# Was Jesus dying on the cross a meaningful act? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309 "2009-06-19T18:12:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/181 "2009-06-23T23:39:57Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > What was untrue is that some scientific theories have been proven true. That’s simply not the case as science, again, has no proof; it has only evidence. And enough evidence IS proof as the term is normally used. The definition you use is tailor made for the benefit of religion and other irrational beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/182 "2009-06-24T02:26:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m pretty sure everyone grasps the fact that Jesus dying on the cross was not a meaningful act to non-Christians. Except that’s not true. People, like myself, can find plenty of meaning in Jesus teachings and his death without accepting Christian theology. > [@](#): > > So this discussion was being discussed within the parameters of Christian belief. For the most part. I’d agree. It’s about one particular aspect of Christian belief that is a bit confusing. Your comments to me didn’t clear any of that up. It seemed more like testimony. > [@](#): > > Writing Tangent Alert! doesn’t qualify as an explanation. Given that and the content of my post it should be clear enough for any reasonable person. > [@](#): > > If you’re going to depart from mainstream Christianity in a discussion of mainstream Christianity, you should mention the fact. Something like “My opinions don’t follow the mainstream view” would be helpful. If you feel the need to testify be my guest. I thought my post was pretty self explanatory but no matter.Consider the subject dropped. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/183 "2009-06-24T02:29:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not the Messiah. I don’t care what kind of hack Christian apologia you’ve read. It’s wrong. The Suffering Servant is Israel, and the text explicitly SAYS so multiple times. That is the Jewish interpretation, and that is the authorial intent. There was NEVER any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah was supposed to suffer or die, and there still isn’t. Your apologist is completely full of crap about traditional Jewish interpretation, pure and simple. You have a habit of citing pop Christian apologists as if they’re scholars. But,…but,… they agree with\*\* IRTC\*\* so that in itself adds to their scholastic weight. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/184 "2009-06-24T02:46:55Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > The only problem that I, as a quasi-Christian, have with this view is that it assumes that all human life on Earth while living is some kind of punishment unto itself, and that the promise of an afterlife (which I believe in, btw, just not under these circumstances) is a promise of a better, less suffering life than the one you are currently living. Does anyone care to take a crack at this? The promise of an afterlife is the brass ring, is it not? I can’t cite worth shit. My response has a little more context when read with the poster I was speaking with. Damn, I hate/love the internet. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/185 "2009-06-24T14:03:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why would an omnipotent, eternal God require obeisance? Seems a rather human desire for an all-powerful being to have. We are designed to be part of God Himself. Look at human development, a person starts as a group of undifferentiated, and for the most part independent cells. This is us as unbelievers, each one doing his/her own thing and depending on him/her self for everything. Once adopted into the body of Christ and your calling becomes clear you start to discover what your function is and you no longer need to worry about anything but that function, your needs are being supplies by others in the body, just like when our cells start to differentiate. For the believer it is a act of faith that God will supply us. Whatever the function we have, God has placed that function as the hidden desire of our hearts, the single thing that brings us the greatest joy and He removes all the other stuff that gets in the way. Also just as our human bodies, once cells have taken on unique and interdependent rolls, once that is done in the body of Christ, then the body can do so much more then when the members were all self sufficient, and can bring much greater glory to God. Only by the act of submission can the above take place, which is the best possible life for us and is the desire of our hearts, and exactly what God wanted us to do. > [@](#): > > And if God desires to save us all why would God feel it necessary to torment his creation in fire for perhaps eternity for the sole sin of “not believing”? This is a kind and loving God? If God wants us to all believe then God can achieve that easily right now. IMHO it is more that we have to realize not only is He God, but His way is the only way, or in other words we need Him, our ways don’t work. It is coming to realize that our ways don’t work that He is trying to show us. As for why the torment of hell fire is needed, IMHO a worse fate, outer darkness, is the final step, which is horrible but the ultimate fate of continued sin, basically trying to make it on your own, without God, in a totally empty and dark and cold universe as your own God. Hell is a final wake up call before that. > [@](#): > > What about people who fervently believe in Jesus but otherwise live a debased life versus someone else who lives a life that in all respects adheres to the best ideals of the teachings of Jesus but that other person has a different religious belief and does not believe in Jesus? Tough luck? Off to eternal hell and damnation? IMHO some people know Jesus but by a different name, and don’t associate themselves with Christians. They see the body of Christ as God acting through His people. Other people know Jesus by name as one would read about a person in a book but don’t know the person as a person, or how you might know your brother. Those people are in great danger of hellfire as they are