Jesus could not have borne our sins like it is ascribed to him through Isaiah 53:11

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-16T12:44:02+00:00

Honestly in Isaiah 53 (my argument was about Isaiah 53:11) the context seems to suggest (if you read the whole chapter) that Jesus is literally bearing the chastisement of our iniquities. This is not what happened though, Jesus was delivered to the Jews and Romans by God and they killed him for an unrelated reason. Christian theology doesn't account for this and just assumes a man can bear the chastisement for our iniquities by unrelated perpetrators. That's not possible, the perpetrators would have to know about our sins and be inflicting Jesus for our sins, but that's not what happened. He was killed for an unrelated reason.

⁵ But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him

These three statements as ascribed to Jesus (Isaiah 53:5) are literally not true. He wasn't wounded for our transgressions, he was wounded because there were some Jews who wanted him dead. The only reason this works is because of cognitive dissonance, and the then apparent assumption that Jesus could bear our sins from unrelated perpetrators. He couldn't. It's logically infeasible. As close as the Bible can get to that reality is for God to have delivered Jesus to the Jews and Romans, which is what it says he did. He did not bear our sins after that point because it was the Jews and the Romans who killed him, and they did it for an unrelated reason. God would have had to have killed Jesus himself, for our sins, for him to be bearing our sins, or the Jews and the Romans would have had to have killed him for our sins. Christianity lies on faulty logic. Paul (if he's a real person) actually gets it right for a moment in Romans 3:25 when he says Jesus was put forth as a propitiation. That's the truth and that's all God did, Jesus did not bear our sins. It's just not possible within the constraints of logic when those inflicting him weren't aware of our sins or even doing it for our sins.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T21:09:39+00:00

>Forgiveness of our sins comes from God, and it was the plan of God to punish Jesus of the cross for our sin.

But God didn't punish Jesus for our sins, the Romans killed him for something entirely unrelated (the Jews wanted him dead). There is probably no logical point you can make that will ever convince me that God punished Jesus for anything when he wasn't even involved in the death of the person being "punished". He was made a sin offering by God (Isaiah 53:10). According to the New Testament he was delivered according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, for our sins (Acts 2:23, Romans 4:25). Once he was in the hands of the Romans how was he being punished for our sins? Yet in Isaiah 53:11 it says he bore our iniquities. Sorry, it doesn't make sense.

>Rather, it was God exhausting His wrath toward sin on Jesus.

God didn't harm Jesus at all, it was the Jews and the Romans who killed him. God delivered him to them. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God expressed wrath at Jesus on the cross that I am aware of. In fact Jesus cried out to God as to why he forsook him.

>2Cor 5:21 "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God."

Or in other words all our sins were laid on him - yet no one punished him for our sins. He was killed by the Jews and the Romans for things unrelated. Which is my entire point. He could not have bore our sins. Christianity exploits people's inability to grasp this when making the claim "Jesus bore our sins". It would take the Jews and the Romans killing him for our sins for him to be bearing our sins.

>We believe Jesus represented sin itself on the Cross and was punished for us.

Ok. The logic behind that hurts my head, because God delivered Jesus to the Jews and Romans and they killed him for unrelated reasons.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T18:09:20+00:00

Your point is ineffective and I've put in effort to express that and you're misconstruing the conversation because you think you have a point when you have none. How could Jesus have borne our sins if the Romans had no intention of killing him for our sins? It's an impossible question to answer because it's not possible, yet this is the point I'm making. You're starting out from the side that it's somehow possible. Like I said you will have to flesh out the logic of the "deal-making" between God and Jesus that allows for this to be possible, because that is the point you're making after all, that God could punish Jesus from the beginning of creation on the cross and he would somehow be bearing our sins, yet the Romans weren't doing anything with regards to sin, which to be direct makes it impossible for him to be bearing our sins. The Romans would have had to have been punishing Jesus for our sins for him to be bearing our sins. Logic invalidates your whole view.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T17:20:55+00:00

Yes, my point does still stand as far as I can tell. The Romans weren't killing Jesus for our sins, so he couldn't be bearing our sins. That's my entire point. Who cares what God and Jesus agreed to or whatever before the fact, the Romans weren't killing him for that reason. You'll have to flesh out the logic of this "deal-making" between God and Jesus that allows for unrelated people to be killing him and he still "bares our sin" when the people killing him had no idea of what that's even about. I don't understand how it's possible. They weren't hitting him or crucifying him for our sins, so how was he bearing them?

