prophecy. The remainder of the Jews were waiting to see whether he fulfilled the prophecies during his lifetime.

          Paul is very sarcastic toward James and Cephas in Galatians. He is saying that he got no knowledge from human authorities and says he visited both of them and even calls them the “pillars”. The “Who has bewitched you?” in chapter 3 can only be about them. He then goes on to explain how Jesus was crucified. It is as if Cephas and James had told the Galatians that Jesus was not crucified. Paul demonstrates the Jesus was crucified by citing a sequence OT scriptures in Galatians 3:6-14 or so.

          ‘Diametrically opposed” means the opposite of, Greg. Judaism cannot be diametrically opposed to itself, based on it’s one Torah. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife.

          Right, the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife but the Pharisees did believe in an afterlife. That is a diametrically opposed belief within Judaism. The Sadducess and Pharisees had to have had common beliefs to both be Jewish sects. Christianity shares some of the beliefs with Pharisees and the Sadducees, so it is ridiculous to say that they are opposites. Christianity is different than Judaism and Islam. They disagree on some things and agree on some things. Their agreements mean they are not diametrically opposed. It is a meaningless phrase to be used regarding religions unless one is simply a negation of everything the other holds.

          For whatever reason the Catholics follow circumcision, I don’t know.

          Q. 1. What does the Catholic Church teach regarding circumcision? Should it be practiced?

          A. 1. From the document, “Cantate Domino” (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439, a continuation of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, and the Council of Ferrara, A.D. 1438), we learn the following:

          [The Catholic Church] “firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law…

          It goes on to reference Jesus for justification for using the OT. It also goes on to back off that it is mandatory.

          My nephew was born in a Catholic hospital to Buddhist parents who didn’t know exactly what it was. The hospital was very insistent that they should have it done, though.

          If you believe that, I suggest you go to “Whatjewsbelieve.org” or to Outreach Judaism because clearly you don’t know enough about Jewish laws and beliefs to make that judgement.

          You are not reading for comprehension. I am saying that Jewishness and Christianity are not so different. I used those vegetables because they are all the same species to illustrate their similarities within your garden analogy.

          But Judaism has major divisions of Conservative, Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, and Reconstructionalism. Do you know why they have different divisions? Because they have different beliefs. There are no central authorities so the synagogues may have different beliefs. Jews may pick one synagogue over another because they favor the rabbi’s beliefs and teaching over the one down the block. It’s like independent Christian denominations.

          Greg, you still aren’t getting it. Even today, a child born of an unknown father is considered to be a mamser without lineage. He might inherit goods from an adoptive father but he will never have a lineage.

          If Jesus was to come down from the clouds the way Paul expected from reading Isaiah and Daniel, there would be no birthers. Even Trump wouldn’t be asking to see his birth certificate.

          As I showed in one post, everything Paul can say about Jesus comes from OT scripture. That supports his claim that he didn’t get anything from human authorities. Since he also claimed that his knowledge is not inferior to the “super-apostles,” he must have thought they didn’t have any way of knowing about Jesus besides the scripture, too.

        • Matthew46

          Greg, either cut down the length or I will be forced to pick only one point to reply to. These are taking too long to go through and reply to.
          ..
          Paul said a lot of things and mostly he was defending himself from accusations of lying. Dat Kazav (Lying Religion, or Religion of Falseness) is a Hebrew term Ebionites/Essenes used to describe Christianity that comes from the ‘ish kazav (Lying Man, i.e.,Liar) Paul of Tarsus.

          Check out: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm
          ……………………..
          Obviously then, Catholics haven’t read Galatians 5:4 or are ignoring it if they feel that ‘[The Catholic Church] “firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law…’ They’ve cut themselves off from Jesus Christ.
          …………………………

          You write; ‘I am saying that Judaism and Christianity are not so different.”
          .
          These are the core beliefs of Judaism, Greg (I may be repeating it here but you obviously need to look at them). not so different, eh?

          One Person cannot die for the sins of another.

          A blood sacrifice is not required for forgiveness of sins.

          Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy during his lifetime and was not the messiah. The messiah is to be fully human.

          God hates human sacrifices and forbids them.

          People are born pure and without original sin.

          God is one and indivisible – no parents, siblings or offspring.

          God does not become human and humans do not become God.

          The old covenant is eternal – it can be renegotiated but never replaced or added to. Circumcision is the outward sign of being under the law .

        • God hates human sacrifices and forbids them.

          I’m afraid you haven’t read your Bible carefully.

          “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah” (Ez. 20:25–6).

          More: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/07/god-loves-the-smell-of-burning-flesh-human-sacrifice-in-the-bible/

        • Matthew46

          In the original Tanakh: Ezekiel 20

          25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live;

          26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that openeth the womb, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

          27 Therefore, son of man (not referring to Jesus), speak unto the house of Israel, and say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: In this moreover have your fathers blasphemed Me, in that they dealt treacherously with Me.

          Do you mean?

          31 and when, in offering your gifts, in making your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, unto this day; {S} shall I then be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you;

          The Jewish encyclopedia gives this comment; “In ritual questions the Book of Ezekiel contains much that contradicts the teachings of the Pentateuch, and therefore it narrowly escaped being declared as “apocryphal” by the scholars shortly before the destruction of the Temple.’

          The Pentateuch (Torah)/The Law reads: “Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

        • I don’t see any rebuttal to my point. Was there supposed to be one?

          And, as I think I mentioned before, using the Masoretic Text, this version of the OT might be less reliable than those that use older manuscripts.

        • Matthew46

          It’s not a rebuttal, Bob. I gave you what is in the Tanakh and I always check with it first because the bible in many verses has been mistranslated or misinterpreted or just plain interpolated. And i make a point of reading it in context.
          .
          You interpret the ” in that they set apart ALL that openeth the womb, that I might destroy them” as a sacrifice. I don’t see where sacrifice of firstborn is being specifically referred to and i expect that yours is a Christian interpretation. Secondly, Ezekiel isn’t part of the Law which is comprised of the first five books of the ‘old’ testament. It’s grouped with the books of prophets and the Jews already admit that it goes against the book of laws. Human sacrifice is still forbidden by the books of the Law which is Torah.

        • I don’t see where sacrifice of firstborn is being specifically referred to and i expect that yours is a Christian interpretation.

          You’re using the 12th century Masoretic Text, and you’re concerned that mine is the interpolation?

          Find the most authentic (oldest) version(s) of Ezekiel and we can discuss them. Until then, I don’t see how the MT is worth considering.

        • Matthew46

          Again, Bob – “The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism.

        • Uh huh. A faith tradition can have the comics as its authoritative text if it wants to. But historians use the best versions of the text, and the 12th-century MT is not it.

        • Matthew46

          You forget, Bob, that in copying of the Tanakh from the earliest TO the 12th century and on, every letter on every line was counted because The Law directed that no change should be made on pain of being written out of God’s book of life..

          Deuteronomy (a book of The Law) 4:2 – Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
          .
          Of course translation to a different language is always difficult because words in one might not have precise corresponding words in the other. For instance a sentence “The child was playing and no eyes were upon it” in Russian might be interpreted as ‘The blind child was playing” in English. Translation is tricky unless the person is translating from his first language and has excellent command of the language to which he is translating.

        • adam

          “Deuteronomy (a book of The Law) 4:2 – Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

          So is it YOUR CLAIM, that Jews always do what the Tanakh tells them?

        • Matthew46

          Slavery was a way of life then, just as it was in the USA and various other parts of the world. it’s horrifying to our mindset of today but evidently it was accepted then. Even Jesus directs the “proper’ way to treat slaves.

          i do believe in the matter of copying, yes, they were primitive enough to believe that if they changed even a world deliberately, they risked their chances of making it to the ‘Book of Life” – just as many Catholics do these days in the various ‘rules’ of their religion. The more primitive, the more inclined they are to believe this stuff.

          I’m not a Jew, Bob, in case you are approaching it from that angle. i am just aware of the vast differences between the two, especially where one claims roots in the other when it’s pretty clear, when you know the difference, that is entirely impossible.
          ….
          I ran across a post from a Jew who was being accosted by messianics (Baptists in drag)….quite interesting and here is a quote: ” Today I had a big debate with some Messianics about Psalms 22:16 and the term Kaari. Kaari means “like a lion” and all of the English (Xtian) versions of the bible translate it as pierced. So their version reads “They pierced my hands and feet. when it should read “Like a lion” (Mauling) my hands and feet. These people argued that I was mistranslating the word. I get a kick out of that, as I’m from Israel and Hebrew is my first language, I have 2 Th.Ds. and have translated the Tanakh completely into 3 languages.
          .
          The above gives, in a nutshell, an example of historians who learn the Hebrew language later and then go on to instruct the Jews that THEY don’t translate their own scriptures correctly.

        • adam

          “Slavery was a way of life then, just as it was in the USA and various other parts of the world. it’s horrifying to our mindset of today but evidently it was accepted then. Even Jesus directs the “proper’ way to treat slaves.”

          And it reflects directly on the imaginary deity they claim to worship.

          “i do believe in the matter of copying, yes, they were primitive enough to believe that if they changed even a world deliberately,”

          Primitive and deliberately tells me how easy it would have been changed.

          “The above gives, in a nutshell, an example of historians who learn the Hebrew language later and then go on to instruct the Jews that THEY don’t translate their own scriptures correctly.”

          Well. with some 2000 years of history of christians telling Jews who the ‘messiah’ is, it is of no surprise.

          Even today, apologists try to alter and twist the meaning of words to support THEIR religious preconceptions.

          Again, it just demonstrates what people can do to an IMAGINARY character, and make it utter whatever they want it to say.

        • Matthew46

          Agreed.

        • Matthew46

          Re: “Primitive and deliberately tells me how easy it would have been changed.’
          .
          And if that superstitious belief demanded that not a word be changed on pain of being left out of eternal life, then what?

        • adam

          “i do believe in the matter of copying, yes, they were primitive enough to believe that if they changed even a world deliberately, they risked their chances of making it to the ‘Book of Life” – just as many Catholics do these days in the various ‘rules’ of their religion.”

          Birth Control Goes Against Catholicism’s Teachings, But Most Catholics Use It Anyway

          http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/08/04/3687844/chris-christie-birth-control/

          And apparently MOST do not…

        • Matthew46

          I’ve run into one or two Catholics who aren’t even aware that the churches against the use of contraceptives. They do their Hail Mary’s and go to confession and that is about it. Out the door to do it again.

        • adam

          “I’ve run into one or two Catholics who aren’t even aware that the churches against the use of contraceptives. ”

          I have run into many christians who know the bible less than I do as an atheist.

          Many who have no concept what ‘original sin’ really means.
          Who deny that slavery is in the bible, etc, etc, etc.

          It seems to me that most everyone who is indoctrinated into a religion, accepts it without question for the most part, then use apologetics to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance when they do question it. I find these people to be ‘superstitious’ and the God of Gaps is used to explain their superstition. They dont really WANT to understand much beyond their personal experience of the EMOTIONS that support their superstition.

          Somehow, I doubt this is historically new.

          Once something get written down, it does become more difficult to change when the chain of evidence exists, but christianity has demonstrated that you can take someone elses stories and rewrite then 180 from the original and people will believe your new story if you propaganda is good enough.

          What interests me more than the written stories are the original oral tales they are based off of, and how they got translated in the position where they were finally written, which we can never know. Some of the features of story telling IS exaggeration, metaphors and poetry.
          While story telling might have been the ‘news’ of the day, sometimes it had to be like Nostradamus to protect the story teller from harm.

        • Matthew46

          You’ve probably heard of the “telephone game” where everyone sits in a row and the first person whispers a story to the second, the second repeats it to the third and so on …and by the 6th or so telling, the story is nothing like what the story was originally. Oral tales are the same thing, getting larger and larger and more off base. And as the stories split off, they become independent of each other and each changes again so that they begin to contradict each other – like the Matthew account of Jesus birth before 4BC as compared to that of Luke in 6 AD.

          This is what Celsus as a pagan had to say about Christianity at the end of the first century – ‘”It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.”

        • Matthew46

          You wouldn’t be surprised then, Adam, to know that in a national quiz on bible knowledge, Atheists and Jewish scholars made the top marks and that the evangelicals came quite a lot lower on the list. They learn verses that represent what is taught to them by rote, but they never go outside of the box to learn anything else.

        • adam

          It doesnt surprise me at all.

          Believer ‘believe’ because of emotions, not out of knowledge.

        • I appreciate that there was a tradition of care. Nevertheless, the oldest copies (LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls, and others) aren’t identical to the MT. You just going to ignore that?

          Yes, I see that Deut. says that it’s really important to not change the Bible. And yet interpolations still happened. That’s what God gets for trusting fallible humans with his Word, I guess.

        • Matthew46

          Quoted; ‘After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein liesits chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.’”
          .
          One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.’

          https://www.probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/

        • I wonder why they always use Isaiah in this comparison. Makes me think that that’s the best example, and the others are more embarrassing.

          But if they’re identical, I wonder why you’re always changing back to your preferred version of the text.

        • Matthew46

          Maybe because it’s a rich source for Christian cherry picking? Christians use 12 ‘support’ verses out of that book. I have an online copy of the Mechon Mamre which is Masoretic text but the best version (much too expensive for me and the use I would get out of it) I’m told is koran’s.
          .
          My “preferred version” is one that is translated from Hebrew to English by Jewish rabbis/scholars. Now, that’s for the “old testament”. For the new testament, I will compare verses in the Bible Gateway and also sometimes other writings about those verses from other sources. If there are several differing opinions, I follow that up too.

        • Matthew46

          The LXX consisted of only the first five books of the Jewish bible – Isaiah and Psalms were not included. If a text which includes them is claimed to be a copy of the Septuagint, it is not. it is a later copy when the Septuagint was reworked by Christian scholars and Isaiah and Psalms was added to it. With the re-translation and re-working came errors and interpolations. Some books, like Esther are longer in the Christian bible than it is in the Jewish.

          Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila,in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint.

        • adam

          “You forget, Bob, that in copying of the Tanakh from the earliest TO the 12th century and on, every letter on every line was counted because The Law directed that no change should be made on pain of being written out of God’s book of life..”

          So, can I assume that there is a log throughout history that verified letter count?

          What verifies that the letters used were correct?

        • Matthew46

          You can apply those questions to any and all writings that date back 2000 years, Bob, including the writings of the early church fathers, to Justin and to Josephus but the most sensible way would be to compare several of the old versions to today’s copies and that would give you at least some idea of the precision of copying. MessiahTruth writes that such a comparison produced only nine variations and they made no change in meaning at all. In addition, the Talmud also could be used since it acts as a companion to the Jewish ‘bible”

          And no, there is no video footage either.

        • adam

          “You can apply those questions to any and all writings that date back 2000 years, ”

          Of course, but how many of these writings would claim to be the words of a “God”?

        • Matthew46

          You mean the writings of men who claim that they are the words of God?

        • adam

          Well of course, since no gods can be demonstrated to be anything but human imagination.

          But still there are claims …

        • adam

          “And no, there is no video footage either.

          Darn…..

        • Pics or it didn’t happen!

        • Matthew46

          Yeah, I am concerned about interpolation. When the present day bible is compared to the oldest extant copies, there are over 14,000 variants.
          .
          In contrast, in Jewish belief, not a word, nor even a letter could be changed and so scribes making copies were known to count even every letter in order to ensure this was done.

          This is a quote from messiahtruth.com, a jewish outreach site; ‘There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah.In over 3,000 years spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words — with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over several thousand variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.”

        • We’re talking about just the Old Testament.

          in Jewish belief, not a word, nor even a letter could be changed and so scribes making copies were known to count even every letter in order to ensure this was done.

          Jews can believe whatever they want, but historians typically go with the oldest copies.

        • Matthew46

          Historians as in historians or as preachers masquerading as historians, tweaking history happily as they go?
          .
          I think i already covered that one, Bob, but I’ll cut and paste it here again.

          Quoted; ‘After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein liesits chief importance, supporting the
          fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.’”
          .
          One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.’

          https://www.probe.org/the-dead

        • Then I’ll repeat myself as well: if the MT is identical aside from typos to the best manuscripts from other sources, then stop quoting your version and accept mine.

        • Matthew46

          logic tells me that if the dead sea scrolls support the masoretic text and Mechon Mamre is using Masoretic text, why is yours different or in your mind superior? Tell me more about what version you use then.

        • Matthew46

          The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. I don’t see where you get “less reliable”.

        • Don’t Jewish sources often use the MT? Not especially reliable.

        • Matthew46

          I know that Korans is the recommended version of the translated to English version of the Jewish bible. Jewish scholars are taught in Hebrew as far as I know.

  • Korus Destroyus

    The attempt in this link to make differences between Jesus and Isaiah 53 is so hilariously sad.

    “Some say that this refers to the beatings Jesus received, though his ugly appearance is never mentioned in the New Testament.”

    Not only is this merely an argument from silence fallacy, but it is also outright ridiculous and false in its incompetent claims. Jesus was given an extensively severe beating and whipped, and then got crucified after all that.

    ” Jesus should have been recognized as the Messiah, but the gospels tell us that his own people rejected him.”

    LOL! This is obviously false, it does not claim His own people rejected Him, it said mankind rejected Him — which is factually true.

    “The synoptic gospels agree that Jesus was silent before his accusers, though John 18:34–19:11 says the opposite.”

    No it doesn’t, that’s just outright false.

    “n 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.”

    And the point is? LOL

    “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.”

    Which means… Jesus DID fulfill Isaiah 53:9. Not only that, but the rich WERE the wicked.

    “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.””

    The ‘seed’ in Isaiah 53:10 references Jesus’ spiritual progeny.

    The rest of the objections equally fail.

    • The attempt in this link to make differences between Jesus and Isaiah 53 is so hilariously sad.

      How lucky for us that you dropped by.

      Jesus was given an extensively severe beating and whipped, and then got crucified after all that.

      Oops. John takes pains to portray Jesus as the unblemished lamb. Not so unblemished, I guess.

      “Jesus should have been recognized as the Messiah, but the gospels tell us that his own people rejected him.”
      LOL! This is obviously false, it does not claim His own people rejected Him, it said mankind rejected Him — which is factually true.

      You’ve got to pick your arguments. You’ll say that mankind rejected him unless it suits you to talk about how widespread Christianity is, and then you’ll say the reverse.

      No it doesn’t, that’s just outright false.

      That thorough exegesis makes things clearer, thanks.

      And the point is? LOL

      And the point is that this is the part of the post that shows the verses Christian apologists cite to make their argument. Not sure why this is confusing.

      The rest of the objections equally fail.

      Or not. The rest of the objections you have simply avoided. Perhaps you have no rebuttal except this flabby dismissal.

      • Korus Destroyus

        “Oops. John takes pains to portray Jesus as the unblemished lamb. Not so unblemished, I guess.”

        Sorry bud, couldn’t find any such verse in John. But I found this one.
        1 Peter 1:19: but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.
        This is clearly not referring to Jesus post-crucifixion+beating, and if the supposed reference in John is any the same as this one, you have no case.

        “You’ve got to pick your arguments. You’ll say that mankind rejected him unless it suits you to talk about how widespread Christianity is, and then you’ll say the reverse.”

        No, mankind rejected Jesus. That is simply an absolute fact. Mankind is referred to as a whole, and the majority of man is not Christian, and when we discuss TRUE Christians, the share becomes incredibly low. The Bible clearly tells us that the path to heaven is much smaller than the one to hell.
        Matthew 7:13: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

        “That thorough exegesis makes things clearer, thanks.”

        Thorough exegesis? No such thing. Even in John 18, Jesus does not reply to the charges, rather from what I read merely answered being the king of the Jews. This objection is most hilarious.

        “And the point is that this is the part of the post that shows the verses Christian apologists cite to make their argument. Not sure why this is confusing.”

        It does no such thing, LOL.

        In conclusion, the attempt to find contrasts between the prophecy in Isaiah 53 and Jesus is so laughable and contrived that the mere existence of this posts begs the question of reality and rationality on the internet. When I read through Isaiah 53, it is just so OBVIOUSLY talking about Jesus that it’s really hard for me to think or conceive of anything else.

        • Sorry bud, couldn’t find any such verse in John.

          John embarrassingly has a different day for the crucifixion than the synoptics (the day before Passover rather than the day after) because he wants to draw this Jesus/lamb parallel.

          This is clearly not referring to Jesus post-crucifixion+beating, and if the supposed reference in John is any the same as this one, you have no case.

          No case? Guess again, Chester.

          God only accepts perfect sacrifices. Not just any lamb will do—only a perfect (which means, in part, unblemished) lamb will do.

          Was Jesus perfect in this way as he was sacrificed? Nope.

          And this is a tangent, but the sacrifice must be burned. Where is the burning part in the death of Jesus?

          The Bible clearly tells us that the path to heaven is much smaller than the one to hell.

          Yes, it does. The all-loving God created people like me just so he could roast them in hell forever.

          Doesn’t sound very all loving to me. How about you?

          Thorough exegesis? No such thing.

          Certainly not in this case, since you simply made an assertion, without evidence.

          Even in John 18, Jesus does not reply to the charges, rather from what I read merely answered being the king of the Jews. This objection is most hilarious.

          Sorry, I’m missing the hilarity. Explain it to me.

          The end of John 18 has Jesus speaking 3 times. That’s not “silent.”