deceived into believing they are saved but don’t know Jesus the person at all. It is the personal relationship with Jesus that is needed, if you feel like you can talk to Him as you can to your best friend then you know Him. For such a person everything is permissible, as such there is no ‘sin’ that such a person can commit as he is under grace and not under law. There is however divine discipline that can be placed on such a person by his/the Father, but the Father will make that turn to the good. > [@](#): > > What about a baby born and then dead before it can be baptised? It has zero chance to know and accept Jesus. What about any child who dies before they can learn and accept Jesus. I claim enlightenment by the Holy Spirit on this, when we are ‘begotten’ we know God, He lets us know that His way is the only way and gives us some indication of our lives - this happens spiritually. Shortly after, just as the serpent came to A&E, in some form Satan comes to us and offers us something that sounds very good, at which time we all take the offer, we all left God’s way and are under the authority of Satan. An early child/infant death, or for that matter abortion, is agreed upon by the victim by Satan’s deception, along with the perpetrator of the death if murder. That person will ‘fall’ to a lower, crueler level (quarter) of the world to continue his/her journey. The scriptures speak of 4 kingdoms, sometimes referred to as gold, silver, iron, iron/clay. I believe these are the 4 quarters of the world, and why there are 4 gospels, one for each kingdom, these kingdoms interrelate and interact but are also different - this is why there are differences in the Gospels. It is 4 intersecting worlds if you will. Some will be on a high level, some will be on a very low level. As we die we ‘fall’ to the lower level. Infant baptism is not baptism but infant dedication to God - which has significance, but does not mean that this person is safe from hell fire. Baptism is a willful act of the Holy Spirit though the person. > [@](#): > > Sorry, the whole thing simply does not bespeak a God of love and forgiveness to me. Perhaps you have to rethink what you have been taught then. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/186 "2009-06-24T14:26:55Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It’s the act of surrendering yourself to God through Jesus that gives you forgiveness of all sins every committed and that you will ever commit. At the time you come to Jesus and say that you don’t want to follow other gods (or god) or self, and want Him as your God and you will follow Him, at that time you and Jesus become one in person. So from that moment on, since you are Jesus (along with yourself) as a single person your sins are prepaid, as Jesus has already died. > > I think the above is the more practical answer for your question, a more direct answer, is I believe no, one act of forgiveness does not necessarily forgive all. An example is you might steal something, feel bad, or even be caught, you cry out for God to forgive you, He may and even remove any punishment for that, but that’s a act of mercy, it is not the grace that is offered through Jesus. See Matt 18:21-35 Parable of the unmerciful Servant. Thanks for the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/187 "2009-06-24T15:42:09Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Perhaps you have to rethink what you have been taught then. I would advise the same to you. Consider what an all-good and all-powerful God means and then consider if what you wrote above is remotely in line with that concept. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/188 "2009-06-24T16:16:58Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The scriptures speak of 4 kingdoms, sometimes referred to as gold, silver, iron, iron/clay. I believe these are the 4 quarters of the world, and why there are 4 gospels, one for each kingdom, these kingdoms interrelate and interact but are also different - this is why there are differences in the Gospels. It is 4 intersecting worlds if you will. Some will be on a high level, some will be on a very low level. As we die we ‘fall’ to the lower level. Are you talking about the dream that Daniel interpreted for Nebuchadnezzar? Because I’m pretty sure that was about his kingdom specifically, and wasn’t an allegory for the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/189 "2009-06-24T17:28:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not the Messiah. I don’t care what kind of hack Christian apologia you’ve read. It’s wrong. The Suffering Servant is Israel, and the text explicitly SAYS so multiple times. There’s just one problem. The text does not say any such thing. I’ve already posted the entire passage earlier in the thread, so those who want to can read it for themselves. As I’ve already mentioned, the “servant” may refer to Israel much earlier in the book, but not in this particular passage. To prove this, I posted a list of points that only makes sense with a messianic interpretation. You failed to respond to any of those points. I’ll post them again, and maybe this time you’ll respond to them. (But I doubt it.) - The passage says “so marred was his look beyond that of man and his appearance beyond that of mortals” [52:14]. It makes sense to compare the appearance of a person to the appearance of a person. It makes no sense to say such a thing about the nation of Israel. - The passage says “He grew up like a sapling, like shoot from the parched earth” [53:2]. Again it makes sense as a description of how a person could grow up. As applied to Israel, it makes no sense. - The passage says “We held him in no esteem” [53:3]. In other words, Israel held the Messiah in no esteem. But if the servant is Isarel, then who is the “we” referring to? - The passage says “He had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood” [53:9]. This is what we’d expect about the Messiah, but completely contradicts what Isaiah has said about Israel for the past 50-odd chapters. > [@](#): > > There was NEVER any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah was supposed to suffer or die, and there still isn’t. Your apologist is completely