          Your pathetic defense is hilarious. (Let me know if you need that explained. I’d be happy to.)

          It does no such thing, LOL.

          So basically you reject anything I say? Or do you stop to understand the point?

          When I read through Isaiah 53, it is just so OBVIOUSLY talking about Jesus that it’s really hard for me to think or conceive of anything else

          Maybe sometime in your busy day you can respond to the second half of the posts, where I examined the verses that Christian apologists ignore because they defeat their argument.

          My guess is that you’ll give us another sweeping dismissal with zero evidence.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “John embarrassingly has a different day for the crucifixion than the synoptics (the day before Passover rather than the day after) because he wants to draw this Jesus/lamb parallel.”

          You’re absolutely wrong about John having a different day for the crucifixion, but again — where is this verse in John that says Jesus, post-crucifixion and pre-resurrection was entirely ‘unblemished’ and thus conflicting with Isaiah 52?

          “Was Jesus perfect in this way as he was sacrificed? Nope.”

          Ugh, yes He was. He was entirely without sin — that is the meaning of perfection here. Either you’ve never read the Old Testament, or you completely failed to get the notion that sin was always what was being punished for with animal sacrifices throughout the Old Testament, because animals don’t sin. Likewise, Jesus didn’t sin and was thus offered as a perfect sacrifice.

          “The end of John 18 has Jesus speaking 3 times. That’s not “silent.””

          Read the prophecy again, Jesus was supposed to be silent to the charges, not in general. And Jesus was in fact silent to the charges, he did not call Himself innocent or guilty. That’s why when Pontius Pilate left Jesus to address the crowd, he said “I find no fault in this man”.

          It looks like you go on to ask me to debunk a few more of the JOKE ACCUSATIONS made to contrast Isaiah 53, which is CLEARLY talking about Jesus by any reasonable interpretation. Here, I mean, just read this nonsense:

          “So Jesus, a person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father, is now God’s servant?”

          LOL. According to the Bible, Jesus was lowered from Godhood to manhood (Hebrews 2:9) to come to this world to die for our sins, and after this, He re-ascended to the right hand of the Father as God. This is just an embarrassing attempt. So jesus was temporarily ‘man’, and thus a servant. Basic Christian knowledge that any pastor would gladly preach to you about. And as I re-read your post, I found one of the most humiliating parts that I seemed to have initially missed… Unbelievable:

          “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.”

          Wow, just a pure embarrassment to someone like myself, who has spent numerous numerous hours researching into the historicity of early Christianity and have watched countless lectures. Pliny the Elder never wrote one word in his lifetime, Seneca’s writings are specifically about philosophy, and Philo of Alexandria never wrote one word about any Messiah claimants of the his day, any miracle claimers, etc. Of course, contemporaries of Jesus like Paul do mention Jesus in later years after his death, and so this argument from silence fallacy that has no viability. The truth is, we don’t know if Jesus’ deeds had gone to the kings, but we do know that after Jesus’ death, the information did in fact spread to kings and fulfill what Isaiah said would happen.

        • adam

          “He was entirely without sin — that is the meaning of perfection here.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98265d38f8c9a73888180e83402d04fd1421c4b8f148d83327738ec63e349f62.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus
        • adam

          Funny how your link defines it as a sin as well.

          But you should understand what sin truly is::

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2d11c6be326e8d3c8f090ffd9591c90ff1fd7a142b6290b6be7448085cdf9ce.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          Posting random atheist troll memes don’t count as a valid counter-argument to an objective debunked of the previous atheist troll meme you posted.

        • adam

          Well then you should have posted an ‘objective debunked’ link instead of the one you did which said it is sin, just the way I posted.

          The CRI is hardly objective.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg From their web page it is OBVIOUS to any one who can read, that they have a distinct bias.

          “(1) The Holy Scriptures, comprised of Old and New Testaments, are fully and verbally inspired by God and are therefore infallible in the original writings and completely trustworthy in all areas in which they speak. ”

          Infallable?

          Your an IDiot arent you?

        • Korus Destroyus

          The link debunks the idea that it is sin, LOL. Clearly you didn’t read it, making your entire position irrelevant.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually pretty much all of us have read it. We just don’t think it’s anything but religious myths and fables written by priests to ensure they can live off of everyone elses’ backs.

        • Korus Destroyus

          No one asked for your opinion. Isaiah 53 is an obvious Jesus prophecy to the highest degree of any divine prophecy that could have possibly been delivered — atheism is complete irrelevance to this divine evidence and the attempt to remash Isaiah 53 to somehow make it not fit with Jesus is purely hilarious. The attempt to make it mean Israel is even funner.

        • No one asked for your opinion.

          But feel free to force yours on us.

          Isaiah 53 is an obvious Jesus prophecy to the highest degree of any divine prophecy that could have possibly been delivered

          Case closed! Thanks for the thorough analysis.

          the attempt to remash Isaiah 53 to somehow make it not fit with Jesus is purely hilarious. The attempt to make it mean Israel is even funner.

          And yet the only laughing going on is us laughing at your bold pronouncements backed up by mere assertion.

        • Michael Neville

          No one asked for your opinion

          I gave it free of charge. You may thank me for my generousity.

          Isaiah 53 is an obvious Jesus prophecy…The attempt to make it mean Israel is even funner.

          Except it isn’t. It is argued that the “servant” mentioned in chapters 52 and 53 represents the nation of Israel, which would bear excessive iniquities, pogroms, blood libels, anti-judaism, antisemitism and continue to suffer without cause (Isaiah 52:4) on behalf of others (Isaiah 53:7, 11–12). Early on, the servant of the Lord is promised to prosper and “be very high”. The following evaluation of the servant by the “many nations, kings”, and “we” Isaiah 52:15 is quite negative, though, and bridges over to their self-accusation and repentance after verse 4 (“our”). Then, the servant is vindicated by God, “because he bared his soul unto death” Rabbi Tovia Singer argues, by textual analysis, that the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 is not referencing an individual Christ Jesus.

          As a bible-thumping Christian, you interpret Isaiah in a narrow way that suits your particular theological needs and prejudices. Other people who don’t share your biases interpret it differently.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Except it isn’t. It is argued that the “servant” mentioned in chapters 52 and 53 represents the nation of Israel, which would bear excessive iniquities, pogroms, blood libels, anti-judaism, antisemitism and continue to suffer without cause (Isaiah 52:4) on behalf of others (Isaiah 53:7, 11–12). ”

          Whoops, still is. Israel fails almost every standard of the prophecy of Isaiah 53, it is virtually beyond dispute. A Jewish convert to Christianity said that if you read Isaiah 53 by itself, without the rest of the Old Testament, it would be as if you were reading the Christian Bible. Finding ridiculously vague connections between Israel and Isaiah 53 without taking up the enormous parallels and virtually undeniable connections between Jesus and Isaiah 53 is nonsensical, of course. Even the vague parallels you tried to quote (Isaiah 52:4, 53:7,11-12) are non-existent, of course. Consider your statement “continue to suffer without cause (Isaiah 52:4) — the Old Testament makes it incomprehensibly obvious that much of the suffering of Israel was directly due to God punishing Israel for its sins (Amos 3:14 is one of the many examples), and thus not “without cause.”

          Let’s continue. You say “As a bible-thumping Christian, you interpret Isaiah in a narrow way that suits your particular theological needs and prejudices. Other people who don’t share your biases interpret it differently.” — LOL! The fact that you deny the parallels with Isaiah 53 and Jesus reveals you are the one who is inconceivably biased, rather than the other way around. Indeed, me pointing out the obvious qualifies me as a “bible-thumping Christian”, however I am almost forced to entirely dismiss your credibility for simply using that phrase. As for rabbi Tovia Singer, a clear example of a biased modern-day Jew who doesn’t accept Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy. If you actually quote or analyze the writings of the ancient rabbis and Jewish teachers, you will instantly see that they ALL UNANIMOUSLY held Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy. In fact, the first appearance of a Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy VASTLY predates the lifetime of Jesus. Indeed, the historical record shows without exception, the Jewish interpretation from its earliest traces of Isaiah 53, even after Jesus came by countless centuries, was that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy. The idea of Israel being the subject of Isaiah 53 is only a modern-day pseudo-concept, directly born to oppose the more then obvious prophecy of Isaiah 53, which entirely establishes the reality of Christianity and Jesus Christ, the Lord.

          Absolute evidence that Isaiah 53 _can not_ mean Israel, is easy to provide.

          Isaiah 53:9: They made His grave with the wicked and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully.

          Isaiah 53:9 states that the person in question had done absolutely no violence. Therefore, Israel utterly and devastatingly fails the Isaiahic prophecy. Likewise, Isaiah 53:6 states that this person was punished for the iniquities of the sinners. WHAT is that? Did ISRAEL ever die as a punishment for the sins of other people, or was it obviously JESUS?

          There’s a reason why the Synagogues never open their mouth about Isaiah 53 of the Old Testament nowadays. They don’t even open their mouths about it.

          SUMMING UP THE INFINITE COMPLEXS OF EVIDENCE:

          1. The connection between Jesus and Isaiah 53 is inconceptually superior to all other interpretations
          2. ALL ANCIENT RABBIS, BEFORE AND AFTER JESUS, VIEWED ISAIAH 53 AS MESSIANIC PROPHECY
          3. Israel fails many simple necessities of the subject of Isaiah 53, including having done no violence at all, being punished/dying for the sins/iniquities of others, etc. Of course, there is no problem with Jesus here and so the debate can be closed, Christianity is true.

        • Greg G.

          You haven’t shown that the Jesus stories are true. If Isaiah 53 is a prophecy, you have to show it is a fulfilled prophecy.

        • Greg G.

          WTF? The link makes up the term “sanctified jealousy” and pretends that it is not jealousy. It is desperation apologetics.

        • Pofarmer

          desperation apologetics explains a lot.

        • Korus Destroyus

          There is more then one definition of ‘jealousy’ of course, and the jealousy of God falls under the jealousy that is called sanctified jealousy, whilst the jealousy of sin is sinful jealousy. The only desperation is trying to make such an absurd claim that God sins through His jealousy of His people worshiping idols, LOL. It’s insane. One person I know after seeing a complete debunking of this called it “silly” if I’m not mistaken. It’s entirely hilarious.

        • Greg G.

          His jealousy of His people worshiping idols

          That is just common jealousy.

        • Korus Destroyus

          It’s called reality. The term is not made up, it’s simply a background explanation of basic, common sensical facts.

        • adam

          Nope, not what your link vacuously CLAIMS.

          Just some IMAGINARY excuse…

        • Herald Newman

          > (1) The Holy Scriptures, comprised of Old and New
          > Testaments, are fully and verbally inspired by God and
          > are therefore infallible in the original writings and
          > completely trustworthy in all areas in which they speak.”

          I love how God, the all powerful, and all knowing, creator of the universe, was able to inspire the original writings, but couldn’t be bothered to protect the copies from the multitude of errors, additions, and deletions, have have come along since. It’s almost like the bible is a completely man-made piece of literature.

        • where is this verse in John that says Jesus, post-crucifixion and pre-resurrection was entirely ‘unblemished’ and thus conflicting with Isaiah 52?

          You’re saying that you didn’t know that sacrifices to God had to be unblemished? Or are you saying that battered Jesus was unblemished?

          Ugh, yes He was. He was entirely without sin — that is the meaning of perfection here.

          Don’t run away from the issue. The word we’re working with isn’t perfection but “unblemished.” Jesus wasn’t. That’s the point.

          Read the prophecy again, Jesus was supposed to be silent to the charges, not in general.

          OK, let’s read the “prophecy” again: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”

          Yep, Jesus was supposed to be silent.

          As an aside, you really ought to be a bit more honest. When you make the Bible say what it doesn’t say, you make it into a sock puppet. Not really what a Christian should do, is it?

          Just a tip for the rest: when you use words like joke, nonsense, unbelievable, and embarrassing, you’re changing the character of the conversation. If you want to go there, I be happy to follow and give you a good thrashing, though you might want to avoid poisoning the conversation. When you annoy your conversation partner, you might not like what follows.

          What’s unbelievable is that the atheist has to teach the supposed Christian about the idea of the suffering servant in Isaiah. Example, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor” (Is. 49:3). The “suffering servant” is Israel.

          Since this is a new concept for you, let me help you out. Here are the 37 references to the word “servant” in Isaiah. Some are ordinary servants like people. But there’s plenty to show that the servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel.

          Most compelling of all: read a Jewish interpretation of Isaiah, and they will tell you the same thing.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Don’t run away from the issue. The word we’re working with isn’t perfection but “unblemished.” Jesus wasn’t. That’s the point.”

          No, the meaning of unblemished here IS being sinless. When sacrifices are repeatedly given to God in the Old Testament, it is an animal as animals cannot sin, and they cover for the sins of the person who gave the sacrifice. Likewise, unblemished here CLEARLY references being unblemished, not from having a wart on your face or a lack of a bruised knee, but being unblemished from SIN. This is so inconceivably obvious. You’re clearly trying to force Isaiah out of its meaning to make a non-existent contrast with Jesus, who is the OBVIOUS fulfiller of Isaiah 53 LOL. The first time I read Isaiah simply shocked me.

          “OK, let’s read the “prophecy” again: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.””

          It looks like this is the last objection you have. It’s about time you run out. As we’ve seen, according to Isaiah;

          1) Fulfiller of prophecy does not respond to charges (CHECK FOR JESUS)
          2) Does not talk <>

          Was Jesus being lead to the slaughter during that conversation with Pilate? NO, because Pilate had not yet even sentenced Jesus to death, as you can see if you read that passage, after Jesus talks to Pilate, Pilate proceeds to go to the crowd of Jesus and says “I find no fault in this man”, and then they retaliate, and THEN Jesus gets lead to the slaughter. He does not talk at all during it, and He only talks at the very end after He had been crucified and was pinned to the cross for several hours, right before His death — clearly fulfilled.

          It’s unfortunate to see yet another guy invoking the conspiracy of Isaiah 53 referencing Israel. This is obviously nonsensical. Let’s see exactly why.

          Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
          he was crushed for our iniquities;
          the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
          and by his wounds we are healed.

          I can prove infinite ways with Isaiah that Israel utterly failed, but this is a pretty good one. According to Isaiah 53:5, this person is PIERCED for our transgressions, that is correct, PIERCED (crucifixion). Furthermore, by the death and destruction of this person, HE TAKES OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF. So please explain to me when exactly Israel took the sins of the world on itself, and when we were healed by when an entire geographical region was somehow pierced. I’d also like to know when you find a cross big enough to nail the entire Israeli country to.

          HINT HINT: Israel did not fulfill this prophecy, because Israel has nothing to do with it.

          Isaiah 53 so clearly proves Jesus is the prophesied Messiah that it is not funny. It is alarming that you have not yet converted to Christianity — and even worse, you posted this blog page deceiving many. These actions should all be immediately reversed by yourself following a quick conversion to Christianity.

        • Does your name mean anything?

          No, the meaning of unblemished here IS being sinless.

          Show me that that’s true for Old Testament uses of “unblemished” referring to sacrifices.

          If you just get to be God and change the meaning here to please you, that seems presumptuous. But what do I know? It’s your religion. If you want to set yourself up as God, you’ll have plenty of (contradicting) company.

          Likewise, unblemished here CLEARLY references being unblemished, not from having a wart on your face or a lack of a bruised knee, but being unblemished from SIN.

          Like no men with crushed testicles may “enter the assembly of the Lord”? Oh, wait. That’s about being unblemished, with no reference to sin.

          Must be fun making the Bible say whatever you want.

          You’re clearly trying to force Isaiah out of its meaning to make a non-existent contrast with Jesus, who is the OBVIOUS fulfiller of Isaiah 53 LOL.

          It would be easy to convince me. Show me that the standard Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 (it’s their book, after all) follows your interpretation. LOL.

          1) Fulfiller of prophecy does not respond to charges

          Which is not what Is. 53:7 says.

          Wow—how do you sleep at night? I mean, it’s my job to bitch-slap God, but you’re supposed to be on his side. When you twist the words in his book, isn’t that a really big no-no?

          It’s unfortunate to see yet another guy invoking the conspiracy of Isaiah 53 referencing Israel. This is obviously nonsensical. Let’s see exactly why.

          It’s the Jews’ book, and I’m giving you their interpretation. Why waste time with me? Tell them that their interpretation is nonsensical.

          According to Isaiah 53:5, this person is PIERCED for our transgressions, that is correct, PIERCED (crucifixion).

          Weird. Why focus on this one rather than 53:12, which says, “I will give him a portion among the great and he will divide the spoils with the strong”? Probably because that one sounds nothing at all like Jesus.

          But let’s look at 53:5. That’s your argument? “He was pierced” sounds rather like crucifixion? That’s your great prophecy?

          Let me help you out here since you don’t seem to understand God’s omniscience. “My son, named Jesus, will be crucified to death [insert description here] on [insert date here] outside Jerusalem, and he will rise from the dead a day and a half later. The purpose will be [insert that whole thing about original sin, taking on our sins, perfect sacrifice, God’s righteous fury that is unsatisfiable by anything less than a human sacrifice, and all that].”

          That’s a prophecy worthy of an omniscient being. This laughable twisting of Is. 53 into a “prophecy” is just embarrassing. Why is it always the atheists who have to school Christians in what omniscience means?

          Furthermore, by the death and destruction of this person, HE TAKES OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF. So please explain to me when exactly Israel took the sins of the world on itself

          Please explain to me where exactly in Is. 53 is this sin-taking-on thing.

          HINT HINT: Israel did not fulfill this prophecy, because Israel has nothing to do with it.

          HINT HINT: show me that Jews agree with you and I’ll see your point.

          and even worse, you posted this blog page deceiving many

          When I convert to Christianity I’ll come back and show where I erred. I was hoping you would, but you’ve got nothing. Until then, I guess I’ll just have to continue the Dark Lord’s work.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Like no men with crushed testicles may “enter the assembly of the Lord”? Oh, wait. That’s about being unblemished, with no reference to sin.”

          After failing and failing to find a dis-parallel, you continue to fail! WHERE in Deuteronomy 23 (the passage you’r referring to) are the people with crushed testicles called ‘unblemished’ or ‘blemished’? LOL! You’re just making it up, as there IS NO reference here to being unblemished or not, and whether or not your testicles are crushed is irrelevant to you being unblemished! As I explained, unblemished means not sinning at all. And not only that, the funny thing is that either way, Jesus still wins, because before Jesus got beaten and crucified (the sacrifice), Jesus WAS unblemished. LOL. For example, Numbers 6:14 says to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb of the first year, but obviously the sacrificing of this lamb does not blemish the lamb, as the sacrifice of Jesus does not blemish Jesus. So not matter how you slice the cake, Jesus CLEARLY fulfills Isaiah 53.

          “Which is not what Is. 53:7 says.”

          Isaiah 53:7 says Jesus will be silent before His “shearers”, which is exactly what happened. Pilate was not the “shearer” of course, Pontius didn’t even want to crucify Jesus, it was the Jews in the crowd who forced this entire thing to happen. LOL.

          “But let’s look at 53:5. That’s your argument? “He was pierced” sounds rather like crucifixion? That’s your great prophecy?”

          Let’s look at the full deal — and yes, that’s obviously part of it.
          Isaiah 53:5: But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities;
          punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds.

          This CLEARLY SAYS that X (cough cough JESUS) will be PIERCED for our transgressions and iniquities (sin), and THROUGH THE SACRIFICE OF X (JEEESUS) we are HEALED (forgiven LOL).

          Please answer this question.

          WHEN EXACTLY DID ISRAEL DIE ON THE CROSS (or pierced) AND THROUGH THIS CRUSHING, WE HAVE OUR SINS FORGIVEN BY GOD ? LOL. This is so inconceivably obvious it is not even funny. Israel fails almost every verse of Isaiah 53.

          “it’s the Jews book”

          So what? Before Jesus came along, there were NO JEWS claiming this was meant for Israel, it’s only about 2,000 years after Jesus has come that the Jews are trying to re-interpret Isaiah 53 as meaning Israel, and of course there interpretation still fails.

          You go on to ask where in Isaiah 53 is sin-taking and bearing explained, which is ridiculous that you don’t know. Let me get this straight, you wrote an ENTIRE deceptive blog on Isaiah 53, without reading the 12 verses? Wow.

          Isaiah 53:12: Therefore I will give Him[i] the many as a portion, and He will receive the mighty as spoil, because He submitted Himself to death, and was counted among the rebels; <<<>>>

          You’ve obviously got nothing dude. Admit it, atheism is a fraud and Isaiah 53 proves it. Come on. Convert to Christianity. You know it’s true.

        • Myna

          You write and argue with extreme immaturity. Just an observation.

        • Heck, I’m on the edge of converting!

        • before Jesus got beaten and crucified (the sacrifice), Jesus WAS unblemished. LOL. For example, Numbers 6:14 says to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb of the first year, but obviously the sacrificing of this lamb does not blemish the lamb, as the sacrifice of Jesus does not blemish Jesus.

          Except that, as you’ve admitted, Jesus was blemished. So much for the unblemished sacrifice.

          LOL.

          Isaiah 53:7 says Jesus will be silent before His “shearers”, which is exactly what happened. Pilate was not the “shearer” of course, Pontius didn’t even want to crucify Jesus, it was the Jews in the crowd who forced this entire thing to happen. LOL.

          So God is OK with you just interpreting things any way you want to to justify your preconception? LOL

          “But let’s look at 53:5. That’s your argument? “He was pierced” sounds rather like crucifixion? That’s your great prophecy?”
          Let’s look at the full deal — and yes, that’s obviously part of it.

          Awesome. I’d have thought that a prophecy would be specific so that it was obvious. But I guess being obvious just isn’t how God rolls. LOL.

          WHEN EXACTLY DID ISRAEL DIE ON THE CROSS (or pierced) AND THROUGH THIS CRUSHING, WE HAVE OUR SINS FORGIVEN BY GOD ? LOL. This is so inconceivably obvious it is not even funny. Israel fails almost every verse of Isaiah 53.

          For the benefit of the lurkers: ask the Jewish community what Isaiah 53 is referring to. Since you just run away screaming at the idea, we’re clearly far beyond the part where you’re actually interested in learning about something. Now you’re just in the defend-at-all-costs mode.

          Here’s an idea. Tell God that you suck at defending him and that he should do it himself. He’s got you down here while he’s just got his feet propped up in front of the TV. Too lazy? Or does he just not exist? LOL

          So what? Before Jesus came along, there were NO JEWS claiming this was meant for Israel, it’s only about 2,000 years after Jesus has come that the Jews are trying to re-interpret Isaiah 53 as meaning Israel, and of course there interpretation still fails.

          So you refuse to ask for a Jewish interpretation because they would challenge your position, and that would make you sad.

          Someone who honestly cared to learn would read their viewpoint and be able to repeat it to us here, whether they thought it was a valid argument or not.

          You go on to ask where in Isaiah 53 is sin-taking and bearing explained, which is ridiculous that you don’t know.

          Why ridiculous? It’s not there.

          Let me get this straight, you wrote an ENTIRE deceptive blog on Isaiah 53, without reading the 12 verses?

          Many times, in fact. 53:12 says, “I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong.” So who are the “great” and the “strong”? Who does the Son of Man have to share with?

          LOL.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Except that, as you’ve admitted, Jesus was blemished. So much for the unblemished sacrifice.”

          This all goes back on your failure to understand what ‘blemished’ means, and has already been addressed. Rejecting thousands of years of the meaning of a language to suit your a priori reasoning regarding Isaiah 53 is an obvious betrayal to logic.

          “So you refuse to ask for a Jewish interpretation because they would challenge your position, and that would make you sad.”

          Any Jewish interpretation must include Jesus, as Jesus was the awaited Messiah of the Jews. Anyways, we’ve already seen Israel utterly fail to take our sins upon its self (let alone get pierced for them), we’ve seen Israel fail virtually every verse of the entire chapter and thus there is no merit in this interpretation. This is an interpretation that is only very recent, doesn’t have any history or facts backing it up, and fails to compare to Jesus’ fulfillment of this prophecy. To know if a prophecy gets fulfilled, you read the prophecy, and see if it happens.

          LO’ AND BEHOLD, Isaiah 53 is the most OBVIOUS PROPHECY EVER WRITTEN once you know nything about Jesus, LOL.

          “Many times, in fact. 53:12 says, “I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong.” So who are the “great” and the “strong”? Who does the Son of Man have to share with?”

          You go on to squeal a nice “LOL”, even though no names are given, and thus we don’t know which figures these are referring to, but we DO KNOW Isaiah 53:12 very straightly explains that this person will BEAR OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF. ROFL. HOW MORE OBVIOUS CAN IT POSSIBLY GET??

        • Michael Neville

          Jesus was the awaited Messiah of the Jews

          Jesus was not the Jewish messiah. That personage would be a political and military leader who would cast off foreign rule and establish Israel as a sovereign nation, a major power in the Middle East.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Obvious junk, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and ANY COMPREHENSIBLE READING of Isaiah 53 establishes Christianity as a true fact beyond any reasonable doubt. Your claims are regarding the Second Coming, of course.

        • Michael Neville

          If Jesus was the Jewish messiah then the Jews of his day would have recognized him as such. The Jews were familiar with Isaiah 53 and, when comparing Jesus to that, they were not convinced. I’m more impressed by the reactions of the people on the spot than by some Bible thumper making claims about what happened over 2000 years ago.

          And don’t fucking yell at me, Bible thumper.

        • Pofarmer

          Ole KD here must be really impressed by the prophecies in Harry Potter.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “If Jesus was the Jewish messiah then the Jews of his day would have recognized him as such. The Jews were familiar with Isaiah 53 and, when comparing Jesus to that, they were not convinced. I’m more impressed by the reactions of the people on the spot than by some Bible thumper making claims about what happened over 2000 years ago.”

          BAHAH, LOL. The Jews were going to accept Jesus because of Isaiah 53? Just imagine the amount of circular reasoning going on here — Isaiah 53 specifically states that the Mesisah will die and be punished for the sins of the world. Thus, Isaiah 53 could only be fulfilled at the death of the Messiah, and it would be impossible to fulfill beforehand. Yet, you view that the only way for Jesus to truly be the spoken of Messiah in Isaiah 53, he would have to have been accepted it during his lifetime — i.e., when he was still alive and the prophecy was yet unfulfilled. Hilarious.

          And indeed, after Jesus did fulfill Isaiah 53, COUNTLESS Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah. We’re talking by the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, especially considering the small population of where Jesus lived at the time. By the 2nd century AD, ancient Christian writers are speaking that virtually no one in the entire town that they live in is a non-Christian. So, not only is your circular reasoning an atrocious failure, when applied correctly, it actually proves Jesus was in fact the Messiah and fulfilled Isaiah 53, hilariously enough.

        • adam

          “By the 2nd century AD, ancient Christian writers are speaking that virtually no one in the entire town that they live in is a non-Christian. ”

          And sadly the ONLY way for them to maintain such throughout history is VIOLENCE in the NAME of JESUS.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd298430ec0142a27d3b4df489113b880b74231c62c045d6d9b1effe70165e2d.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          “And sadly the ONLY way for them to maintain such throughout history is VIOLENCE in the NAME of JESUS.”

          Historical illiteracy is not something that I should need to address when talking to anyone — naturally, it is obvious to even the least competent in the study of history that Christians were a highly, HIGHLY persecuted group, even literally after they became the majority of Rome. Christians were being fed to lions by the Jews by the 5th century AD, even though Christianity became legalized by Constantine in about 310-320 AD. Did I mention that Christianity only became legalized by Constantine in 310-320 AD? Before that, Christianity was an illegal religion that would be punished with execution if caught.

          Of course, the idea of Christians expanding or becoming a majority by any means of violence is simply a historical fiction, it is a fiction that the eye of the Atheist grasps on to in order to help deny their state of mental reality. The Inquisition is another favorite of the Atheist, the claim that Christians killed hundreds of thousands, millions in their European-wide witch hunts to preserve Christianity as the official religion. Of course, the Spanish Inquisition is a very well documented event, and any historian would be challenged to put the death count beyond the thousands, let alone millions.

        • Did I mention that Christianity only became legalized by Constantine in 310-320 AD? Before that, Christianity was an illegal religion that would be punished with execution if caught.

          Don’t worry about it–once the Christians were in power, they persecuted the out-of-favor religions in the same way. So it all worked out fine. I’m sure God smiled.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Don’t worry about it–once the Christians were in power, they persecuted the out-of-favor religions in the same way. So it all worked out fine. I’m sure God smiled.”

          Bob, historical illiteracy is not an excuse to make me waste my time reading your comments. Find me an actual historical document that reveals this Christian persecution of pagans/Jews once they get into power. Once you do your google search and come to the sense of reality, perhaps try to rethink such a nonsensical statement.

        • adam

          Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were persecuted during that time. After Constantine I stopped the persecution of Christians, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme
          case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late 4th century A.D. also the ancient pagan religions were actively suppressed.

          After the decline of the Roman Empire, the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful,[4] although Jews and Muslims were harshly persecuted, to an extent of forced conversions in Byzantine empire. Encounters between Christians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christian kings (Charlemagne, Olaf I of Norway)
          were known for their violence against pagans. The persecution of Christian heretics resumed in 1022, when fourteen people were burned at Orléans.[2] Around this time Bogomilism and Catharism appeared in Europe; these sects were seen as heretic by the Catholic Church, and the Inquisition was initially established to counter them. Heavily persecuted, these
          heresies were eradicated by the 14th century. The suppression of the Cathar (or “Albigensian”) faith took the form of the Albigensian Crusade
          (1209–1229), a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church. Its violence was extreme even by medieval standards. Notable individuals who were executed for heresy in the late Middle Ages
          are Jerome of Prague, John Badby and Jan Hus. Only the Waldensians, another heretical Christian sect, managed to survive in remote areas in Northern Italy.

          Also during the late Middle Ages, the Crusades
          pitched Christians and Muslims against each other in a war about the possession of Jerusalem, with atrocities from both sides. There were massacres of Muslims and Jews when Jerusalem was taken by Crusaders in
          1099. There were also the Northern Crusades,
          against the remaining pagans in Northern Europe. As a result, the pagan religions in Europe disappeared almost completely. After Grand Duchy of Moscow and later the Tsardom had conquered the Kazan Khanate and Astrakhan Khanate in the 1550s, the government forcibly baptized Muslim Volga Tatars and pagan Chuvash, Mordva and Mari. Mosques were prohibited. This persecution ended only under the reign of Catherine II of Russia in the late eighteenth century.

          The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition also went on to persecute Jews and Muslims. In Spain after the Reconquista, Jews were forced to either convert or be exiled. Many were killed. The persecution of Jews goes back to 12th-century Visigothic Spain after the
          emergence of the blood libel against Jews. Although the Spanish had agreed to allow Muslims the freedom of
          religion in 1492, this was often ignored. In 1501, Muslims were offered the choice of conversion or exile. In 1556, Arab or Muslim dress was forbidden, and in 1566 Arabic language as a whole was prohibited in
          Spain.[5] Jews were eventually expelled from England by King Edward I, too.

          When Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, Catholicism reacted the same way as it had to the heresies of the late Middle Ages. However, while the Protestant Reformation could be “crushed” in Spain with “a few dozen executions in the 1550s”,[6] the same strategy failed in Germany, Northern Europe and in England. France had to suffer through the French Wars of Religion before it again became wholly Catholic. The divide between Catholicism and the new Protestant denominations was deep. Protestants commonly alleged that the catholic Pope was the Antichrist. Conflicts between Christian factions reached their heights in France with the 1572 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, in Germany and Central Europe with the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and in England with the English Civil War (1641–1651). Following the devastations caused by these wars, the ideas of religious toleration, freedom of religion and religious pluralism slowly gained ground in Europe. The Witch trials in Early Modern Europe, which had reached their height between 1550 and 1650, continued until 1750.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL. After quickly realizing your entire comment is copied and pasted from a single source, I decided to scroll down to see your source. I then found out you sourced the most reliable website in the world, Wikipedia! LOL. What’s even better, on the very top of the Wikipedia page you sourced, it posts a warning from Wikipedia itself that the article has multiple issues, including bias. Finally, the Wikipedia article specifically notes that “the further Christianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful”, completely crushing your narrative.

          In other words, your argument collapses in on itself. Indeed, it quite literally proves that Christianity has been virtually unanimously peaceful. The murderous actions of very few Christians, out of the billions of Christians to have lived, provides no rebuttal to the fact that Christianity is in its entirety peaceful, and its rise was peaceful.

        • Greg G.

          Bob said, “Don’t worry about it–once the Christians were in power, they persecuted the out-of-favor religions in the same way.” You tried to change it to persecution of “pagans/Jews”. Adam provided a quote with the link that supports Bob’s statement.

          The murderous actions of very few Christians, out of the billions of Christians to have lived, provides no rebuttal to the fact that Christianity is in its entirety peaceful, and its rise was peaceful.

          The phrases “murderous actions of very few Christians” and “entirety peaceful” are contradictory. But it’s not just “very few Christians.” Christians and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries, even in the late 20th century in Europe.

        • Michael Neville

          You need to learn some history. The 30 Years War (1618-1648) was fought between Catholics and Protestants. Approximately one-third of the population of Central Europe died during that war. Just to give one example of how horrific the war was, in 1631, after a six month siege, the mainly Protestant city of Magdeburg was sacked by the Catholic forces under Count Tilly and Papenheim. Of the 30,000 inhabitants, only 5,000 survived.

          Peaceful Christians my ass!

        • Pofarmer

          The schtoopid is strong with this one.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Although the Thirty Years War technically started out as a Catholic VS Protestant mess, it quickly evolved into a general conflict between the powers of Europe. Even the Islamic Ottoman Empire partook as early as 1620, only two years into the conflict. This is similar to WW1, it started out as a problem between Serbia and the Austria-Hungary Empire, but quickly evolved into a general European-wide conflict that caused 15,000,000-20,000,000 deaths. The death toll of the Thirty Years War seems much more attributable to the fact that Europe had been at war with itself for thousands of years than to Christianity.

          And as I’ve had to explain to many other trolls who think they can get away with this kind of dogma, citing a few conflicts throughout the thousands of years of Christian power as evidence for Christians being non-peaceful is ridiculous, it’s completely disingenuous as well.

        • Michael Neville

          You try to excuse a religious war by pretending it wasn’t a religious war. How do you explain the Sack of Magdeburg where a Catholic army killed most of the inhabitants of a Protestant town? Or is that just one of those things that Christians do to each other.

          I suppose the troubles in Northern Ireland were peaceful enough for you to ignore. Ian Paisley was just kidding when he called the Pope the anti-Christ.

          If you would just admit that Christians are no more or less peaceful than any other group of people then I’d have some respect for you. Not a lot, because you’re a pretentious asshole, but a little respect. But you’ve got too much tribal pride to admit reality so you’re working on negative respect now.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You try to excuse a religious war–” – No, what I just told you is an utter fact. It started out as a religious war, but quickly evolved into a European wide conflict, that even involved the Ottomans, which were *Muslims*. It’s similar to WW1, it started out as a conflict between the Austria-Hungarian Empire and Serbia, and quickly evolved into a European wide conflict.

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not an “utter” fact (whatever that is). Sure there were other things involved in the 30 Years War, but little things like cuius regio, eius religio (“Whose realm, his religion”, meaning that the religion of the ruler was to dictate the religion of those ruled) and the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II’s Edict of Restitution, which forcibly converted Protestants to Catholics in all lands controlled or conquered by the Catholic League, shows that religion was not a minor part of the war.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “It’s not an “utter” fact (whatever that is).”

          An “utter” fact is a fact that is utterly true no matter your feelings.

          As for the rest of your posts, I have already stated that religion was the PRIME OFFSET of the Thirty Years War, HOWEVER, I also noted that very shortly after the conflict started, it quickly evolved into a European-wide conflict that became just like any other war: Allies, territory, money, etc. For the tenth time now, I’ve told you that just two years after the war begun of the full thirty years, the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic empire, was absorbed into the conflict. Since when did the Muslims want to convert to Protestants to Catholicism? LOL.

          And again, when you make these non-points, you must systemically choose the wars you quote. Less than 15% of all wars in history have to do with religion, and the wars and deaths waged by the non-religious (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc) have overall death tolls far exceeding the religious conflicts.

        • Michael Neville

          An “utter” fact is a fact that is utterly true no matter your feelings.

          In your case an “utter” fact is some shit you pulled out of your ass. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. In this case you’re wrong about the 30 Years War not being a religious war. Because you refuse to admit that Christianity is responsible for killing and torturing millions of people, you pretend that religious wars weren’t religious wars.

          Also, you incredibly stupid and ignorant fuckhead, the Ottomans had zip point shit to do with the 30 Years War. That war ended in 1648. The Ottoman invasion of the Holy Roman Empire (or Austro-Hungarian Empire if you prefer) began in 1681, 33 years after the Treaty of Westphalia ending the 30 Years War was signed. Before 1681 the Ottomans were busy conquering the Persians but then you’ve never heard of the Ottoman-Safavid War (1623-1639).

        • Korus Destroyus

          “In your case an “utter” fact is some shit you pulled out of your ass.”

          Did your mother teach you that language? LOL

          “Just because you say something doesn’t make it true.”

          Quote me where I said otherwise. Go ahead buddy boy.

          “In this case you’re wrong about the 30 Years War not being a religious war. ”

          I have already corrected you on that issue, I was right from the get-go. It started out as religious and almost instantly evolved into another one of those general European-wide conflicts that even involved an Islamic major power. Your mother also taught you this language:

          “Also, you incredibly stupid and ignorant fuckhead, the Ottomans had zip point shit to do with the 30 Years War.”

          You then conflate the action that the Ottoman Empire had in the Thirty Years War with its invasion of the Romans that took place later, completely failing your history class and showing you do not understand that the Ottoman Empire, in the war, did take part, and did in fact battle and fight, and was a supporter of the Anti-Habsburg States during the conflict (which were Sweden, France, England, Bohemia, etc). Your ignorance is inconceivable.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m a retired Navy Chief. If you don’t like the language I use that’s your problem, not mine, shit for brains.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I’m a retired Navy Chief”

          Ah, a sailor. Should’ve known. Stereotypes don’t lie LOL.

        • Michael Neville

          The Romans and other Italians, primarily the Venetians rather than the Romans, did fight a few skirmishes with the Ottomans. However the 30 Years War took place north of the Alps, primarily in Germany, Bohemia and Poland. The Ottomans never made it to any of those places .

        • Korus Destroyus

          “The Romans and other Italians, primarily the Venetians rather than the Romans, did fight a few skirmishes with the Ottomans. However the 30 Years War took place north of the Alps, primarily in Germany, Bohemia and Poland. The Ottomans never made it to any of those places .”

          That’s it, you’re entirely crazy. Please do a google search or read an extensive resource documenting the Thirty Years War, you’re just wasting my time at this point.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re wrong when you pretend the Ottomans ever came north of the Alps before 1681. If I’m wrong give me a link (wikipedia will do) to show you’re not talking out of your ass as you usually do.

        • It’s not an “utter” fact (whatever that is).

          You know–under cows.

        • Greg G.

          Those are udder facts. Utter facts are what you find behind bulls.

        • Pofarmer

          You gotta be fucking kidding me. Ever heard of the Aibegensian Crusade?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

          Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide, referred to the Albigensian Crusade as “one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history”

          As many as a million people died.

          Peaceful my ass.

          And for another several hundred years if you disagreed they would Excommunicate you, shun you, shut you off from family. Really Peaceful. And the shunning still goes on in some sects today, and within families.

          Fuck You Asshole.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Fuck You Asshole”

          It’s evident you’re not talking a neutral view at the evidence, rather your emotions have sharpened your perspective. For example, “a million people died” — you seem to enjoy taking the highest possible estimate for the deaths.

          But aside from that, the Albigensian Crusade was waged by Christians against Christians (a sect VS sect battle), no non-Christians were involved, as the pagans had already become Christians by the beginning of the 12th century in their entirety.

          Anyways, in 2,000 years of history, you seem to have been able to only find a single good, solid piece of considerable deaths waged in the name of Christianity (upwards to 1 mil). That negate Christians from being the most peaceful people of all history — in its 14 centuries, the religion of peace (Islam) killed about 500,000,000 people. Compare that to the less than <5,000,000 in the name of Christianity throughout it's 20 centuries. Context is key, Christians are peaceful.

        • adam

          So you have absolutely NOTHING, except your vaccuous claim.

        • Korus Destroyus

          No response, simply an attempted excuse for your bad sourcing.

        • adam

          But you’ve demonstrated no such bad sourcing.

        • adam’s link was helpful in answering your question. What came to mind for me was one genocide mentioned in that list, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in Languedoc France in the early 1200s.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL. By 1200 AD, paganism had entered non-existence in Europe, and all the pagans had converted to Christianity. Thus, to even conceive that Christians were using force to propagate Christianity and eliminate the non-Christians during an event of 1200 AD is laughable.

          The Cathars were a Christian group, albeit a heretical Christian group. This is just one group of Christians trying to destroy another supposedly heretical form. Thus, violence never was used to spread Christianity. Do more research next time you waste my time.

        • Two Americas

          Find me an actual historical document that reveals this Christian persecution of pagans/Jews once they get into power.

          Do you mean documentation for some of the following events?

          11-12th Century: Massacres on Jews in the Rhineland and by the Crusaders.

          1215: Jews in Europe are forced to dress in a certain way or carry the Jewish mark.

          1290: Jews are expelled from England.

          14th Century: Jews expelled from France.

          1492: The Jews expelled from Spain, unless they are willing to be baptized. Many of them find refuge in the Ottoman Empire.

          1648: Jews massacred in Poland and the Ukraine.

          1881: Pogroms in Russia following the murder of the Tsar.

          1919: Pogroms in Eastern Europe; 60,000 Jews are killed in the Ukraine.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “11-12th Century: Massacres on Jews in the Rhineland and by the Crusaders.”

          Crusades? You seem to know little about the historical background of the Crusades — but aside from that, you’ve managed to get some 8 valid cases throughout 20 centuries of Christianity, compared with the several thousand of every other powerful civilization that has ever existed in human history.

        • Two Americas

          You questioned whether there had ever been Christian persecution of Jews, as unbelievable as that may be.

          Amazing. Utterly amazing.

          …8 valid cases throughout 20 centuries of Christianity, compared with the several thousand of every other powerful civilization that has ever existed in human history.

          8 cases? Have you lost your mind? Christian Europe has been on a global rampage for 500 years, with millions of deaths as a result. There have been centuries of persecution of the Jewish and Romani people. It is more like 8 cases a week for hundreds of years.