full of crap about traditional Jewish interpretation, pure and simple. That so, eh? Let’s have a look at what some actual Jews say on the matter. Let’s start with probably the most influential Jewish scholar of all times. > [@Maimonides](#): > > What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his appearance? And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. … in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived. So Maimonides specifically quotes from the passage in question and says that it refers to the Messiah. Let’s turn next to a midrash written by Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: > [@](#): > > and the Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men;” but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us.” So that puts to rest the claim that there was never any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah would suffer and die. Now how about the _Zohar_, the most famous work of Jewish mysticism. > [@](#): > > This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” Note the final quote from that passage in Isaiah referring to Messiah. Let’s go next to Nachmanides, a prominent Rabbi of the 13th century. > [@](#): > > a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly: And by his stripes we were healed – because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers. I could go on all day citing examples that prove you wrong, but instead I’ll conclude by citing an actual Jewish text. Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel, wrote an Aramaic translation of the Isaiah in the 1st century. In his translation the passage in question begins with: > [@](#): > > Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; How are you going to spin that as meaning that the “servant” is not the Messiah? To summarize, Dr. Brown’s statement about Jewish interpretations of this passage in Isaiah is correct and yours in incorrect. > [@](#): > > You have a habit of citing pop Christian apologists as if they’re scholars. And you have a habit of not citing anything, but merely repeating your claims like a parrot. **Friar Ted** and I have both asked you to provide a source to back up your claims. You’ve refused to do so. All you’ve done is repeated the claims over and over (and over and over and over and over). Now suppose for I minute that I’m one of those sticklers who doesn’t think that a claim must be true just because someone repeats it many times. So let me ask you a third time: can you provide sources that back up your claims? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/190 "2009-06-24T19:12:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And enough evidence IS proof as the term is normally used. The definition you use is tailor made for the benefit of religion and other irrational beliefs. I know this is hard to imagine, but the body of science doesn’t work with respect to what the general public might or might not understand. While the public eventually gets wind of it, they don’t factor into the equation. This would even include those who believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or a god. The definition, like so much of science, is there for precisely the need for exactitude in communication. How the general population chooses to interpret science only shows what a poor job of teaching it in the public schools we’re doing. But if the general population either through ignorance or refusal to accept science on its own terms elects to adopt some dimwitted view of something, science will remain the same. We can’t be responsible for the choices everyone else makes. As it remains of today, there is no proof in science. No amount of citing what laypeople think will change the word’s meaning in science, or the view of science. Science isn’t a democracy, and not everyone’s opinion counts. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/191 "2009-06-24T19:55:20Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > I know this is hard to imagine, but the body of science doesn’t work with respect to what the general public might or might not understand. While the public eventually gets wind of it, they don’t factor into the equation. This would even include those who believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or a god. > > The definition, like so much of science, is there for precisely the need for exactitude in communication. > > How the general population chooses to interpret science only shows what a poor job of teaching it in the public schools we’re doing. But if the general population either through ignorance or refusal to accept science on its own terms elects to adopt some dimwitted view of something, science will remain the same. We can’t be responsible for the choices everyone else makes. As it remains of today, there is no proof in science. No amount of citing what laypeople think will change the word’s meaning in science, or the view of science. Science isn’t a democracy, and not everyone’s opinion counts. Still not sure why you keep going on about science and an inability to prove things there. This is a thread on theology. **Der Trihs** said there is no proof or even objective evidence that God exists. You seem to be trying to argue that since even in science you cannot “prove” anything it is therefore wrong to ask for “proof” of the existence of God. By your definition such proof is impossible. If so then what? Asking for proof of the existence of God is an inappropriate question? Well, by your standards you cannot “prove” you exist. Even if you were standing in front of me you could not prove it. Maybe this is all The Matrix or you all are a product of my demented imagination. That said I think the vernacular definition of “proof” is more than sufficient here. I think there is ample evidence that you do, in fact, exist. Now, there is no reason God could not provide such evidence. Indeed God is all powerful so doing so is trivial to God. To date we have no evidence whatsoever of God’s existence beyond a book which simply asserts God exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/192 "2009-06-24T21:18:02Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There’s just one problem. The text