          How anyone could deny this and expect to be taken seriously boggles the mind.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Christian Europe has been on a global rampage for 500 years, with millions of deaths as a result”

          Global rampage for 500 years? Colonialism started about 1800 AD and had ended by the First World War, and therefore nothing more than a little over 100 years at best. Secondly, simply because a Christian killed someone, does not mean it was in the name of Christianity. Likewise, when atheistic Pol Pot killed millions of people, he did not do it because he was an atheist. Common sense dictates this fact.

          Therefore, the 1 century of colonialism was not a *Christian* endeavor, it was a *militaristic* endeavor, and it was part of an endeavor that can be traced to at least 2300 BC when the first empires emerged by waging wars to gain land.

          Let me recap for a second:

          -you showed an overwhelming, literally enormous ignorance of ancient history by viewing the ‘global rampage’ as 500 years
          -you continued by associating this 100 year rampage with Christianity, although it had nothing to do with Christianity
          -you ended up with “8 cases a week”, a figure so ridiculous so that your credibility has plummeted into oblivion non-existence

        • tstev

          There we go.. you are a Christian apologist. As a believer you are unable to debate facts and history that contradicts your belief. Christianity claims to be innocent in its crimes against humanity and declaring others guilty. That is called propaganda

        • Two Americas

          Colonialism started about 1800 AD and had ended by the First World War…

          LOL.

          Good bye. Blocked.

        • Michael Neville

          Colonialism started about 1800 AD

          You really are ignorant about history. Every hear the little couplet: “In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety Two Columbus sailed the ocean blue”? Do you know what it means?

          State global colonialism began in the 15th century with the “Age of Discovery”, led by Portuguese and Spanish exploration of the Americas, the coasts of Africa, the Middle East, India and East Asia. The Spanish and Portuguese empires were the first global empires because they were the first to stretch across different continents, covering vast territories around the globe. The phrase “the empire on which the sun never sets” was first used for the Spanish Empire in the 16th century. During the late 16th and 17th centuries, England, France and the Dutch Republic also established their own overseas empires in direct competition with each other. The end of the 18th and early 19th century saw the first era of decolonization, when most of the European colonies in the Americas gained their independence. Spain was irreversibly weakened after the loss of their New World colonies, but Great Britain, France, Portugal, and the Dutch turned their attention to the Old World, particularly Africa, India and South East Asia, where coastal enclaves had already been established. The second industrial revolution, in the 19th century, led to what has been termed the era of New Imperialism, when the pace of colonization rapidly accelerated, the height of which was the Scramble for Africa, in which Belgium, Germany and Italy were participants. Even the US got into the act, taking over Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and various small islands in the Pacific

          During the 20th century, the colonies of the losers of World War I were distributed amongst the victors as mandates, but it was not until the end of World War II that the second phase of decolonization began in earnest. In 1999 Portugal gave up the last of Europe’s colonies in Asia, Macau, to China, ending an era that had lasted six hundred years.

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL. Copying and pasting Wikipedia is the someone wants to do for their credibility, such a garbage source is always to be distrusted.

          As for the ‘expansion’ of European powers, I was incorrect when I stated that colonialism began in the 1800’s BC onwards, but I am still for a fact correct on my points, which is;

          1) The death toll of colonialism only ballooned with the movement of the 1800’s onwards
          2) European colonialism is NOT Christian colonialism, empires have been trying to grab as much land as possible since 2300 BC with Sargon of Akkad, the Europeans were not doing anything Christian, they were doing what their predecessors have been doing for thousands of years (just better)

          Point 2 is especially important, which completely crushes all of this conversation.

        • Yeah, good call. Wikipedia is total garbage. Never gets a frikkin’ thing right.

          https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

        • Korus Destroyus

          From your link:

          “That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.”

          On average, a Wikipedia article has about four errors, and that’s just a standard article where information is not relatively hard to access. The results did not show Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica, that’s just hype from the title, the actual study revealed there’s a notable disparity to consider between the articles. Also from your article:

          “”The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors” than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica.”

          Thanks for playing.

        • I get it. You’ve provided strong support for your initial claim: “such a garbage source [Wikipedia] is always to be distrusted.”

          /sarcasm

          Thanks for playing.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Wikipedia remains useless as a source, correct. As an actual question bobby boy, do you actually get your information from Wikipedia? LOL.

        • Michael Neville

          You don’t like wikipedia because it shows your historical ignorance, Mr. “colonization started in 1800”.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You don’t like wikipedia because it shows your historical ignorance, Mr. “colonization started in 1800″”

          Wikipedia’s veracity fails not because of one error I made, rather because it’s un-credible and the information on there is decided upon by a bureaucratic system of presupposition-infested laymen.

        • Michael Neville

          One of many errors, Mr. “Ottomans were involved in the 30 Years War” ignoranus*”.

          *Ignoranus, an ignorant asshole.

        • Nice! When you make a statement, there’s no walking it back for you. Do you even apologize for typos, or do you double down on them, too? LOL

          I do indeed get some information from Wikipedia. You should give it a try sometime, LOL. They’ve got these things called “references,” and you can check the primary sources and follow up with them when the claim is particularly important to get right. LOL

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Do you even apologize for typos, or do you double down on them, too? LOL”

          Why on planet Earth would I apologize for a typo?

          “I do indeed get some information from Wikipedia.”

          “You should give it a try sometime, LOL”

          I’m a former Wikipedia editor with hundreds of edits. Wikipedia editing is a flame-ridden bureaucracy where half of the editors cannot conceivably get past their assumptions and presuppositions. For example, look up the Wiki article on the exodus and try not to puke, LOL.

        • Why on planet Earth would I apologize for a typo?

          I’d explain it, but I don’t have crayons on me.

          I’m a former Wikipedia editor with hundreds of edits.

          And I’m still stuck on: “such a garbage source [Wikipedia] is always to be distrusted.” You’ve given me no reason to accept your claim.

          LOL

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I’d explain it, but I don’t have crayons on me.”

          ?????????????????????????

          “And I’m still stuck on: “such a garbage source [Wikipedia] is always to be distrusted.” You’ve given me no reason to accept your claim.”

          Wikipedia is written by random people on the internet with little fact-checking and rather very, very general sourcing. The accuracy of a Wikipedia article is almost always dependent on the reliability of the first media source a Wiki editor gets his hands on. The research is bad, the sourcing is bad.

        • I see the problem.

          Dang! If we only there were studies done of the quality of Wikipedia articles vs., say, Encyclopedia Britannica.

          Ah, well. I guess it’s just speculation.

        • Michael Neville

          Instead of making vague attacks on wikipedia, you need to show how the article is wrong.

          As for the ‘expansion’ of European powers, I was incorrect when I stated that colonialism began in the 1800’s BC

          That’s correct. You were completely and totally wrong when you pulled at 1800 date out of your ass. This is not the first time your ignorance has been exposed but it is the first time you’ve admitted that you’re wrong.

          European colonialism is NOT Christian colonialism

          The Spanish forced conversion of natives would argue that you’re talking out of your ass again.

          Pope Concedes Unjustifiable Crimes in Converting South Americans

          In an interview with Folha de São Paulo, Brazil’s largest newspaper, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, a prominent historian, was even more critical. “The process of colonization was one of destruction of Amerindian culture,” he said. “The missionaries were at the service of a religion that had incorporated the authoritarian and despotic elements of European monarchy.”

          So what shit are you going to pull out of your ass next time?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “The Spanish forced conversion of natives” — How many, two thousand? Ten thousand? Secondly, who ordered these conversions? The government or local power wielders in the Americas?

          Conviction: Colonialism was not a Christian endeavor. That’s a fact. It’s almost too predictable that some power wielders, here and there throughout the Americas, tried to force local Natives to convert to their religion. To generalize the effort from a few militants here and there throughout the Americas as Christian worldwide colonialism is simply dishonest on your own part.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s the upper limit where forced conversions don’t count?

          Pope Sixtus IV authorized forced conversions in his 1481 bull Aeterni regis. This bull was originally used to convert Sub-Saharan Africans to Christianity but didn’t limit who could be converted.

        • Pofarmer

          According to Candida Moss, Early Christian persecution was highly overstated, probably to cover up for what they, themselves, were doing.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “According to Candida Moss” — Who now?

          “Early Christian persecution was highly overstated, probably to cover up for what they, themselves, were doing.” — What a bunch of garbage. I searched up Candida Moss, and she seems to be a credible person, however it might be apparent that you and her have little clue what you speak of. I searched up the academic reviews of Moss’s book, and the academics are in pretty general agreement that not only is Moss blatantly, ridiculously wrong, but she also probably wrote the book to make a “quick buck”. You can find links to a number of these academic reviews here:
          https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/10/academic-review-of-moss-myth-of-persecution

          Nonetheless, the persecution of Christians is well-documented in the centuries of Rome. Christians were burned, beheaded, etc. Christianity was always punishable by death until the Edict of Milan.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, firstthings is a religious site. I wouldn’t expect many glowing reviews.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “firstthings is a religious site” — Not at all relevant, considering all the reviews are exactly the same. Candida Moss is just a loon looking for money by misrepresenting ancient history.

        • Pofarmer

          http://theconversation.com/mythbusting-ancient-rome-throwing-christians-to-the-lions-67365

          Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

        • Korus Destroyus

          The title seems to have misled you. After reading the full article, it clearly states that Christians were fed to lions. Did you read your source or just the title before debunking yourself?

        • adam

          Of course, the idea of Christians expanding or becoming a majority by any means of violence is simply a historical fact

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e8fce4d816e5d10382af6b91ad6a5c67c6a72361d93aea591259bbca2be5df4.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          12 million? Citation needed, aside from a meme. Basic understanding of history reveals that European diseases wiped out the Natives, not Christians with guns.

        • adam

          You must mean Small Pox

          From the earliest years of colonialism, conquistadores like Vasco Núñez de Balboa would brazenly advocate genocide against the native population.[50] In the 1700s, British militia like William Trent and Simeon Ecuyer gave Smallpox-exposed blankets to Native American emissaries as gifts at Fort Pitt, “to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians”, in one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare. While it is uncertain how successful such attempts were against the target population,[51]
          historians have noted that, “history records numerous instances of the
          French, the Spanish, the English, and later on the American, using
          smallpox as an ignoble means to an end. For smallpox was more feared by
          the Indian than the bullet: he could be exterminated and subjugated more
          easily and quickly by the death-bringing virus than by the weapons of
          the white man.”[52] The British High Commander Jeffery Amherst authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the Pontiac’s Rebellion,
          saying, “You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of
          Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to
          Extirpate this Execreble Race”, and instructing his subordinates, “I
          need only Add, I Wish to Hear of no prisoners should any of the villains
          be met with arms.”[53][54] When smallpox swept the northern plains of the US in 1837, Secretary of War Lewis Cass ordered that the Mandan (along with the Arikara, the Cree, and the Blackfeet) not be given smallpox vaccinations, which had been provided to other tribes in other areas.[55][56][57]

          Historian David Stannard
          writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American
          aboriginals population down to just one-third of one percent of the
          total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in
          world history, and “there was, at last, almost no one left to kill.”[48]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

        • Korus Destroyus

          More Wikipedia articles, still no credibility. The diseases did not spread because of the intentional efforts of the Europeans, it was simply transferred through interactions on its own. See this study for example: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/2/09-0276_article

        • Greg G.

          That study is about the diseases introduced to the natives by Plymouth Colony in New England. It does nothing to refute that smallpox was deliberately distributed to the natives long after the early 17th century.

          Instead of giving ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia, consider the sources given in the footnotes. It’s certainly better than citing articles that irrelevant to the discussion.

        • adam

          So your ‘study’ is only for 4 years and doesnt cover the small pox used as a bio weapon.

          So your credibility stands at ZERO

          Not even a good diversion

        • Pofarmer

          I don’t know what Korus here imagines he is destroying, other than any credibility he might have been imagined to have had.

        • adam

          Just another typically uninformed dishonest liar for Jesus.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I missed this first time around and only got to it through a link on a recent comment of Bob’s. Fuck that KD is one dumb arshole. I coulda saved so much time had I not been ignorant of this comments section. Ah, well…his asinine arse got blocked in the end.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “So your ‘study’ is only for 4 years and doesnt cover the small pox used as a bio weapon.
          So your credibility stands at ZERO
          Not even a good diversion”

          What the hell are you talking about? Indeed, you seem to have little clue regarding what your saying, “only for 4 years” is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever seen, and then you go on to claim that a published peer-reviewed paper has zero credibility — a rather funny attempt at dismissing hard data that doesn’t conform to your presuppositions. Indeed, if it had conformed to your presuppositions, you would be touting it as the next Nobel discovery!

        • adam

          “What the hell are you talking about?”

          Your unbelievably limited source that only covers 4 years of history.

          Do you even read what you CLAIM as sources?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24003acbe259fbd4611386b7a0761bc045ddcbd367319e26bdeed765705d3e8f.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Your unbelievably limited source that only covers 4 years of history.”

          LOL. There’s nothing limited about focusing on four years, but this seems to change nothing about you being in error.

        • adam

          But I’m not in error.

          “There’s nothing limited about focusing on four years,”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7123c548a1342e2d1779d51809c0ce85d82e0551dcde5fa0f6496d68284963dd.jpg

        • Both wiped out Natives. Diseases did most of it sure. But guns played a major role as well as purposely diseased blankets handed to them by Americans. Also lets not forget that while many Natives died from disease American and British settlers thanked God in prayer for “killing the heathens with a divine plague”.

          This isn’t to say Christianity is racist. But westernization was certainly a racist endevour.

        • Pofarmer

          Christians were being fed to lions by the Jews by the 5th century AD,

          Where the hell does that ignorant claim come from?

        • Greg G.

          Christians were being fed to lions by the Jews by the 5th century AD

          Luxury. When we were young, we were fed by the lions to the dinosaurs.

        • Korus Destroyus

          My mistake, 4th century, not 5th. Your response seems to be immature, nonetheless

        • Greg G.

          Guess again.

        • Pofarmer

          So, which Jews were feeding Christians to the Lions?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “So, which Jews–” LOL? Is that supposed to be a dumb question? When a crowd of Jews throw a Christian into a pit of lions, we know that a crowd of Jews has thrown a Christian into a pit of lions. The execution of Christians is well documented throughout the 1st-4th centuries AD, and they underwent many executions, including crucifixion, being fed to lions, beheadings, etc. This is all very-well documented. There are no recorded names of the random street gangs that threw the Christians into lion pits, unsurprisingly.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually my interpretation doesn’t prove shit about Jesus. The Jews interpret Isiah 53 as about Israel. So you’ve got to show how their interpretation of their holy book is wrong and your nonsense is right. I’ll wait for your reply in another three months.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “The Jews interpret Isiah (sic) 53 about Israel. So you’ve got to show how their interpretation of their holy book is wrong and your nonsense is right. I’ll wait for your reply in another three months.”

          NOTE: Regarding the rate of my replies, I hardly ever go on disqus. I might go on here more frequently now though to reply to the things you and your people put up.

          As for the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, literally all the ancient rabbis interpreted Isaiah 53 as Messianic prophecy, both before and after the time of Jesus. Seriously, all of them. The view of Isaiah 53 as somehow being a notion of Israel is an ideology that was made up very recently, and obviously has no bearing on reality. For example, see:

          Isaiah 53:9: They made His grave with the wicked and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully.

          It clearly says that He had DONE NO VIOLENCE. Israel’s history is so full of obvious that it’s chalkboard-obvious that Israel has nothing to do with Isaiah 53. I can note ten thousand other obvious reasons why Isaiah 53 is not talking about Israel, rather obviously Jesus. For example, Isaiah 53:12 says the guy “submitted Himself to death” — obviously, Israel and the Jewish peoples never died, and thus this is not talking about Israel. Isaiah 53:12 literally goes on to say that He took on the sins of the people. Honestly, how much more obvious could this get?

          Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMEkGoojbg&t=32s
          It’s a Jewish convert to Christianity. He basically says that if you read Isaiah 53 by itself, outside of the rest of the Old Testament, you’d think you were reading the Christian Bible.

          CONCLUSION: Jesus is the Lord who fulfilled Isaiah 53. It’s so obvious when you read Isaiah 53 that I don’t know why we are debating this. Honestly, knowing that Jesus is Lord should be one of the more obvious facts of life, it’s not something that requires hard mental thought to figure out. You should just convert and get on with your life, the Lord will not wait forever.

        • Jesus is the Lord who fulfilled Isaiah 53. It’s so obvious when you read Isaiah 53 that I don’t know why we are debating this.

          What’s startling is that this is put forward as one of the top Old Testament prophecies. As a distillation of the Jesus story, it sucks. I have higher standards for your god.

          You should just convert and get on with your life, the Lord will not wait forever.

          Uh, “the Lord” is just pretend. Realize this and get on with your life.

        • Greg G.

          Every verse of Isaiah 53 is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. I agree that the early Christians interpreted Isaiah as being about Jesus but it seems they were interpreting as a mystery in history, not prophecy.

          The next generation of Christians reinvented Jesus as a first century person. The idea of prophecy is for superstitious schmucks.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Every verse of Isaiah 53 is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament.”

          Blatantly false. The verses from Isaiah 53 quoted/alluded to in the New Testament are verses 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 12. I just checked it out. There is no noting of verses 2, 6, 8, 10-11. Secondly, the narrative of Isaiah 53 actually starts at Isaiah 52:12 (or 52:13?), and only one of the verses from Isaiah 52:12-15 are quoted/alluded to in the New Testament.

          “The next generation of Christians reinvented Jesus as a first century person.” — Making up history is NOT an argument. You are unable to handle that Jesus is Lord and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53 miraculously. The scholars have also looked at Isaiah 53, and found no evidence that it influenced the life or ministry of Jesus at all, or the perception of the life and ministry of Jesus in the Gospel narratives. Thus, there is no evidence for what you purport; a story intentionally created to fulfill prophecy. Jesus fulfilled it because Jesus is Lord.

          Read this, pretty knowledgeable stuff: https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/isaiah-53-confirms-christianity/

          Why aren’t you a Christian convert yet?

        • I’ve always found Is. 53:12 to be the least Jesus-like of several not-very-Jesus-like verses in that chapter:

          Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
          and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
          because he poured out his life unto death,
          and was numbered with the transgressors.
          For he bore the sin of many,
          and made intercession for the transgressors.

        • Greg G.

          Blatantly false. The verses from Isaiah 53 quoted/alluded to in the New Testament are verses 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 12. I just checked it out. There is no noting of verses 2, 6, 8, 10-11. Secondly, the narrative of Isaiah 53 actually starts at Isaiah 52:12 (or 52:13?), and only one of the verses from Isaiah 52:12-15 are quoted/alluded to in the New Testament.

          Yes, the song of Isaiah 53 begins at Isaiah 52:13. The only verse that is not quoted or alluded to as far as I know is Isaiah 52:14. Romans 4:25 probably alludes to Isaiah 53:11 only but a part of it could be Isaiah 53:6. Here are the ones you say are not quoted or alluded to:

          Isaiah 52:13
          13 See, my servant shall prosper;
              he shall be exalted and lifted up,
              and shall be very high.

          Philippians 2:9
          9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
              and gave him the name
              that is above every name,

          Isaiah 52:15
          15 so he shall startle many nations;
              kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
          for that which had not been told them they shall see,
              and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.

          Romans 15:21
          21 but as it is written,
              “Those who have never been told of him shall see,
              and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”

          Ephesians 3:4-5
          4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

          Isaiah 53:2
          2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
              and like a root out of dry ground;
          he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
              nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          Philippians 2:7
          but emptied himself,
              taking the form of a slave,
              being born in human likeness.
          And being found in human form,

          Isaiah 53:6
          6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
              we have all turned to our own way,
          and the Lord has laid on him
              the iniquity of us all.

          Romans 4:25
          25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

          1 Peter 2:24-25
          24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

          Isaiah 53:8
          8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
              Who could have imagined his future?
          For he was cut off from the land of the living,
              stricken for the transgression of my people.

          Mark 14:49
          49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.”

          Acts 8:32-33
          32 Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this:

          “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
              and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
                 so he does not open his mouth.
          33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
              Who can describe his generation?
                 For his life is taken away from the earth.”

          Isaiah 53:10
          10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
          When you make his life an offering for sin,
              he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
          through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

          John 3:17
          17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

          Acts 2:23
          23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.

          Isaiah 53:11
          11    Out of his anguish he shall see light;
          he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
              The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
              and he shall bear their iniquities.

          John 1:29
          29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

          John 10:14-18
          14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”

          Acts 7:52
          52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers.

          Acts 10:43
          43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

          Romans 4:25
          25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

          “The next generation of Christians reinvented Jesus as a first century person.” — Making up history is NOT an argument. You are unable to handle that Jesus is Lord and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53 miraculously. The scholars have also looked at Isaiah 53, and found no evidence that it influenced the life or ministry of Jesus at all, or the perception of the life and ministry of Jesus in the Gospel narratives. Thus, there is no evidence for what you purport; a story intentionally created to fulfill prophecy. Jesus fulfilled it because Jesus is Lord.

          Paul loved to name drop Jesus. He uses “Jesus, “Christ”, “Jesus Christ”, of “Christ Jesus” about once every five verses. I have read that he references Jesus every third verse if you count pronouns. Most of it is adulation or about Jesus in heaven.

          The list below is from the undisputed authentic Pauline epistles. It is bare bones version which were exaggerated and supplemented in the gospels.

          This is all the information Paul gives us about Jesus and where that information can be found in the Old Testament:

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12 > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10

          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7

          Made of woman > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5

          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26, Habakkuk 2:4, Leviticus 18:5

          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9

          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11

          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49, 2 Samuel 22:50, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, Isaiah 11:10

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9

          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified for sins > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:13* > Isaiah 53:12, Deuteronomy 21:23

          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9

          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5

          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8

          (* indicates that passage contains a direct quote from the Old Testament)

          Paul’s sources for the Philippians Hymn:

          5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
          1 Corinthians 11:1
          Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

          6 who, though he was in the form of God,
          Isaiah 52:14
          Just as there were many who were astonished at him
              —so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance,
              and his form beyond that of mortals—

                did not regard equality with God
          Isaiah 9:6
          For a child has been born for us,
              a son given to us;
          authority rests upon his shoulders;
              and he is named
          Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
              Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

                as something to be exploited,
          Isaiah 53:7
          He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
              yet he did not open his mouth;
          like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
              and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
              so he did not open his mouth.

          7 but emptied himself,
          Isaiah 53:12b
          because he poured out himself to death,

                taking the form of a slave,
          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

                being born in human likeness.
          Isaiah 49:5
          and now the Lord says,
              who formed me in the womb to be his servant,

            And being found in human form,
          Isaiah 53:2
          For he grew up before him like a young plant,
              and like a root out of dry ground;
          he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
              nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          he humbled himself
          Isaiah 53:3
          He was despised and rejected by others;
              a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
          and as one from whom others hide their faces
              he was despised, and we held him of no account.

                and became obedient to the point of death—
          Isaiah 53:10
          Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
          When you make his life an offering for sin,
              he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
          through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

                even death on a cross.
          Deuteronomy 21:23 (per Galatians 3:13)
          23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree;
          you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a
          tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land
          that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

          9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
          Isaiah 53:12a
          Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
              and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;

                and gave him the name
          Isaiah 54:5a
          For your Maker is your husband,
              the Lord of hosts is his name;

                that is above every name,
          Isaiah 54:5b
          the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
              the God of the whole earth he is called.

          10 so that at the name of Jesus
          Isaiah 49:22
          Thus says the Lord God:
          I will soon lift up my hand to the nations,
              and raise my signal to the peoples;
          and they shall bring your sons in their bosom,
              and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

                every knee should bend,
          Isaiah 45:23a
          By myself I have sworn,
              from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness
              a word that shall not return:
          “To me every knee shall bow,

                in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
          Isaiah 45:22
          Turn to me and be saved,
              all the ends of the earth!
              For I am God, and there is no other.

          11 and every tongue should confess
          Isaiah 45:23b
              every tongue shall swear.

                that Jesus Christ is Lord,
          Isaiah 45:24
          Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me,
              are righteousness and strength;
          all who were incensed against him
              shall come to him and be ashamed.
                  to the glory of God the Father.
          Isaiah 45:25
          In the Lord all the offspring of Israel
              shall triumph and glory.

          Why aren’t you a Christian convert yet?

          I gave it up when I realized how ridiculous religion is.

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL! You find a parallel for Isaiah 52:14, however all the New Testament verses you quote clearly, when actually read instead of copying and pasting from some random website, have NO parallels to Isaiah 52: 2, 6, 8, 11. None of the verses you quote make any parallels to these Isaiah passages, and simply reading the comparisons is extraordinarily funny. I’ll give you one example of how your parallels are non-existent, and then you can re-read your own nonsense comment on your own and understand.

          Isaiah 53:2
          2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
          and like a root out of dry ground;
          he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
          nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          Philippians 2:7
          but emptied himself,
          taking the form of a slave,
          being born in human likeness.
          And being found in human form,

          WHERE is the parallel here? Line by line;

          “For he grew up before him like a young plant” — no parallel with Phil. 2:7
          “and like a root out of dry ground” — no parallel with Phil. 2:7
          “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him” — no parallel with Phil. 2:7
          “noting in his appearance that we should desire him” — no parallel with Phil. 2:7

          As I explained earlier, these verses have no parallels in the New Testament. A basic google-search will reveal the exact phrases with Isaiah 53 that have any parallels with the New Testament. This is rather simple. Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 beyond extraordinarily and miraculously, get over it.

        • Greg G.

          Do you know what an allusion is? It is not a quote. There can be strong allusions and weak allusions.

          In the Philippians Hymn, Paul was talking about Jesus who he thought of as being in heaven. and who came to earth in human form. To do that, Jesus would have had to divest of his heavenly persona, or “empty himself”, “having no form or majesty” when he is “found in human form”. “Taking the form of a slave” could be inferred from “nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”

          Taking the Philippians Hymn as the context, we see quotes from Isaiah in it. Except for the crucifixion bit, everything else is a quote or allusion to Isaiah, mostly to the Suffering Servant passages. Paul quotes from Isaiah more than any other OT source.

          This is rather simple. Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 beyond extraordinarily and miraculously, get over it.

          You should filter out religious sites from your Google searches. The gospels are literature based on older literature, not historical documents.

        • Pofarmer

          ANY COMPREHENSIBLE READING of Isaiah 53 establishes Christianity as a true fact beyond any reasonable doubt.

          that’s just, wow.

        • MNb

          Actually Jesus was just one of the jewish messiahs. There was not exactly a shortage in that time.

          http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html#overview

        • Any Jewish interpretation must include Jesus

          Or not, since Is. 53 doesn’t mention Jesus. Y’know, maybe the not-Jesus interpretation is worth considering.

          Anyways, we’ve already seen Israel utterly fail to take our sins upon its self (let alone get pierced for them), we’ve seen Israel fail virtually every verse of the entire chapter and thus there is no merit in this interpretation.

          I’ve got an idea! Instead of acting like a petulant baby, follow up on my suggestion. Ask the Jews what they think. It’s their scripture, after all. Instead of declaring that you know much better than all of Jewish religious scholarship, humble yourself and admit that you’re just an amateur with an agenda and read something.

          This is an interpretation that is only very recent

          Or maybe the not-Jesus interpretation dates back to the original authorship of Isaiah. Which is not “very recent.”

          LO’ AND BEHOLD, Isaiah 53 is the most OBVIOUS PROPHECY EVER WRITTEN once you know nything about Jesus, LOL.

          Lo and behold, if this is the best that God can do—it doesn’t say “Jesus,” it doesn’t have a date, it doesn’t talk about the resurrection (which is the punch line of the story, after all)—I wonder at God’s sanity. Maybe he’s getting a little senile after 6000 years? LOL

          “Many times, in fact. 53:12 says, “I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong.” So who are the “great” and the “strong”? Who does the Son of Man have to share with?”

          . . .we DO KNOW Isaiah 53:12 very straightly explains that this person will BEAR OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF. ROFL. HOW MORE OBVIOUS CAN IT POSSIBLY GET??

          And there you go again, running away like a child. Addressing the issue head-on is too hard for our little rascal? You can’t face it because it makes you sad?

          ROFL

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Or not, since Is. 53 doesn’t mention Jesus. Y’know, maybe the not-Jesus interpretation is worth considering.”

          You mean doesn’t mention Him BY NAME? Imagine the following:

          There was a man born in the 20th century, he started world war two and killed millions of Jews, an authoritarian leader of Germany. WHO IS HE?

          OBVIOUSLY HITLER. No other man fits the bill. Isaiah 53 is probably twice as obvious as my quote above.

          “I’ve got an idea! Instead of acting like a petulant baby, follow up on my suggestion. Ask the Jews what they think. It’s their scripture, after all. Instead of declaring that you know much better than all of Jewish religious scholarship, humble yourself and admit that you’re just an amateur with an agenda and read something.”

          AHAH. There are hundreds of thousands of Messianic Jews. Please do logic more often. “THEIR” scripture? Also mines.

          “Or maybe the not-Jesus interpretation dates back to the original authorship of Isaiah. Which is not “very recent.””

          ALRIGHT, let’s play a game. Find me the earliest documented non-Jesus interpretation of Isaiah 53, and I’ll show you the earliest Jesus interpretation. If you win, then you win this entire debate, but if I win — I win the debate, and you convert to Christianity. Whenever you’re ready. By the way, I don’t mean random people claiming to be the Messiah, I mean an actual interpretation put forth on Isaiah 53 meaning Israel or something.

          The rest of your comment is irrelevant and dodges my points. I’ll wait to see who wins this game.

          HINT: I’m going to win, LOL.

        • Myna

          Like no men with crushed testicles may “enter the assembly of the Lord”?

          Peter Abelard fare ripped an ulcer over that one.

    • adam

      “LOL! This is obviously false, it does not claim His own people rejected Him”

      Then why are there still Jews?
      Jesus’s people were Jews.

      Could it be that Jesus really wasnt the Messiah that the Jews were expecting?
      http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

      • Korus Destroyus

        The Jews rejected Jesus, as mankind did, in accordance with Isaiah 53. That aish website, as I’ve seen before, is so laughably stupid and utterly incoherent that it is hard to take your post seriously simply by seeing that website is cited. Your link is so funny that it’s really hard to take any of it serious. Jesus is indeed the Messiah expected from the Jews and Old Testament — many Jews ended up becoming Christian.

        • adam

          yes, because Isaiah is all about Israel, not Jesus.

          Middrash.

        • Korus Destroyus

          As I’ve shown in my original comment, that’s complete hogwash. Isaiah 53 is OBVIOUSLY about Jesus and any other claims are purely ridiculous. The idea of it being about Israel is so funny it could be used to fulfill the needs of any comedy companies out there!

        • adam

          “As I’ve shown in my original comment, that’s complete hogwash.”

          Nope you showed no such thing.

          Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

          In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly
          called, in the singular, the “Servant of God” (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

          When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the
          suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

          Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

          http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

        • … and I see that you wrote what I was trying to say. Before me. And also better.

          Ah, well. Maybe next time.

          As an aside, I wonder at the overconfidence of Christians like this Destroyer. Maybe confidence is inversely proportional to the rightness of their arguments?

        • adam

          Thank you.
          Let me say, that I enjoy your writing very much and thank you for the opportunity to post here.

          “I wonder at the overconfidence of Christians like this Destroyer. Maybe
          confidence is inversely proportional to the rightness of their
          arguments?”

          Especially, when Dunning-Kruger is the source of their confidence.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Aish.com is obvious junk and all this is complete nonsense — the Jews are NOT referred to in a singular form. For example, Isaiah 53:5 says OUR transgressions, not only the Jews, but the entire world. None of this is talking about Israel or the Jews in the end of Isaiah 52 or Isaiah 53, and if you read how aish.com tries to correlate each verse of Isaiah 53 with Israel, you’ll see how utterly contrived and hilariously nonsensical their claims are. It’s a complete conspiracy theory.

        • Aish.com is obvious junk

          Well, obviously. It disagrees with you, and it makes you sad. Therefore, it’s junk.

        • Greg G.

          For example, Isaiah 53:5 says OUR transgressions, not only the Jews, but the entire world.

          Only if you assume it is about the whole world and not just about the Jews.

          Isaiah 52:12 is talking about “the God of Israel” and that excludes nations than Israel. Isaiah 52:15 says he will “startle many nations” which also excludes other nations.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Only if you assume it is about the whole world and not just about the Jews”

          There is no reason to need to assume any of this, because the initial claim that this is talking about Jews in the first place is unsubstantiated and requires presupposing its the Jews. Of course, Isaiah 53 is in its conception impossible to fit with Israel or the Jewish Israeli population because of some of its basic and common verses:

          Isaiah 53:9: They made His grave with the wicked and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully.

          The Messiah, according to Isaiah 53, is entirely without violence. This is 110% incompatible with Israel. End.

        • adam

          So much for the violence to the money changers.

        • Greg G.

          Epistle Jesus uses Isaiah 53 5 to say that Christ died for sins according to the scriptures and Isaiah 53:9 to say that he was buried in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

          Gospel Jesus embellished the story with the being buried with the rich.

          It is compatible because the authors were basing their Jesus character on the Old Testament, and Isaiah in particular.

          Epistle Jesus did no miracles. Gospel Jesus copied, even exaggerated, the miracles of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. Each retelling made the miracles more spectacular. They got carried away yet some people still fall for them.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Epistle Jesus uses Isaiah 53” — Correct. Paul quickly noted that Jesus MIRACULOUSLY fulfilled this prophecy. However, after having an accurate start that Paul remarks on the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, you instantly go crazy:

          “Gospel Jesus <<> the story with the being buried with the rich” — LOL! Citation needed for “embellishment”. This claim is nonsensical and obviously ridiculous, and if Jesus was ever buried, it’s only necessary that it is “with the rich” — burials were only usually done by rich people in the first place two thousand years ago in Israel. Joseph of Arimathea, a rich Sanhedrin guy, buried Jesus, and naturally a rich dude buries someone in a rich way. No need to debate this.

          “Epistle Jesus did no miracles” ??????????? Huh? The epistles do not note of the miracles of Jesus? Sanity definitely lost, Paul’s epistles push the resurrection narrative so hard so many times in so many places that this statement simply reflects you simply do not have a strong knowledge of the epistles.

          “Epistle Jesus did no miracles. Gospel Jesus copied, even exaggerated, the miracles of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. Each retelling made the miracles more spectacular.”

          It’s obvious that the miracles of Jesus had nothing to do with what Elijah, Elisha or Moses did (this is actually the consensus of scholars), and the idea that the miracles get “more” miraculous over time (embellishment) is obviously patently false, it’s actually extremely randomized. For example, the resurrection narrative with the most witnesses is… Paul’s. Only Paul remarks that 500 people saw Jesus at once. The empty tomb narrative that independently lists the most women is Luke’s Gospel. See? If you take a look at the details, the ‘level’ of the miracles after each Gospel is published shows no embellishment, just completely randomized as we would expect from four different historiographical perspectives of a single persons life.

          Take another example: The first Gospel (Mark) does not mention a virgin birth. The second does (Matthew), the third does, (Luke), and the fourth doesn’t (John). Consider this graph:

          Mark | Virgin Birth Narrative | Not included
          Matthew | Virgin Birth Narrative | Included
          Luke | Virgin Birth Narrative | Included
          John | Virgin Birth Narrative | Not included

          See? Completely random. No embellishment detectable. If you want to see actual embellishment, take a look at the apocrypha.

        • Only Paul remarks that 500 people saw Jesus at once

          Right–near proof that the claim is bullshit. If it were strong evidence, the gospels would’ve used it. Either they didn’t know of it (not good), or they did but knew it was a bogus claim somehow (also not good).

        • Greg G.

          What if the Feeding of the 5000 was the Feeding of the 500 in Mark’s first draft?

        • That path leads to rejection of inerrancy! From 5000 to 500, and then to the Feeding at Jesus’s Backyard Potluck.

        • Greg G.

          Mark started with Elisha’s family barbecue with a 100 cousins. He couldn’t decide between 4000 and 5000, so “what the hell, let’s use both.”

        • Greg G.

          “Gospel Jesus <<> the story with the being buried with the rich” — LOL! Citation needed for “embellishment”. This claim is nonsensical and obviously ridiculous, and if Jesus was ever buried, it’s only necessary that it is “with the rich” — burials were only usually done by rich people in the first place two thousand years ago in Israel. Joseph of Arimathea, a rich Sanhedrin guy, buried Jesus, and naturally a rich dude buries someone in a rich way. No need to debate this.

          You provide the citation yourself for embellishment. 1 Corinthians 15:4 says Jesus was buried. Mark embellished the details with Josephus of Arimathea. Paul only thought he was buried because it says so in Isaiah 53 and he thought it happened before Isaiah wrote about it.

          The Gospel of Mark is literature, not history.

          “Epistle Jesus did no miracles” ??????????? Huh? The epistles do not note of the miracles of Jesus? Sanity definitely lost, Paul’s epistles push the resurrection narrative so hard so many times in so many places that this statement simply reflects you simply do not have a strong knowledge of the epistles.

          Paul never calls that a miracle. Paul never says Jesus was resurrected on earth. Paul never claims that Jesus healed anyone, calmed storms, fed masses of people, or turned water into wine. Those are embellishments. Most lists of miracles do not include the resurrection story, Miracles of Jesus (Wikiepdia), for example.

          It’s obvious that the miracles of Jesus had nothing to do with what Elijah, Elisha or Moses did (this is actually the consensus of scholars), and the idea that the miracles get “more” miraculous over time (embellishment) is obviously patently false, it’s actually extremely randomized.

          Here is one Elisha miracle that is exaggerated twice.

          2 Kings 4:42-44
          42 A man came from Baal-shalishah, bringing food from the first fruits to the man of God: twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack. Elisha said, “Give it to the people and let them eat.” 43 But his servant said, “How can I set this before a hundred people?” So he repeated, “Give it to the people and let them eat, for thus says the Lord, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’” 44 He set it before them, they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the Lord.

          Why twice? Mark also used the Homeric epics. In The Odyssey, Odysseus’ son, Telemauchus, searches for Odysseus. He walks to visit one king and met him at a feast and he sailed to meet another king who was also having a feast. Jesus walks to one and sails to one. One of the feasts had nine groups of 500 each. Mark apparently round that number up once, and down the other time.

          For example, the resurrection narrative with the most witnesses is… Paul’s. Only Paul remarks that 500 people saw Jesus at once.

          Paul never met the risen Jesus, yet he uses the same word for his “appeared to” that he uses for the others. Where he says “according to the scriptures”, he means that the all read it in the Old Testament.

          The empty tomb narrative that independently lists the most women is Luke’s Gospel. See? If you take a look at the details, the ‘level’ of the miracles after each Gospel is published shows no embellishment, just completely randomized as we would expect from four different historiographical perspectives of a single persons life.

          In Mark, the women were afraid to tell. That’s where it ends, except in the forged editions. Mark was writing literature, not history. The other gospels authors were so desperate for anything about Jesus, that they accepted it, so there gospels are founded on a fictional account and they embellished it.

          See? Completely random. No embellishment detectable. If you want to see actual embellishment, take a look at the apocrypha.

          Are you pulling my leg? John has some of Mark’s fiction so he had to have used Mark. John 7:41-42 presents a conundrum about how Jesus of Galilee could be the Messiah when the scriptures say the Messiah would be from Bethlehem and from David. So Matthew took that as a challenge to create a nativity story and a genealogy. Luke rejected both and substituted his own. Matthew’s genealogy was a mess so it needed “repair” and the nativity that had lots of kids being killed while God saved Jesus is abhorrent. The authors, writing in Greek, used the Greek New Testament, and the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14 says “virgin”. Matthew even quotes it.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “You provide the citation yourself for embellishment. 1 Corinthians 15:4 says Jesus was buried. Mark embellished the details with Josephus of Arimathea. Paul only thought he was buried because it says so in Isaiah 53 and he thought it happened before Isaiah wrote about it.”

          LOL, the amount of mental gymnastics is fascinating. The early creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is not Paul’s words at all, it predates Paul and acts as a very short creed that early Christians memorized and would proclaim to the non-Christians. The early creed in 1 Corinthians 15 was not meant to provide a full biography of the details of Jesus. By that logic, the Gospel of Mark also embellished this creed by saying Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, even though 1 Corinthians 15 only mentions death LOL.

          As for Paul drawing the burial narrative from Isaiah 53, this is nothing more then fanciful thinking and has not a figment of evidence to back it up. The large majority of historians agree that the historical data establishes that Jesus was historically buried.

          “In Mark, the women were afraid to tell. That’s where it ends, except in the forged editions. Mark was writing literature, not history. The other gospels authors were so desperate for anything about Jesus, that they accepted it, so there gospels are founded on a fictional account and they embellished it.”

          The gospel authors were “desperate”? This is a rather problematic statement for you. By making such presumptions like this, you show that you are not unbiased when you look at the data and materials. You have initiated your studies with a presupposition, and only look for details, claims and data to support it. Apart from your lack of an ability to look at the evidence from a neutral point of view, I will yet again correct you.

          Your argument basically can be summarized as follows: “Mark ends his gospel with the women being afraid, and so the author gospel authors got desperate for seemingly no reason, and thus invented the rest” — this seems to be based on not a figment of evidence, and so all accusations of embellishment can be dismissed.

          You then get much more creative.

          “John 7:41-42 presents a conundrum about how Jesus of Galilee could be the Messiah when the scriptures say the Messiah would be from Bethlehem and from David. So Matthew took that as a challenge to create a nativity story and a genealogy. Luke rejected both and substituted his own.”

          You’re clearly pulling all these accusations out of your arse. John 7:41-42 presents a conundrum? LOL, actually reading it reveals that some Jews think Jesus was born in Galilee, not Bethlehem. And apparently, Matthew took the challenge of the Jews from John, even though Matthew predates John! These statements are a massive fest of insanity. You then go on to say Luke rejected both Matthew and John, once again forgetting that Luke predates John. There are so many errors to untangle that it’s hard to keep up with your nonsense. At this point, any potential truth in that paragraph of yours is incomprehensible, as it is stashed between a complete load of nonsense.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There is no reason to need to assume any of this, because the initial claim that this is talking about Jews in the first place is unsubstantiated and requires presupposing its the Jews.