does not say any such thing. I’ve already posted the entire passage earlier in the thread, so those who want to can read it for themselves. As I’ve already mentioned, the “servant” may refer to Israel much earlier in the book, but not in this particular passage. To prove this, I posted a list of points that only makes sense with a messianic interpretation. You failed to respond to any of those points. I’ll post them again, and maybe this time you’ll respond to them. (But I doubt it.) It identifies the servant as Israel numerous times. Your attempt to build a fence around “this particular pasage” is completely fallacious. It’s an artificial fence. The text has already made clear who the servant is. > [@](#): > > - The passage says “so marred was his look beyond that of man and his appearance beyond that of mortals” [52:14]. It makes sense to compare the appearance of a person to the appearance of a person. It makes no sense to say such a thing about the nation of Israel. Sure it does, because you’re talking about a poetic _personification_ of Israel. It’s a metaphor. That’s the whole point. > [@](#): > > - The passage says “He grew up like a sapling, like shoot from the parched earth” [53:2]. Again it makes sense as a description of how a person could grow up. As applied to Israel, it makes no sense. Sure it does, because – as the text makes clear – it’s a poetic _personification_. Claiming over and over again that a nation is not a person, therefore a person cannot be a metaphor for a nation is obtuse to the point of absurdity. > [@](#): > > - The passage says “We held him in no esteem” [53:3]. In other words, Israel held the Messiah in no esteem. But if the servant is Isarel, then who is the “we” referring to? Gentile nations. The passage is Gentile nations commenting on Israel. > [@](#): > > - The passage says “He had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood” [53:9]. This is what we’d expect about the Messiah, but completely contradicts what Isaiah has said about Israel for the past 50-odd chapters. Where are you getting this translation The Hebrew says “..he has done no violence, nor [is there] deceit in his mouth.” Why would you expect it about the Messiah? None of the Mesianic prophecies in the ot make this claim. The Jewish Messiah was supposed to be a human king, not a perfect God, and furthermore, the Gospels say that Jesus was guilty of both perpetrating violence and of telling lies, so it can’t be about him either. As to your perceived contradiction with other parts of Isaiah, this is still supposed to be Gentiles talking and commenting that Israel had not been violent or dishonest to THEM. > [@](#): > > That so, eh? Yep. > [@](#): > > Let’s have a look at what some actual Jews say on the matter. The following will be a cut and paste from some Christian apologist website containing cherry-picked, out of context and unlinked quotations, not unlike the kind of thing creationists do when they quote mine scientists, > [@](#): > > Let’s start with probably the most influential Jewish scholar of all times: Let’s see a linked primary source for that quote so I can read the context. > [@](#): > > Let’s turn next to a midrash written by Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: [Different Messiah](http://www.britam.org/messiah.html) (also, this midrash does not envison the death of the first Messiah as a redemptive act). > [@](#): > > Now how about the _Zohar_, the most famous work of Jewish mysticism. [How about it?](http://www.messiahtruth.com/zohar.html) > [@](#): > > Let’s go next to Nachmanides, a prominent Rabbi of the 13th century. I really want to see a source for this one, because I suspect it’s either an outright fabrication, or an egregious distortion. Nachmanides barely escaped execution for successfully winning a debate against a Christian about whether Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Messianic prophecises and explicitly said that Isaiah 53 [referred to Israel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Barcelona#Is_the_Messiah_a_divine_or_a_human_being): > [@Nachmanides](#): > > Friar Paul claimed: "Behold the passage in Isaiah, chapter 53, tells of the death of the messiah and how he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked, as happened to Jesus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the messiah? > > ``` > I said to him: "In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call 'Israel My servant' or 'Jacob My servant.'" > > ``` So there you go. Nachmanides denied that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. > [@](#): > > I could go on all day citing examples that prove you wrong By which you mean you can go on all day cutting and pasting spurious citations for alleged Rabbinical belief that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah from Christian Apologetic websites. > [@](#): > > , but instead I’ll conclude by citing an actual Jewish text. Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel, wrote an Aramaic translation of the Isaiah in the 1st century. In his translation the passage in question begins with: > > How are you going to spin that as meaning that the “servant” is not the Messiah? The Targum of Jonanthan explicitly identifies the servant as [Israel](http://www.messiahtruth.com/targum.html). It’s not a translation, by the way. > [@](#): > > To summarize, Dr. Brown’s statement about Jewish interpretations of this passage in Isaiah is correct and yours in incorrect. It’s more correct to say that you believe what you want to believe, without wanting to do any deep research, and that you don’t know the difference between popular Christian apologetics and genuine scholarship. If you think about it, isn’t it kind of ludicrous for you to try to argue with Jews about what their own scriptures mean? > [@](#): > > And you have a habit of not citing anything, but merely repeating your claims like a parrot. **Friar Ted** and I have both asked you to provide a source to back up your claims. You’ve refused to do so. All you’ve done is repeated the claims over and over (and over and over and over and over). Now suppose for I minute that I’m one of those sticklers who doesn’t think that a claim must be true just because someone repeats it many times. So let me ask you a third time: can you provide sources that back up your claims? I’ve cited everything I’ve said in this thread multiple times in other threads, and it’s also been my observation that you don’t aknowledge or respond to cites that prove you wrong, but, in point of fact, you are the one alleging a specific authorial intent to a particular text, so the burden is on you to prove it. The text identifies the suffering servant as Israel, and never once says it’s the Messiah. My position that the passage is about Israel and not the Messiah is therefore the default. It’s simply a plain reading of the text. You are the one with the burden to prove that the author intended anything other than what he SAID he intended. And not for nothing, but it’s actuall physically impossible for the author to have been talking specifically about Jesus, so if that’s your contention you have quite a mountain to climb. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/193 "2009-06-24T21:31:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And not for nothing, but it’s actuall physically impossible for the author to have been talking specifically about Jesus, so if that’s your contention you have quite a mountain to climb. Okay, not to contest anything else you’ve said, but: why? Presuming that we already assume that he suddenly changed the subject for this passage (without changing the terms he was using) - what’s _physically_ stopping him from speaking prophetically or whatever during his random aside, like various other biblical dudes have been known to supposedly do? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/194 "2009-06-24T21:43:25Z")
Well, nothing is physically stopping him from _trying_ to predict what will happen centuries into the future, but obviously, it wasn’t physically possible for the author to have predicted anything about Jesus or the crucifixion, anymore than he could have predicted anything about Abraham Lincoln or iPods. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/195 "2009-06-24T22:26:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, nothing is physically stopping him from _trying_ to predict what will happen centuries into the future, but obviously, it wasn’t physically possible for the author to have predicted anything about Jesus or the crucifixion, anymore than he could have predicted anything about Abraham Lincoln or iPods. Well, isn’t the point of prophecy that the person giving it has the power of prophecy? Some magically granted insight to the existence of iPods and such in a few thousand years? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/196 "2009-06-24T23:21:55Z")
Magical powers are physically impossible. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ruling out physically impossible hypotheses _a priori_. If you can’t assume the impossible is impossible, then you can’t do any kind of scientific investigation at all. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/197 "2009-06-24T23:27:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why would an omnipotent, eternal God require obeisance? Seems a rather human desire for an all-powerful being to have. > > And if God desires to save us all why would God feel it necessary to torment his creation in fire for perhaps eternity for the sole sin of “not believing”? This is a kind and loving God? If God wants us to all believe then God can achieve that easily right now. > > What about people who fervently believe in Jesus but otherwise live a debased life versus someone else who lives a life that in all respects adheres to the best ideals of the teachings of Jesus but that other person has a different religious belief and does not believe in Jesus? Tough luck? Off to eternal hell and damnation? > > What about a baby born and then dead before it can be baptised? It has zero chance to know and accept Jesus. What about any child who dies before they can learn and accept Jesus. > > Sorry, the whole thing simply does not bespeak a God of love and forgiveness to me. I believe that God forgives all these things. I also think the Old Testament is mostly useless. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/198 "2009-06-24T23:46:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Magical powers are physically impossible. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ruling out physically impossible hypotheses _a priori_. If you can’t assume the impossible is impossible, then you can’t do any kind of scientific investigation at all. Then I think it’s gonna be _really_ tough for you to find common ground with _any_ Christian. Or practicing Jew, or anybody other theist or religious person for that matter… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/199 "2009-06-25T02:39:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Magical powers are physically impossible. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ruling out physically impossible hypotheses _a priori_. If you can’t assume the impossible is impossible, then you can’t do any kind of scientific investigation at all. Yes and no. I agree with you but to play Devil’s Advocate we are assuming the premise of Christian theology for this thread. That Jesus died on the cross and saved us in some fashion. The point of the thread was that even accepting their own terms it does not make sense. That aside, if you are arguing prophecy in the Bible then you cannot discount the power of prophecy. Under the terms of the Bible it is entirely possible. Divine intervention or something. I agree such magic is not possible but if you posit an omnipotent God then it is possible. As far as the Bible is concerned prophecy is doable. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/200 "2009-06-25T02:48:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes and no. > > I agree with you but to play _ **Devil’s Advocate** _ we are assuming the premise of C (emphasis added) I can see this becoming an entirely new thread lambasting a certain someone for being a heretic at best, or a satanist at worst. Choose your words carefully, grasshopper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309.md?page=11)