          Scholarship has been introduced in this forum demonstrating that Isaiah in general is about the jewish people, the people of Israel. All I see from you is denial, butthurt, and blowharding.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Scholarship has been introduced in this forum”

          No scholarship seems to be at all present.

          “demonstrating that Isaiah in general is about the jewish people, the people of Israel”

          This has already been debunked and disproved by the real scholarship present here. Your side obviously has no scholarship, I almost cannot believe how arrogant some internet boy needs to be to think that his comments on Disqus qualify as actual ‘scholarship’. Anyways, I’ve already proven Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. I’ve already shown that Isaiah 53 was always interpreted as Messianic prophecy, especially before Jesus ever lived on this Earth. This was the ancient interpretation of every single ancient rabbi, before and after Jesus, until the modern era — the interpretation of Isaiah 53 having anything to do with Israel is modern propaganda that was quickly made up (not very well done, either) to counter the Isaiah 53 prophecy. Apart from the fact that the Jews from the beginning of the time of Isaiah interpreted Isaiah 53 as messianic prophecy, it has also been shown on this forum that Isaiah 53 states that this person it speaks of will have never done any violence — as in not Israel — Isaiah 53 says this person will be sinless — not Israel — Isaiah 53 says this person will take our iniquities upon Himself — not Israel, rather obviously Jesus. It is so obviously Jesus that any further discussion is almost not even warranted, it’s simply an obvious fact that is too easy to figure out. Any reading of Isaiah 53 without any presuppositions will sound as if you’re reading straight out of a Sunday sermon.

        • adam

          No, aish.com makes perfect sense,

          YOUR delusions demonstrate that YOUR view is utterly contrived and stupidly nonsensical, and DEPENDS ON MAGIC…

          “It’s a complete conspiracy theory.”

          Yes, Jesus is.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          That never gets old.

        • adam
        • Korus Destroyus

          ROFL. Quoting Bart Ehrman highly out of context is not the best thing to do. Let’s take at a more ‘in-context’ quotation of Bart Ehrman, and then quickly get into dismissing mythicism.

          “I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing.” – Bart Ehrman (OOPS)

          “None of them [specialists in the field], to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. …The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.” – Bart Ehrman (OOPS)

          Of course, Bart Ehrman has literally written an entire book establishing and explaining why historically, Jesus certainly existed. Bart Ehrman notes first century historians who reference Jesus, such as Josephus. Another historian of the first century to mention Jesus, much earlier than Josephus, was Luke. Historians have already figured out that the author of the Gospel of Luke was himself a historian, and by the evidence I’ve seen it looks like Luke should be dated to 60-65 AD (others prefer about 80-85 AD).

          As for inscriptions, I don’t know whether you are accurately quoting Bart, or your source is deceptive, but an inscription of the first century that has been authenticated by almost all the worlds experts whom have studied it, is the James Ossuary. It dates about 30 – 70 AD, and mentions Jesus. It says “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” — of course, the only Jesus we know in the historical record who died before 70 AD and had a brother named James and father named Joseph is the biblical Jesus, meaning Jesus certainly existed.

        • adam
        • Korus Destroyus

          Sorry Adam, Ehrman’s book ‘How Jesus Became God’ has a very, very small following amongst academics. It’s full of holes and complete nonsense, such as Paul thinking that Jesus was an angel or something.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then demonstrate some of the supposed holes, you pathetic blowhard…

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Then demonstrate some of the supposed holes, you pathetic blowhard…”

          Calling me a ‘pathetic blowhard’ is disrespectful and immature. Anyways, if you want me to tell you about the holes in Ehrman’s book ‘How Jesus Became God’, it looks as if you’re not going to bother searching up any actual scholarly reviews of the book (which are literally all critical). Indeed, I’ll devote some of my time telling you about the holes in the book.

          Ehrman begins the book by telling us about a first-century miracle-worker, who was believed to be the Son of God and survived his own death. But surprise! Ehrman isn’t talking about Jesus, he’s talking about Appolonius of Tyana. Ehrman seems to think he has a parallel to Jesus here, but of course he has a big problem.

          For one, we only have one source about Appolonius of Tyana, whereas we have a number of very early, independent sources on Jesus. Secondly, Ehrman doesn’t tell you that this one writer (Philostratus) we have on Appolonius was writing over a century after the supposed death of Appolonius. Thirdly, Ehrman claims that Philostratus cites an eyewitness on the life of Appolonius, Damis of Ninevah. Again, Ehrman fails to recount that Ninevah didn’t actually exist in the first century, meaning Damis probably didn’t exist either. And perhaps the biggest problem, Appolonius seems to have been *specifically* invented by the Romans in the late second century specifically to compete with the Gospels, which were already widely circulating in Rome at the time.

          A second major problem with Ehrman’s book is his treatment of the burial of Jesus, which is wrong on virtually all counts. Ehrman first claims that because Joseph of Arimathea isn’t mentioned in the short creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, it is indicative that Paul probably “didn’t” know about any such Joseph, and so Joseph didn’t make a mistake. Numerous scholars have criticized this approach. 1 Corinthians 15 was specifically a short creed made by the early Christians in order to produce a memorable, short saying, that they could easily tell others — it wasn’t to give a biography about the death and burial of Jesus. Paul has as much reason to mention the name of the man who buried Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 (Joseph) as he does to mention the name of the man who crucified Jesus (Pontius Pilate).

          Ehrman makes numerous errors on the actual practice of the Romans when it comes to allowing Jews to bury their death. He does not consult a single scholar who has seriously contributed to this field, indeed, he seems to be almost making up his own theory from scratch. Ehrman seems to have almost no knowledge of the fact that scholarship is already unanimous on the fact that the Romans *did* allow the Jews to bury their dead. The writings of Josephus and Philo do in fact reveal that in peacetime, the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead, as is customary with Jewish law. We even found the remains of a crucified man who was allowed a burial (Yehohanan). When responding to such things on his blog, Ehrman makes up as many inconsequential details as possible to try to avoid the implications of these facts, and refuses to ever actually talk about the evidence we *do* have from these writings and archaeological remains.

          I’ve said enough, by now. Ehrman is a great scholar and scholars are not too angry over this book, however if Ehrman ever writes a second one like it, it will actually start to affect his credibility.

        • Greg G.

          Of course, Bart Ehrman has literally written an entire book establishing and explaining why historically, Jesus certainly existed.

          But he was short on evidence. He cites independent sources. Some of the sources are Q, M, and L, a shared source for Matthew and Luke and their independent sources. But we have no evidence of them and we don’t know that they were even about Jesus. Q is not to explain the similarities of Matthew and Luke, but the differences because Luke could have copied from Matthew and rejected parts, just like he did with Mark. Some have noticed that the topics Jesus talks about in Matthew, such as the Sermon on the Mount, are very similar to the Epistle of James, The Sermon on the Mount Site: James and the Sermon on the Mount by Robert I. Kirby, for example. James never quotes Jesus but his arguments would have been strengthened by “Jesus said”, especially if it actually came from Jesus. So it looks like one of the sources that would be M, is actually not Jesus quotes.

          Ehrman also claims gJohn is an independent source, but this is circular. If there was no Jesus, then John is based on Mark. To assume it is independent is to assume there was a Jesus.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “But he was short on evidence. He cites independent sources. Some of the sources are Q, M, and L, a shared source for Matthew and Luke and their independent sources. But we have no evidence of them and we don’t know that they were even about Jesus.”

          Whoops, LOL. First of all, is Q, M or L existed, they are literally by definition about Jesus. Some scholars view that the Gospel sources on Jesus came from earlier materials, such as ‘Q’. Secondly, I don’t even accept the existence of Q, M or L — I find it to be nonsense. Secondly, Ehrman’s evidence overwhelming is NOT from these hypothetical sources. Bart Ehrman simply points out the fact that we have more sources for Jesus then virtually any other figure of the entire first century. Four Gospels, Paul, a number of early writers like Clement of Rome, Tacitus, author of the Book of Hebrews, and the pre-Pauline creeds. Each one of these aforementioned evidences is a mountain in front of mythicism. You then say something rather wacky:

          “Ehrman also claims gJohn is an independent source, but this is circular. If there was no Jesus, then John is based on Mark. To assume it is independent is to assume there was a Jesus.”

          What on Earth are you talking about? Entirely aside from the discussion of the inarguable historicity of Jesus, the gospel of John is independent of the synoptics. If you were to insert into your imagination that there was no Jesus who was called Christ, that wouldn’t make John any more dependent on the synoptics. To determine dependency requires actual source comparison, and see if the gospel of John for example, verbatim quotes sections of the synoptic gospels, like how Matthew does with Mark.

          The fact that the gospel of John is an independent source is a rather problematic thing for mythicism, as it is another stumbling block of evidence. James Charlesworth writes regarding the investigations of the historical Jesus by modern scholars who primarily ignore John and focus on the synoptics:

          “Scholars who myopically employ only the synoptics as sources for understanding the historical Jesus miss the independent and reliable traditions in John.”
          Charlesworth, James H. “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8.1 (2010): 44.

        • Greg G.

          Whoops, LOL. First of all, is Q, M or L existed, they are literally by definition about Jesus. Some scholars view that the Gospel sources on Jesus came from earlier materials, such as ‘Q’. Secondly, I don’t even accept the existence of Q, M or L — I find it to be nonsense.

          The story of Jesus teaching in the temple at age 12 would be something under the “L” category. Josephus’ Vita says:

          Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

          Luke changed the age and the “after three days” to spiff up the story with religious adornments. It is not about Jesus, it’s in Josephus’ autobiography. Matthew and Luke did have other sources, and Josephus was one of them. Some of the material was rewritten to be about Jesus.

          Bart Ehrman simply points out the fact that we have more sources for Jesus then virtually any other figure of the entire first century. Four Gospels, Paul, a number of early writers like Clement of Rome, Tacitus, author of the Book of Hebrews, and the pre-Pauline creeds. Each one of these aforementioned evidences is a mountain in front of mythicism. You then say something rather wacky:

          You have four gospels that are based on one gospels that draws from Paul. The early writers also got their information from people who got it from the gospels and Pauline writers. Hebrews doesn’t tell us anything about a first century teacher or preacher. How do you date a pre-Pauline creed? How do you know it’s not something he came up with a decade earlier and honed it in his own preachings? So, you can’t get back before Paul and he never mentions a teacher or a preacher.

          What on Earth are you talking about? Entirely aside from the discussion of the inarguable historicity of Jesus, the gospel of John is independent of the synoptics. If you were to insert into your imagination that there was no Jesus who was called Christ, that wouldn’t make John any more dependent on the synoptics. To determine dependency requires actual source comparison, and see if the gospel of John for example, verbatim quotes sections of the synoptic gospels, like how Matthew does with Mark.
          The fact that the gospel of John is an independent source is a rather problematic thing for mythicism, as it is another stumbling block of evidence. James Charlesworth writes regarding the investigations of the historical Jesus by modern schol ars who primarily ignore John and focus on the synoptics:

          John didn’t use Mark the way Matthew and Luke did. There are several passages that show that he did. John 6 has the Feeding of the 5000 with elements in the same order, followed by Walking on the Water, followed by ending up at Gennasaret.

          In Mark, Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny him. Jesus’ trial is sanwiched between Peter doing the denial to show simultaneity. Jesus is slapped around and order to “Prophesy!” as his prophecy is ironically being fulfilled. John has the same story with the same sandwich technique but omits the “Prophesy!” part. When John tells the same story with the same literary technique, it should be a clue.

          John has Barabbas. This is an obvious fiction in Mark. Mark has Latinisms and Aramaicisms but he only explains the Aramaic. He explains how Bartimaeus means “son of Timaeus.” He has Jesus open his Gethsemane prayer with “Abba, Father”. When Barabbas is introduced, his readers should realize that “Barabbas” means “Son of the Father”, so his being released while the other Son of the Father is killed is the Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16:5-22 where one goat is killed for the sins of the people and the other is released to carry the sins into the wilderness. Perhaps Mark didn’t realize that the Atonement comes later in the year, not at Passover and the Passover is not a sin offering.

          The Mocking of Jesus follows immediately follows the Barabbas story but it is remarkably similar to Philo’s Mocking of Carabbas in Flaccus, Book VI (36). It is extremely unlikely that Mark and John could describe something like that so similarly to Philo’s account, yet make the same changes to it. It should be clear that John was using Mark. Also, even in the Greek, the name “Carabbas” and “Barabbas” only differ in the first letter, so we know where Mark got the idea for the Barabbas story.

          “Scholars who myopically employ only the synoptics as sources for understanding the historical Jesus miss the independent and reliable traditions in John.”
          Charlesworth, James H. “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8.1 (2010): 44.

          I agree with that statement. But one should look at the stories in John that are dependent on Mark before getting too carried away with the thinking about “independent and reliable” ideas.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Luke changed the age and the “after three days” to spiff up the story with religious adornments. It is not about Jesus, it’s in Josephus’ autobiography. Matthew and Luke did have other sources, and Josephus was one of them. Some of the material was rewritten to be about Jesus.”

          Insanity level is obviously exploding, all Synoptic Gospels far predate the works of Josephus and L as a source for Luke doesn’t exist. Virtually no scholar in reality thinks there is any connection between Josephus and the Synoptics, and there isn’t one single example of a valid parallel/connection between the work of Josephus and the Gospels that predated it.

          “You have four gospels that are based on one gospels that draws from Paul.”

          What on Earth are you talking about? Clearly you’ve no clue yourself, considering the Gospels draw no information from the Pauline epistles, and the fact that John is completely independent from the synoptics. Everything I’m telling you is a fact. It’s simply too strange to see that you, as a hyper-skeptic, have coincidentally come to the most ahistorical conceptual conclusions of the Gospel accounts. It’s almost as if your conclusions are guided by your presuppositions.

          “How do you date a pre-Pauline creed? How do you know it’s not something he came up with a decade earlier and honed it in his own preachings?”

          It’s amazing to see someone ask me this instead of actually googling the scholarly-historical method that does just that. I obviously can’t take you through the entire process, but there are a number of ways to do this. Some creeds in Paul’s epistles predate Paul’s conversion to Christianity (such as Romans 10:9). Thus, if you know when Paul converted to Christianity, you can just put the date of the creed before that. Paul, at the latest, converted 36 AD to Christianity, putting several of the pre-Pauline creeds before 36 AD. Some historians put a number of the creeds, especially the one in 1 Corinthians 15, within months or even days of the death of Jesus, simply because the nature of the creed is that of which must have arisen almost immediately after the event it describes.

          “John didn’t use Mark the way Matthew and Luke did. There are several passages that show that he did. John 6 has the Feeding of the 5000 with elements in the same order, followed by Walking on the Water, followed by ending up at Gennasaret.”

          No evidence here for any dependency on Mark. The fact that the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 do not outright contradict each other between John and Mark is no evidence one used the other. The “elements in the same order” you mention is simply pointing out the fact that neither John nor Mark didn’t decide to slice and dice the details of the narratives all over the place.

          “The Mocking of Jesus follows immediately follows the Barabbas story but it is remarkably similar to Philo’s Mocking of Carabbas in Flaccus, Book VI (36). ”

          There are actually zero parallels here. Where do you pull this nonsense from anyways?

        • Greg G.

          Your response to http://disq.us/p/1hmwgu9 that I got in email does not show up under the article or in Disqus. I am responding here.

          Insanity level is obviously exploding, all Synoptic Gospels far predate the works of Josephus and L as a source for Luke doesn’t exist. Virtually no scholar in reality thinks there is any connection between Josephus and the Synoptics, and there isn’t one single example of a valid parallel/con nection between the work of Josephus and the Gospels that predated it.

          There are many parallels and coincidences between Luke/Acts and Josephus’ writings. Luke used Mark and Matthew as primary sources. The coincidences with Josephus are found only in the 25% or so of Luke that is not from those gospels. They are also the type of copying that means Luke was using Josephus and not the other way around. You can find apologist websites that argue against Luke having used Josephus by pointing out a few and saying they are mere coincidences but they ignore dozens of them. When you have dozens, you have a pattern that needs explaining. It means that Luke was not written as early as Chirstian tradition wants it to have been written.

          What on Earth are you talking about? Clearly you’ve no clue yourself, considering the Gospels draw no information from the Pauline epistles, and the fact that John is completely independent from the synoptics. Everything I’m telling you is a fact. It’s simply too strange to see that you, as a hyper-skeptic, have coincidentally come to the most ahistorical conceptual conclusions of the Gospel accounts. It’s almost as if your conclusions are guided by your presuppositions.

          Nope, there are many cases to look at. For example, Mark 10:11-12 is taken from 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. Paul was writing to the Corinthians who were under a law that allowed women to divorce their husbands. But Jesus was talking to his disciples who would not have any idea of that. Matthew 5:31-32 drops that part. Paul got his idea from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where there is no provision for a woman to divorce her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 is one of those “the Lord said” passages, but he is not quoting Jesus, he is referring to the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is another “says the Lord” passage but it is clearly a quote of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 28:11-12.

          It’s amazing to see someone ask me this instead of actually googling the scholarly-historical method that does just that. I obviously can’t take you through the entire process, but there are a number of ways to do this. Some creeds in Paul’s epistles predate Paul’s conversion to Christianity (such as Romans 10:9). Thus, if you know when Paul converted to Christianity, y ou can just put the date of the creed before that. Paul, at the latest, converted 36 AD to Christianity, putting several of the pre-Pauline creeds before 36 AD. Some historians put a number of the creeds, especially the one in 1 Corinthians 15, within months or even days of the death of Jesus, simply because the nature of the creed is that of which must have arisen almost immediately after the event it describes.

          That doesn’t quite answer my question. You are assuming it is a pre-Pauline creed then dating it according to your assumption. How do you know Paul didn’t make it up? Romans would have been written after Paul had been preaching from many years. It may have been a saying he came up with himself. He seems to be the one who was big on faith while the other Christians of his time were more into works and following the OT laws.

          No evidence here for any dependency on Mark. The fact that the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 do not outright contradict each other between John and Mark is no evidence one used the other. The “elements in the same order” you mention is simply pointing out the fact that neither John nor Mark didn’t decide to slice and dice the details of the narratives all over the place.

          The fact that the elements are ordered so precisely is evidence that one used the other. The miracles in Mark show that the Mark was using miracles from the Old Testament and the mass feeding miracle comes from Elisha’s mass feeding in 2 Kings. It also has elements from Homer’s Odyssey, which we find elsewhere in Mark, but not so much in John except what is shared with Mark. If it’s not obvious that the story is fiction based on it being a fantastical magic show that was common in first century stories, then it should be obvious that it was invented by borrowing from other sources similar to other miracles from Mark. Since the story never happened, then John had to get it from another source. Since so much of John 6 follows Mark 6, it is likely he got it directly from Mark. The Cleansing of the Temple and the Trial of Jesus are other stories that John would have taken from Mark. Thinking that Mark and John are independent is a presupposition dispelled by the evidence.

          “The Mocking of Jesus follows immediately follows the Barabbas story but it is remarkably similar to Philo’s Mocking of Carabbas in Flaccus, Book VI (36). ”
          There are actually zero parallels here. Where do you pull this nonsense from anyways?

          You haven’t compared them. All you are doing is bombast.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “There are many parallels and coincidences between Luke/Acts and Josephus’ writings. ”

          These fictional parallels (that I’ve read and laughed at before) are nothing but imaginary — there is no one more skeptical of the New Testament than a New Testament scholar, and if these ‘parallels’ were anything but a figment of imagination, a large part of scholarship would have rushed to date Luke into the 2nd century. The vast majority of ‘parallels’ are obviously junk, basically trying to take two very, very general things from Luke and Josephus, and using them as a supposed parallel. For example, “writer X is a Jew, writer Y is a Jew, therefore writer Y is influenced by writer X” — other ‘parallels’ are entirely non-existent in the first place.

          The only person who seems to have taken any hint of the existence of Carrier’s paper on this is, non-coincidentally, Robert Price and Dorothy Murdock.

          “Nope, there are many cases to look at. For example, Mark 10:11-12 is taken from 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. Paul was writing to the Corinthians who were under a law that allowed women to divorce their husbands. But Jesus was talking to his disciples who would not have any idea of that”

          I searched up the two verses, they obviously have nothing to do with each other. Your logic seems to be ‘Mark condemns divorce, Paul condemns divorce, therefore Mark used Paul’ — ridiculous logic. The passage in Mark is clearly a quotation of Jesus, and wasn’t spuriously copied and pasted from 1 Corinthians 7, the verses actually come from an existing discussion on marriage earlier in Mark 10, and 1 Corinthians 7 also comes from its own long discussion on marriage. To shed some light on your misrepresentations, Mark 10:1-12 (12 verses) is talking about marriage, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 (16 verses) is talking about marriage. You found one similarity between these entire passages and decided there was borrowing. This should readily explain why no scholar takes such nonsense seriously. Indeed, if I used this logic, I could actually prove to you that almost every ancient writer to ever discuss marriage borrowed from 1 Corinthians 7, LOL.

          “That doesn’t quite answer my question. You are assuming it is a pre-Pauline creed then dating it according to your assumption. How do you know Paul didn’t make it up?”

          Indeed, you have entirely dispersed from historical discussion, and thrown yourself into the pit of conspiracy theories. Sadly, in historical discussion, everything that contradicts your presupposition cannot be “made up”. The question “How do you know X?” is always useless, it’s entirely made up and useless. For example, “How do you know the universe doesn’t exist in a gigantic eel?” — this question has just as much validity as your own, both questions invoke something out of absolutely nowhere and are based on no evidence. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 has every element of an actual creed, and there is no evidence it was made up. Therefore, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          “The fact that the elements are ordered so precisely is evidence that one used the other. The miracles in Mark show that the Mark was using miracles from the Old Testament and the mass feeding miracle comes from Elisha’s mass feeding in 2 Kings”

          Again, more nonsense. Vague similarities between two stories are used to justify complete dependence, obvious nonsense. You go on to use these vague similarities to claim that Mark also borrowed from Homer’s Odyssey — indeed, completely flawed reasoning based on nothing. Mark does not use the language of the Old Testament in the story of the feeding (which he does elsewhere when he the Old Testament), the similarity is amazingly vague here, and thus again is not based on actual solid data. I have actually used this reasoning before to show how flawed it is when I was debunking another joker, I basically proved 2 Kings borrowed from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, LLOL.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Aish.com is obvious junk

          Translation: Aish.com doesn’t support my delusion.

        • Korus Destroyus

          Apart from your misrepresentation, you seem to have very well achieved nothing.

        • Why are you here?

          For starters, why is it you here instead of Jesus himself setting the record straight? Gotta level with you–you’re not representing him very well.

          Second, we can kinda tell when you back up the reputation of poor ol’ Jesus with more bravado than argument. No matter what the insult is, you can’t let it stand, regardless of whether you have a good response or not.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “For starters, why is it you here instead of Jesus himself setting the record straight?”

          Why would God Almighty address the rebukes of one who seems to enjoy the grasp of Satan? If you’d like the Lord to set the record straight, your wish without question will be granted on the Day of Judgement.

          “Second, we can kinda tell when you back up the reputation of poor ol’ Jesus with more bravado than argument. No matter what the insult is, you can’t let it stand, regardless of whether you have a good response or not.”

          My arguments have dissipated your criticisms, what more need I do? LOL

        • Kodie

          You’re really delusional. God is too busy? Part of the reason I’m an atheist is just how many and in many ways such dumbfucks as yourself presume to speak for god, and that any god worthy of worship would stand for it. I mean you’re too fucking dumb. You’re not smart. You’re not educated. You’re ignorant. But you take the task on yourself, as though you must be one of god’s elite, and he can’t or won’t tell us, so he sends morons. If you’re the best god can do, there is no god. We’re done here.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “God is too busy?”

          Please cite exactly where I made this explanation, otherwise apologize for the misrepresentation against my position.

          Anyways, you go on to throw a hissy fit:

          “Part of the reason I’m an atheist is just how many and in many ways such dumbfucks as yourself presume to speak for god, and that any god worthy of worship would stand for it. I mean you’re too fucking dumb. You’re not smart. You’re not educated. You’re ignorant. ”

          I happen to have honors of course, and thus these claims seem not to reflect reality but your own bitter life, and your highly emotional response to virtually anything that contradicts your predetermined mind set.

          Indeed, your entire comment simply screams of emotion, ignorance and arrogance, and most of all, an utter contempt for other people. As I have established earlier, the mere concept of God Almighty literally coming down to correct an arrogant atheist ranting on Disqus is preposterous. Yet, your mind is unable to comprehend such a precise, hard fact.

        • Kodie

          Why would God Almighty address the rebukes of one who seems to enjoy the grasp of Satan? If you’d like the Lord to set the record straight, your wish without question will be granted on the Day of Judgement.

          Sure sounds like you’re making a terribly lame excuse for god. You are just a terrible stand-in and you say such ignorant things. You don’t have a grip of reality, so this really makes one wonder why one never hears anything from god, but lots and lots and lots of different things form humans who decide they are good enough.

          I don’t expect god to show up on Disqus, you dumbass. But you’re here with an ego the size of a planet, and nothing to say but fantasy and gibberish.

        • adam

          “If you’d like the Lord to set the record straight, your wish without question will be granted on the Day of Judgement.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/474299198fa468cb412454dc5c43a24444b671b390af392fb7d2e088f0031e1d.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          Gervais is a popular comedian, quoting him for an actual, intellectual discussion is rather funny. Secondly, I wasn’t trying to scare anyone either, I only told Bobby boy when he would receive his wish LOL.

        • adam

          ” I only told Bobby boy when he would receive his wish LOL.”

          With a childish story about MAGIC?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/102697e7faecdc67306ad919c76a1e01e698f44fbed89fa96dcc85012ac3ce5f.jpg

        • Korus Destroyus

          LOL, one of the most unfunny memes I’ve ever read. Atheists are usually good at making up for their awful arguments with funny jokes and all, but even this one is falling apart.

        • adam
        • Why would God Almighty address the rebukes of one who seems to enjoy the grasp of Satan? If you’d like the Lord to set the record straight, your wish without question will be granted on the Day of Judgement.

          Which is precisely what you’d say if there were no God at all. You can see why that very simple interpretation looks pretty good. LOL

          My arguments have dissipated your criticisms, what more need I do? LOL

          I must’ve been sleeping, LOL. I missed your rapier wit demolishing my arguments. LOL I’ll just have to take your word for it. LOL

          Which still doesn’t answer the original question: why are you here? Let me throw out my guess: to help bolster your shaky faith. But be careful! Hanging around with those in the grasp of the Dark Lord is dangerous for a child of God like you.

          LOL

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Which is precisely what you’d say if there were no God at all. You can see why that very simple interpretation looks pretty good. LOL”

          LOL indeed! It seems we have an adequate example of a non-sequitur fallacy going on here;

          “God isn’t answering my Disqus comments, therefore He doesn’t exist”

          LOL. If this is indeed the argument being put forth, I rest my case.

          “I must’ve been sleeping, LOL. I missed your rapier wit demolishing my arguments. LOL I’ll just have to take your word for it. LOL”

          LOL LOL LOL LOL YOU SEEM TO LOL HAVE MUCH FUN LOL SAYING LOL A LOT LOL

          Anyways, all claims on how Isaiah 53 contradicts Jesus were easily debunked by yours truly and we’ve seen that if someone read Isaiah 53 out loud, and didn’t know he was quoting from the Book of Isaiah, he would think he’s reading a sermon from a Mormon Church LOL.

        • “God isn’t answering my Disqus comments, therefore He doesn’t exist”

          Ah, if it were only Disqus comments that God isn’t answering. I’m pretty sure there are millions of desperate people around the world right now in situations that I will never experience. He ain’t answering them–that’s the point.

          LOL LOL LOL LOL YOU SEEM TO LOL HAVE MUCH FUN LOL SAYING LOL A LOT LOL

          I never used to, but since it’s your arrogant interjection du jour, I’ve decided to try it out. I’m starting to see the value—it’s a lot easier to express arrogant condescension with an LOL than actually come up with a coherent response. LOL

          Anyways, all claims on how Isaiah 53 contradicts Jesus were easily debunked by yours truly

          I missed them. Have you already shown me? And keep in mind that “easily debunked by yours truly” needs to be judged by someone besides you. I’m pretty sure that I will agree with very little that you think you’ve debunked.

          and we’ve seen that if someone read Isaiah 53 out loud, and didn’t know he was quoting from the Book of Isaiah, he would think he’s reading a sermon from a Mormon Church LOL.

          Sorry—I’m missing the Mormon Church reference.

          I’ve made clear above why a complete reading of Is. 53 shows quite a few non-parallels with the Jesus story.

          LOL

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Ah, if it were only Disqus comments that God isn’t answering. I’m pretty sure there are millions of desperate people around the world right now in situations that I will never experience. He ain’t answering them–that’s the point.”

          God has in fact answered millions, if not billions of them. Apparently, a higher and higher number of Christian (and even doctors) are claiming to have directly experienced miracles some time in their lives, or during operations. You should take a look at some of the evidence:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

          “I’ve made clear above why a complete reading of Is. 53 shows quite a few non-parallels with the Jesus story.”

          And as remarked earlier, none of it have any bearings on reality. For example, you claim that Jesus wasn’t “despited by mankind” per Isaiah 53:3, despite the fact that he had crowds of Jews during his trial with Pontius Pilate demanding he be crucified. Seems rather nonsensical, indeed. Another weird one is when you said “Jesus was on his own, and none of the disciples tried to intervene” — err, what about the part where Peter cut off the ear of a Roman guard trying to grab Jesus? LOOL

        • God has in fact answered millions, if not billions of them.

          Well, if you say so, I’m gonna believe it. That’s all I need.

          Apparently, a higher and higher number of Christian (and even doctors) are claiming to have directly experienced miracles some time in their lives, or during operations. You should take a look at some of the evidence:

          I think I know what would happen. I’d dig into one issue and find lack of evidence or some other problem preventing science from declaring that this miracle really happened. That is, some loophole(s) or caveats would still exist. So then the Christian says, “No problem! We got a million of ’em!” And from their carpetbag of tricks, they pull out another one.

          And repeat. I think I’ll wait for one of these miracle claims to be well accepted by science and then reconsider the question.

          you claim that Jesus wasn’t “despited by mankind” per Isaiah 53:3, despite the fact that he had crowds of Jews during his trial with Pontius Pilate demanding he be crucified.

          He wasn’t “despised by mankind” when he rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Whoops.

          LOOL

          Wait, what? Can you do that??

          I got nuthin’.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “He wasn’t “despised by mankind” when he rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Whoops.”

          OL. Is your definition of being despised by mankind continuous persecution every second of the day? The Jews REPEATEDLY tried to stone Jesus (John 8:59, John 10:31), and the High Priest demanded he be put to death for claiming to be God (Mark 14:60-64), which basically lead to him being crucified with Jewish crowds chanting for his death. That is the definition of being ‘despised by mankind’.

          As for the evidence I gave, you said “I’ll wait for it to be settled by science” — ?? Science is the study of the natural world, and therefore by definition cannot answer a supernatural operation. Anyways, good evidence has been demonstrated, faith is obviously backed up by reality and indeed you should join. Atheism is a deprived worldview, worth very little. Only Jesus can save you.

        • Science is the study of the natural world, and therefore by definition cannot answer a supernatural operation.

          “Jesus was raised from the dead” is a scientific claim. I propose therefore that science is a reasonable tool to investigate that bold claim.

          If you want to push your claims into the domain of the supernatural, claiming that they have no effect on our natural world, that’s fine. Don’t bother us with claims about that kind of supernatural then.

          Anyways, good evidence has been demonstrated, faith is obviously backed up by reality and indeed you should join.

          Dang! There you go again—responding to my demands for evidence with a tsunami of it. I’m in awe.

          LOL

          Atheism is a deprived worldview, worth very little. Only Jesus can save you.

          Nuh uh. Christianity is a deprived worldview. Gotcha!

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Jesus was raised from the dead” is a scientific claim. I propose therefore that science is a reasonable tool to investigate that bold claim.”

          ??? Explain yourself, then.

          “Dang! There you go again—responding to my demands for evidence with a tsunami of it. I’m in awe.”

          I sent some evidence in my last comment (neuroscience video). Do you want more of it? Great, since we’re in discussion of the Resurrection:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM

          Atheism is still a deprived worldview 🙂

        • No, what would be funny would be to teleport you back to the time when Isaiah was first read out to the people of Israel. You’d be saying, “Yeah! That’s what I’m talking about! It’s all about Jesus–a clear prophecy, amirite?!?”

          And then they’d stone you for blasphemy. LOL!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Why…that stew was good enough for JeHOvah!…” 😉

        • MNb

          As soon as an apologist claims something is obvious (especially when using capitals) honest people should beware – the apologist tries to fool him/herself and the rest of the world by claiming he/she can’t back up.

        • Korus Destroyus

          I have already fully refuted this nonsense link and the author of it has been unable to respond. Neither are you, obviously.

        • MNb

          See my previous comment.

        • I see your point. What the heck would Jews know about the Old Testament?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Isaiah 53 is OBVIOUSLY about Jesus

          Citation required yet AGAIN! None of your nonsense is true outside the fevered imaginations of YOUR KIND and your superstitious beliefs.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “Citation required yet AGAIN!”

          You have been given close to a billion citations by now. Anyways, here’s another citation:
          Bellinger, William H., and William R. Farmer, eds. Jesus and the suffering servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian origins. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009.

        • Greg G.

          Try again. That book doesn’t support your conclusion. You should read the books before citing them.

          From the Back Cover

          Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus’ understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth? Did the use of Isaiah 53 to interpret his mission actually begin with Jesus? Would it have been possible for Jesus to have acted so unnaturally as to have died for the unjust without reference to Isaiah’s teaching about the Suffering Servant who poured out his soul to death and bore the sins of many?

          These are the kinds of questions that were in the minds of those who organized a conference on “Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins” at Baylor University in the fall of 1995. The principal papers from that conference are now available in this book, with contributions by Morna D. Hooker, Paul D. Hanson, Henning Graf Reventlow, R. E. Clements, Otto Betz, N. T. Wright, and others. Of particular note in these papers is the discovery that it may have been Paul rather than Jesus who first exploited the idea of atoning suffering in Isaiah 53.

          William H. Bellinger, Jr. is Professor of Old Testament at Baylor University. William R. Farmer is Professor of New Testament at the University of Dallas and Editor of the “International Catholic Bible Commentary.” –This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

          I italicized the portion that concurs with my argument that Paul got many of his ideas from Isaiah. The gospels followed his lead and wrote about a Jesus modeled on the Suffering Servant.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “I italicized the portion that concurs with my argument that Paul got many of his ideas from Isaiah.”

          Ouch, you seem to have destroyed your own argument in the process. Anyways, you tell me to read a book before citing it, and then go on to cite just the back cover — which provides not a figment of support for your claims. The book is a collection of papers presented at a scholarly conference, and none of the papers give credence to the interpretation of Isaiah 53 having anything to do with Israel. Thus, for that other troll, the citation silenced him.

          As for the highlighted portion; “Of particular note in these papers is the discovery that it may have been Paul rather than Jesus who first exploited the idea of atoning suffering in Isaiah 53.” — this simply states that some of the speakers at this conference investigate the idea that Paul was the first one to take notice of Isaiah 53, rather than Jesus Himself at all being influenced by such texts.

          Indeed, it has been shown that Isaiah 53 exerted no influence on the ministry of Jesus, and therefore the question can be closed. Paul was simply (potentially) the first person to actually notice that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53, although those same observances are independently made by the synoptic Gospels, John, and perhaps Peter.

          The funniest part of your comment was “The gospels followed his lead”, when of course the gospels never utilized the Pauline epistles (it’s amazing to see how such an overwhelming error escaped your sight), and most importantly of course, the historical facts about Jesus (He proclaimed to be the Messiah, to take upon the sins of others as Himself, was crucified and buried, etc) are all well known to be historical, and thus were not “modeled” as you purport. Indeed, it seems your claims are filled with error, probably because you were so quick to try to grasp anything to support your fruitless case.

        • Greg G.

          I am not using the book to support my claims. The blurb tells us that it does not support your claims. It is obvious that it is a collection of papers presented at Baylor University. I gathered that from just looking up the title, so it seems you have done nothing more than that.

          The funniest part of your comment was “The gospels followed his lead”, when of course the gospels never utilized the Pauline epistles (it’s amazing to see how such an overwhelming error escaped your sight), and most importantly of course, the historical facts about Jesus (He proclaimed to be the Messiah, to take upon the sins of others as Himself, was crucified and buried, etc) are all well known to be historical, and thus were not “modeled” as you purport. Indeed, it seems your claims are filled with error, probably because you were so quick to try to grasp anything to support your fruitless case.

          In Galatians 2, Paul says that he scolded Cephas for not following the OT laws until James’ agents arrived. That makes no sense if Mark 7:1-23 had actually happened as Peter would have agreed with Paul. Mark seems to have borrowed that from Galatians, putting Paul’s argument in Jesus’ mouth and Peter’s side as the Pharisees’ position. Mark 7:15, 18-19 is Paul’s argument from Romans 14:14, 20 put into Jesus’ mouth. Mark 7:20-23 is Paul’s rants from Romans 1:29-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and/or Galatians 5:19-21.

          Mark seems to borrow a lot from Galatians. Jesus’ primary sidekicks are the three named apostles in Galatians 2:9. He puts “Abba, Father” in Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer, found in Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:15, to be paired with the explanation of Bartimaeus’ name so that his audience can figure out that Barabbas means “Son of the Father” to create a scapegoat scenario where one goat is killed and the other released into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the nation, as in the Atonement Day ritual described in Leviticus 16:5-22.

          Mark 9:1 quotes Jesus saying that some standing there would not taste death, which echoes 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where Paul says about the coming of the Lord, “we who are alive”.

          Mark 10:44 has Jesus saying “and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.” That would be from 1 Corinthians 9:19 (NRSV), “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.”

          This site has a paltry list of parallels of the Epistles with the Sermon on the Mount:

          http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/esource-assets/files/798/original/hyperlink-05-12.pdf?1417400560

          The Sermon on the Mount Site: James and the Sermon on the Mount by Robert I. Kirby does better just with parallels with the Epistle of James. But James never quotes Jesus on these topics even when his arguments would be stronger if he had attributed the ideas to Jesus.

          We see the early epistles never quoting Jesus. They only refer to Jesus by Old Testament references. Yet we see the ideas expressed in the epistles coming from Jesus in the gospels. We don’t need to reject the miracles of Jesus for being miracles as we can do it because they are exaggerations of miracles from other writings. Many of the plausible deeds of Jesus can be found in the same writings as the miracles. Why would it be hard to see that the sayings of Jesus came from other people?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “In Galatians 2, Paul says that he scolded Cephas for not following the OT laws until James’ agents arrived. That makes no sense if Mark 7:1-23 had actually happened as Peter would have agreed with Paul. Mark seems to have borrowed that from Galatians, putting Paul’s argument in Jesus’ mouth and Peter’s side as the Pharisees’ position. Mark 7:15, 18-19 is Paul’s argument from Romans 14:14, 20 put into Jesus’ mouth. Mark 7:20-23 is Paul’s rants from Romans 1:29-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and/or Galatians 5:19-21.”

          The imagination going on here is almost unbelievable. I read both texts (Gal. 2, Mark 7:1-23) and quickly realized you had little idea what seems to be going on. In Galatians 2, Paul rebukes Peter for living like the gentiles, and not as a Jew. In Mark 7:1-23, Jesus speaks that some Jews were replacing God’s commands with the tradition of men, that they claimed to follow the tradition of their ancestors whilst contradicting the law of God. Not related texts, and Jesus is not talking about the same thing as Paul was.

          But in all senses of reality: Where do you get this stuff from? It’s obvious you didn’t think of it up yourself. The rest of the parallels are also imaginary, for example;

          “Mark 9:1 quotes Jesus saying that some standing there would not taste death, which echoes 1 Thessalonians 4:15 where Paul says about the coming of the Lord, “we who are alive”.”

          Simply makes no sense, the connection here is so vague as to warrant being outright dismissed. The Gospels do not quote Paul. Simple.

    • Greg G.

      I agree with you that the early Christians interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about their savior but they were also misreading a lot of verses to be about the savior. The gospels are fiction drawn from the literature of the day and that includes a lot from Isaiah, Psalms, and Deuteronomy.

      The Servant Songs of Isaiah were written about the nation of Israel.

      Even Paul referenced the Servant Songs:

      Isaiah 52:13
      13 See, my servant shall prosper;
          he shall be exalted and lifted up,
          and shall be very high.

      Isaiah 53:12
      12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
          and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
      because he poured out himself to death,
          and was numbered with the transgressors;
      yet he bore the sin of many,
          and made intercession for the transgressors.

      Philippians 2:9
      9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
          and gave him the name
          that is above every name,

      Romans 8:34
      34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 53:1
      1 Who has believed what we have heard?
          And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

      Romans 10:16
      16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 53:2
      2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
          and like a root out of dry ground;
      he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
          nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

      Isaiah 49:5
      and now the Lord says,
          who formed me in the womb to be his servant,

      Philippians 2:7
      but emptied himself,
          taking the form of a slave,
          being born in human likeness.
      And being found in human form,

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 53:5
      But he was wounded for our transgressions,
          crushed for our iniquities;
      upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
          and by his bruises we are healed.

      1 Corinthians 15:3b
      that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 53:6
      6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
          we have all turned to our own way,
      and the Lord has laid on him
          the iniquity of us all.

      Isaiah 53:11
      11     Out of his anguish he shall see light;
      he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
          The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
          and he shall bear their iniquities.

      Romans 4:25
      25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

      Romans 15:8
      8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 53:9
      They made his grave with the wicked
          and his tomb with the rich,
      although he had done no violence,
          and there was no deceit in his mouth.

      1 Corinthians 15:4a
      and that he was buried

      ________________________________________

      Isaiah 49:22
      Thus says the Lord God:
      I will soon lift up my hand to the nations,
          and raise my signal to the peoples;
      and they shall bring your sons in their bosom,
          and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

      Isaiah 45:23a
      By myself I have sworn,
          from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness
          a word that shall not return:
      “To me every knee shall bow,

      Isaiah 45:22
      Turn to me and be saved,
          all the ends of the earth!
          For I am God, and there is no other.

      Isaiah 45:23b
          every tongue shall swear.

      Isaiah 45:24
      Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me,
          are righteousness and strength;
      all who were incensed against him
          shall come to him and be ashamed.

      Isaiah 45:24
      Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me,
          are righteousness and strength;
      all who were incensed against him
          shall come to him and be ashamed.

      Philippians 2:10-11
      10 so that at the name of Jesus
          every knee should bend,
          in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
      11 and every tongue should confess
          that Jesus Christ is Lord,
          to the glory of God the Father.

      ________________________________________

      Paul says he did not get his gospel from a human source but it sure seems that he got it from the Old Testament scriptures because everthing he writes about Jesus, past, present, and future, can be found there. Practically the whole Philippians Creed appears to come from verse in Isaiah except for the crucifixion part which he derives from Deuteronomy as shown in Galatians 3:6-14.

      • Korus Destroyus

        You manage to nail three times Paul quotes or references the scriptures, but most of your connections are absurd and obvious junk. For example, “he was buried” references the actual historical burial of Jesus. So most of your comment is obvious garbage, most of the connections you made are vague and contrived and you post them because you have an obvious agenda here. For example, Phillipians 2:7 also has zero connection to Isaiah, the entire “parallel” is entirely imaginable at best and fanciful to say the least, from the ‘passage’ you linked it with. If you read the verse right before Phillipians 2:6, the entire verses are making a point about Jesus being God. So Paul’s writings are obviously not re-mashing the Old Testament. This is an obvious fringe view that virtually 0% of Scholars accept. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single respectable scholar make such a ridiculous claim/view.

        • Greg G.

          Does Paul know anything about Jesus that doesn’t come from his reading of the Old Testament? He tells us he did not get his knowledge from human sources. He tells us he got it from the scriptures. The following link lists everything Paul says about Jesus and shows the sources he quoted or alluded to.

          Paul’s Sources about Jesus

          What’s more, he doesn’t think the “super-apostles” knew anymore than he did.

          So, in 1 Corinthians 15, when he says “according to the scriptures” it means that’s what the scriptures say.

          This is an obvious fringe view that virtually 0% of Scholars accept. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single respectable scholar make such a ridiculous claim/view.

          Really? Have you never checked the footnotes of a study bible?

        • Korus Destroyus

          As I’ve shown above, most of your connections are obvious contrived garbage. I’ve seen that Patheos link before, and it’s also garbage and greatly disingenuous nonetheless.

          And again, not a single Scholar on Earth thinks Paul took the Old Testament, and fabricated the events of Jesus based off of these fake parallels you spurred up. Your fantasies don’t qualify as an argument.

        • Otto

          So what is Paul referring to….what scriptures?

        • Greg G.

          See Galatians 3. Somebody has apparently denied that Jesus was crucified. Paul tries to set them straight by spending the next several verses citing Old Testament scripture while using atrocious logic to re-establish the crucifixion bit. But he had spent the first two chapters talking about Cephas and James as if the Galatians knew them. Why didn’t he just cite them as dependable witnesses of Jesus being crucified?

        • Korus Destroyus

          “See Galatians 3. Somebody has apparently denied that Jesus was crucified. Paul tries to set them straight by spending the next several verses citing Old Testament scripture while using atrocious logic to re-establish the crucifixion bit. But he had spent the first two chapters talking about Cephas and James as if the Galatians knew them. Why didn’t he just cite them as dependable witnesses of Jesus being crucified?”

          This is an obviously needless objection, as it is the consensus of all historians on Earth that Jesus was crucified. This is clearly attested to in the epistles of Paul, all the Gospels, early historians like Josephus and Tacitus, etc. Furthermore, the scholar Bart Ehrman points out that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the crucifixion to be an invented narrative — simply consider the following.

          Jesus was believed to be, by all His follows (including Paul of course) to be the Messiah. The mere concept of inventing the idea the Messiah, whom was believed by Jews in the days of Jesus to be the one who will come and establish an eternal kingdom on Earth, to be CRUCIFIED is impossible. The Messiah was believed to be one of the greatest coming figures without doubt, no one would have conceptually thought to invent crucifixion. In fact, we can clearly see in the Pauline epistles that one of the main reasons why some of the Jews rejected Jesus was specifically BECAUSE He was crucified.

          So, this should mostly clear that up. As for why Paul didn’t cite James and Cephas — this is a rather dumb question, as to expect Paul to respond to the opponents of Christianity in any specific way, is ridiculous. The man had his own brain, own thought processes, and could have responded to accusations in any way he so wanted to.

          Lastly, no one in Galatians 3 is denying that Jesus was crucified. Paul actually says Jesus was vividly crucified before these deniers, and yet they reject Him and His death for our sins. So the entire thing boils down to a misinterpretation in the first place.

          Jesus the Lord fulfilled Isaiah 53, it’s obvious. Dude, just get over it and accept the facts.

        • Greg G.

          This is an obviously needless objection, as it is the consensus of all historians on Earth that Jesus was crucified. This is clearly attested to in the epistles of Paul, all the Gospels, early historians like Josephus and Tacitus, etc. Furthermore, the scholar Bart Ehrman points out that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the crucifixion to be an invented narrative — simply consider the following.

          The consensus that says Jesus is historical relies too much on the consensus, thus it is circular. Stick to the evidence. The gospels are fiction. Magical miracles do not happen, except in stories. Historians discount them in any ancient text. If you accept them in the gospels, you have no basis to not accept every other miracle recorded in ancient texts. The gospels miracles are literature based on older literature, so you can toss them out on that basis, too. But then you can toss out the plausible parts of the gospels by that basis, too. Without the gospels and reading them into the epistles, they don’t say anything about Jesus as a teacher or a preacher.

          The Testimonium Flavianum was forged by Eusebius in Josephus. Tacitus testifies what Christians believed in his day. Do you even believe yourself if you imply that Tacitus went through 80 year old documents from Judea to verify that Pilate crucified somebody named Jesus?

          Jesus was believed to be, by all His follows (including Paul of course) to be the Messiah. The mere concept of inventing the idea the Messiah, whom was believed by Jews in the days of Jesus to be the one who will come and establish an eternal kingdom on Earth, to be CRUCIFIED is impossible. The Messiah was believed to be one of the greatest coming figures without doubt, no one would have conceptually thought to invent crucifixion. In fact, we can clearly see in the Pauline epistles that one of the main reasons why some of the Jews rejected Jesus was specifically BECAUSE He was crucified.

          You are reading the fictional gospels into the epistles to get that. The early Christians were Jews who wanted the Messiah to come. They read the scriptures for clues about when this would happen. They were reading as if Jesus was around in their distant past and it was recorded as a mystery that was being revealed to their generation, and so they concluded that it meant the Messiah would come during their generation, probably just like previous generations and every generation of Christians since then.

          So, this should mostly clear that up. As for why Paul didn’t cite James and Cephas — this is a rather dumb question, as to expect Paul to respond to the opponents of Christianity in any specific way, is ridiculous. The man had his own brain, own thought processes, and could have responded to accusations in any way he so wanted to.

          Why would he explain it the way he did with “Glenn-Beckian-chalkboard” logic? He gets to “curse” then finds another verse in Deuteronomy with “curse” and “hanging on a tree”, therefore Jesus was crucified.

          Lastly, no one in Galatians 3 is denying that Jesus was crucified. Paul actually says Jesus was vividly crucified before these deniers, and yet they reject Him and His death for our sins . So the entire thing boils down to a misinterpretation in the first place.

          Your cognitive dissonance kicked in somewhere between “no one in Galatians 3 is denying” and “these deniers.” If he had explained it so vividly, why explain it again immediately after calling them “foolish” and scolding them for being “bewitched?”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          This is an obviously needless objection, as it is the consensus of all historians on Earth that Jesus was crucified.

          ^^^^Citation fucking REQUIRED for this bullshit!

        • Pofarmer

          As for why Paul didn’t cite James and Cephas — this is a rather dumb
          question, as to expect Paul to respond to the opponents of Christianity
          in any specific way, is ridiculous.

          This dude is a special kind of stupid.

        • Korus Destroyus

          “^^^^Citation fucking REQUIRED for this bullshit!”

          LOL! It is very telling that you do not know that every historian in the realm of the world accepts the historicity of the crucifixion as they accept the historicity of Abraham Lincoln. Here’s a quote (‘citation’) that should make this clear to you from the major scholar E.P. Sanders:

          I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.) Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptised by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached ‘the kingdom of God’; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

          All of these facts are according to E.P. Sanders beyond dispute in the scholarly community, no serious historian takes on the utter nonsense of mythicism. It’s truly a laughable dilemma.

    • Otto

      >>>”LOL! This is obviously false, it does not claim His own people rejected Him, it said mankind rejected Him — which is factually true.”

      99.999999999999999999999999999% of mankind had no idea who Jesus was….so no it is not factually true.

    • Greg G.

      Read about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. He is reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 in Acts 8:32-33. Philip explains to him that the story is about Jesus.

      • Korus Destroyus

        Yes. The eunuch is reading from the prophet Isaiah about the suffering servant passages, and asks Phillip who the prophet is talking about. Phillip tells the eunuch about the good news of Jesus. What’s up?

        • Greg G.

          Acts 8:34-35 (NRSV)34 The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus.

          Isaiah 53 was Philip’s starting point.

          Do you think Luke chose to quote from that chapter at random?

        • Korus Destroyus

          Luke wasn’t quoting Isaiah 53 — the eunuch was. And Phillip explained the coming truth of Christ to the eunuch who was troubled when trying to understand the prophetic text.

        • Greg G.

          I am sorry. Somebody was arguing that Isaiah 53 had nothing to do with Jesus in one of these comment threads. I just happened to see your name when I posted to this article but I seem to have confused you with the other person.

          I see that was not your argument. I apologize for my error.

  • Kevin K

    Of course, when you’re writing a fictional account of a person and want that account to fit with “prophetic” verses, it’s pretty darn easy to slip a flogging in here, a spear in the side there … and viola! Prophecy fulfilled!!

  • Margaret Nahmias

    Jesus was despised by the Pharisees and all his religious enemies. And he suffered during his trial and crucifixion

    • Michael Neville

      In response to your post above I’ll teach you a word in Yiddish: Nu, usually given with a question mark after it. It’s pronounced “new” and means “so” with a connotation of “yeah, and then what?”

      The obvious reply to your post is nu?

    • Greg G.

      I am despised by the Evangelicals and all of my religious enemies. And I suffered when I got a speeding ticket and fined.

      Everybody suffers but Jesus had one of the mildest crucifixions ever. It was over in a few hours and he was dead for a day and a half.

      I had points on my driving record and had to pay higher insurance for three years.

  • Greg G.

    An Ethiopian eunuch is reading Isaiah 53:7-8 in Acts 8:26-35. Philip the disciple asks him if he understands what he is reading. The eunuch says he cannot understand unless someone explains it to him. So Philip explains to him that it is about Jesus. The eunuch asked to be baptized.

    Acts would have been the last NT book to be written except for the forged epistles. Yet is seems that Luke thought the most likely place to get information about Jesus is from the Old Testament, not from some contemporaneous account.

    • That fits in with Robert G. Price’s “How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity.” He says that the errors introduced by oral tradition is irrelevant when everything in the NT can be explained by literary tradition.

      • Greg G.

        That’s what I say, too, including the epistles.

        I’m glad you corrected the initial. The title seemed familiar but I thought Robert M. Price must have a new book out.

  • Ruthie Vase

    By your own words—- you will be condemned

  • John

    You clearly don’t take the text seriously: Look at what you wrote, Isaiah 53:10 is just one part .

    Jesus doesn’t fulfill this? Are you serious?

    Resurrection, I’d say that’s long life. Then you compare him to Job..Uh, his children is referring to those born again. You make up a false interpretation and then say God’s word is false. That’s wrong.

    Seek the Lord while he may be found.

    I hope you repent.

    • Greg G.

      Look at what you wrote, Isaiah 53:10 is just one part .

      Jesus didn’t have offspring.

      Isaiah 53:10 (NRSV)10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.When you make his life an offering for sin,    he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

      • John

        Acts 17:28, “For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your poets have said, we are his offspring.” Do you think Paul believes God the Father procreate literal children? To do so misses the point and language. Likewise, those who have faith in Jesus the Messiah, are sons of God, Galatians 3. It’s in the Bible. Don’t misinterpret the language and say the Bible is wrong 🙂

        • Greg G.

          As some of your poets have said, we are his offspring.

          Here is a clue who those poets were referring to:

          Aratus, Phaenomena, [G. R. Mair translation]
          From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood.

          Aratus was a Cilician Stoic philosopher. He was talking about being the offspring of Zeus.

          Here is another, notice the title:

          Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus
          “For we thine offspring are…”

          It’s in the Bible. Don’t misinterpret the language and say the Bible is wrong

          OK, the Bible is right. We are offspring of Zeus.

    • Only by reading selectively and not the entire chapter can you support your prophecy claim.

      • John

        By misunderstanding or willing twisting prophetic language can you say God’s word is false. But by your response on Isaiah 53:11, why should I take this article seriously? Is Jesus a servant, the King of glory said so. You might want to also read Philippians 2. You can argue with me all you want, but God has spoken and you either bow to him or rebel, the choice is yours

        • Has God spoken? I see no evidence.

          I’m tempted to point out some things you’re missing on the Isaiah 53 question, but it’s already in the post. I’d suggest you reread it since you missed the main point, but I doubt you’re interested.

  • Is 53:3 – “this doesn’t describe Jesus” – What would you associate with crucifixion if not pain and suffering. Jesus was rejected by his
    own disciples at the worst time… they all fled (apart from John). The Palm Sunday bit is very interesting if you understand Jewish traditions. The crowd
    was basically doing a re-enactment of Psa 118. They understood the historical context of the King entering the city, that would offer up a sacrifice… but what they didn’t understand (and many still don’t) that the sacrifice would be himself. The city at the time was a melting pot, and they expected Jesus to
    oppose the Roman empire and liberate the Jews (a la Israelites from Egypt), but Jesus was (as usual) speaking in a spiritual context – life and death. For this reason His own people rejected him – he did not meet their expectations (a King like King David).

    53:7 – Jesus was silent before his accusers. Who were His accusers? John 18:34-19:11 is about Jesus before Pilate. Pilate did not accuse
    Jesus of anything, the Jewish authorities were His accusers – they were driving it. Pilate found no fault and found him innocent. The scripture you mention is Pilate trying to decipher who Jesus is, and make sense of the situation.

    53:8 – I’m not sure I understand your interpretation here… though even among theologians and Biblical scholars the exact meaning of the verse is difficult to decipher. (it may have been better – for your argument – to go with the plain truth, that ‘the meaning is obscure in this verse’)

    “letting the chapter speak for itself—the story falls apart.” – I think the opposite is true. Here’s why I think so:
    Is 52:15 – this is a prophecy, so it’s referring to future events. “not only was Jesus not internationally famous during his lifetime”… 2
    points here, 1.) the scripture doesn’t specify if it will take place during his earthly lifetime. 2.) according to scripture, Jesus having been resurrected,

    hence, is still alive which is what the church is saying, and we are currently still in his lifetime – and he is world famous now, – has been for some time as well. In both contexts the scripture proves correct.

    Following on from there – Isa 53:10 – “Unfortunately, this isn’t how the gospel story plays out.” – the scriptures explains itself. Since
    Jesus is alive, and His exalted state is heavenly; as Jesus himself said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” in that scripture you used earlier. The Job
    reference is correct – but instead of earthly riches, Jesus was speaking spiritually (something the disciples and Jews in general struggled with – they
    were always thinking in earthly terms).

    53:11 – Yes, Jesus was demonstrated as a servant King – willing to die for his people (rather than the earthly norm of people dying for
    their King) It’s also reflected in the parable of the Prodigal son – a son who serves willingly and the distinction between a slave and a son – in their
    formative years they both serve dutifully, but only the son will inherit the land/Kingdom.

    – “Messiah” – this demonstrates (and many have this problem) a lack of understanding in the Old Testament narrative, in the entirety and the uniformity and consistency throughout.
    Yes Messiah means anointed one; and almost every major character in the OT was a mini picture of the coming messiah. King David, Moses, Abraham etc… all the Prophets and the role of the Priest. They all occupied anointed offices – Kings,
    Priests, Prophets, Judges. All having unique status in ancient Israel, yet the overarching promise was of a sovereign ruler who would fulfil all of these
    offices (which is also another interesting discussion, on where our concept of divine authority and sovereignty comes from. Although kings, queens and rulers come and go, the authority of the office they held, remains. You might not like a president, but at the same time, you can respect the office he holds). Jesus is the ultimate head/ruler that pulls all of these different strands together – or rather it all culminates in Him.

    Your analysis is more toward Eisegesis than Exegesis.

    Isa 53:12 – a very interesting verse, and thanks for drawing my attention to it. A couple of scriptures come to mind when pondering on it;
    Romans 8:37, Rev 19:7-9, Isa 54:5, Matt 25:1-18… the common theme across these
    verses is the church as the Bride of Christ, being co-heirs with Christ – also in Romans 8:17. We the church who are
    in Christ, share in the inheritance (as the prophecy says). So when “his portion” is divided, it is God the Son Jesus Christ, who humbled himself and
    offered his life for us, that those who partake of him, might share in His eternal life. Another noteworthy scripture, when considering the church and the shared inheritance in Christ, Ephesians 2:20 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” – reflecting a joining in with Jesus, also with Jesus saying “take my yoke upon thee” Matt 11:29 – which is two pulling as one.

    “He’s one among equals…”

    – Your comments here reveal that you don’t fully grasp why Jesus came in the first place (but you’re not alone there – could say the same for many professing
    Christians). He, being God’s only begotten son, died (bodily) as a substitution sacrifice, so that through His resurrection, you and I might share in His life. This verse is in total sync with the rest of scripture, the Son who humbled himself so that we might be saved (if we receive him) and receive eternal life – through a relationship with Him. Tying into the theme of marriage – where two become one flesh. Or also adopted sons/children of God – Rom 8:15 – so we can call God father, just as Jesus did.

    The last couple of lines of your criticism of this prophecy, suggesting Israel makes more sense than ‘he’… you’re “close” in one sense, but
    also quite far off in another. Israel has always been likened to being the unfaithful bride… but nevertheless , if one were to substitute the word Israel
    for ‘he’, then verse 5 reads “by Israel’s wounds we are healed” – which is a bit ridiculous in the context of atonement et al.

    A good exercise – which many Christians are, or should be, encouraged to do (since we are the gentiles) is to ask ‘what did the Jews
    understand when reading this scripture?’, since they have the deeper context, especially when it comes to difficult scriptures. The interesting thing is if
    you ask Jewish people about Isa 53, or read this chapter to a Jew (without telling them what scripture you are reading), they will invariably scoff at you
    for “reading about Jesus”. Some avoid reading the books of the prophets entirely. One rabbi said “”In my rabbinical training Isaiah 53 had been
    continually avoided.” – to a Jewish mind, there is only one person that that chapter refers to: Jesus.

    I am yet to read your criticism of Psalm 22, but from the comment you made on it, I wonder; have you continued on and read
    Psalm 23, that is often referred to as ‘Part 2’ of the ‘Messianic trilogy’?

    For this reason you’ll often hear Christians speak of ‘context’.

    • Greg G.

      Have you ever noticed that all the epistles, except some of the late forgeries, don’t say anything about a preacher from Galilee or know anything about his teachings or being crucified in Jerusalem? Everything those epistles say about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. They didn’t know about a first century Jesus.

      Romans 16:25-26 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

      Paul only knows Jesus because he believed he read about him as a long hidden secret in the prophetic writings.

      1 Corinthians 15:3-4 New International Version (NIV)
      3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

      This is not a witnessed event. Nobody who saw it would be able to tell that one death was for sins and another wasn’t. Paul only knows this from reading the Old Testament. That is according to Isaiah 53:8-9 and Hosea 6:2.

      Isaiah 53:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
      8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
          Yet who of his generation protested?
      For he was cut off from the land of the living;
          for the transgression of my people he was punished.

      9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
          and with the rich in his death,
      though he had done no violence,
          nor was any deceit in his mouth.

      Hosea 6:2 New International Version (NIV)
      2 After two days he will revive us;
          on the third day he will restore us,
          that we may live in his presence.

      Do you know how Paul knew Jesus was crucified? He explains it in Galatians 3:6-14 by quoting Old Testament verses, instead of telling the Galatians to ask James and Peter about it. The disdain he shows for them and his discrediting of them probably made them unreliable but Paul was probably referring to them in Galatians 3:1 as those who “bewitched” the Galatians.

  • Mark13_31

    From my experience, if you believe you can see clearly, and what you ‘see’ is that you don’t need mercy from a merciful creator then none of this is going to make any sense. That goes for the secular, atheist or Jews & Christians for that matter.

    • Greg G.

      if you believe you can see clearly

      If you believe, you will see what you believe but that does not mean “clearly”. When I was in high school waiting at the bus stop, a lady was driving toward the intersection where we were when a black cat ran across the street. She slammed on her brakes, skidded to a stop, turned around and went home. She simply saw her superstition.

      Your superstition is that a god thingy directed people to write in a collection of books that it was merciful yet is going to be unmerciful to most people because most people generally don’t believe what was written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

    • Kodie

      It’s called the power of suggestion, you see what others tell you to see and then you think you also see it. I don’t need mercy from a fictional character. What doesn’t make sense about that? You’ve been argued by your fellow pawns into a position where you desperately need external validation from an “ultimate” authority or life is just worthless! That’s such an idiotic attitude! Do you really think it makes more sense that way or are you just immersed in a cult and brainwashed and emotional abused by people who think it’s in your best interest, because they are also victims?

      How much money have you already given them?