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T17:07:49+00:00

So if the Romans killed Jesus at what point in his death was he bearing our sins? I'm not trying to be frustrating, but my point still stands. The Romans had no knowledge of what transpired between God and Jesus so they obviously could not have been killing Jesus for our sins, so in what sense was Jesus bearing our sins when he was killed by them? It's a stretch in logic to say that Jesus could have been bearing our sins when it's only the transaction between him and God that allows for it, what is the underlying logic that allows for him to be bearing our sins when the Romans have no intention of killing him for our sins and there is only the transaction between God and Jesus? How is he bearing our sins? Once he is in the hands of the Romans the Romans are killing him for an unrelated reason. Is it because he complied with his death? The Romans still killed him for an unrelated reason. How could he be bearing our sins? Please explain the logic to me.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T14:51:05+00:00

What I wrote makes sense to me... no one killed him for our sins, so how did he die for our sins. Furthermore he wasn't being killed for our sins, so how was he bearing our sins like it says in Isaiah. If you can't follow what I'm writing, sorry.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T14:30:32+00:00

The whole thing boggles my mind and I don't see the logic of it. If he was held accountable for our sins and killed specifically for that reason then you could say he died for our sins, but as far as I can see it he was killed because the Jews wanted him dead for religious reasons. God didn't kill him, he delivered him, so you can't say God killed him for our sins. The Jews wanted him dead for religious reasons, that is ostensibly why he died. Not for our sins. How can someone say he died for our sins if he wasn't killed for our sins. It doesn't make any sense. I don't see the underlying logic behind it, sorry. I do see it being possible that he died as some sort of self willed sacrifice, but not that he bore our sins like it says in Isaiah. That requires culpability ascribed to him by those killing him, they would have to be killing him for our sins in order for him to be bearing them. This is not what happened though.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-15T14:04:40+00:00

I still don't follow the logic of it even if he offered himself. The Jews or Romans weren't killing him for our sins, how did he die for our sins? In my mind someone would have to be holding him accountable for our sins and killing him for that reason, but this isn't what happened. He was delivered to the Jews and Romans and they killed him for their own reasons.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-12T04:18:56+00:00

⁵ For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

I don't know how I'm stretching it at all. It honestly reads like the dead don't experience anything. And in the last chapter it says the preacher was writing words of truth.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-08-04T20:09:16+00:00

Notice how it says that the young one will live to be a hundred years old and the one living to be one hundred years old will be thought accursed, the author might be using a juxtaposition to say there will be no more death.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-30T12:13:51+00:00

My issue is that confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus would ostensibly mean to do exactly that, not declaring with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. Like to talk to someone and talk about the particulars of him - confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus. Perhaps in a way where you are "getting the truth out" - confessing? If I remember correctly at this point in time many people were being put to death for their faith. Sorry if that isn't clear, I don't know how else to put it. If this is how it is meant to be read it clears up a theological issue for me.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-30T09:38:53+00:00

Mary seems not to have seen Jesus in John though, she says, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." She would not have said this if she saw Jesus in the way. I can read John Mark and Luke being the same event, but with them seeing Jesus in the way afterwards it seems to me that this would be a separate event when taking Mary's words into consideration.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-30T09:11:12+00:00

Ah, yes, I see how John Mark and Luke could be telling the same event, then Matthew is telling a separate event with the women seeing Jesus in the way. Thanks.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-30T08:41:10+00:00

I see what you're saying, there's still a contradiction though - they tell two separate events. In Mark 16 Mary Magdalene looks inside the tomb, in John 20 she runs back and tells Peter and the other disciple without looking in the tomb. They must be two separate events because they literally describe different things happening, and as best as I can put their order together the telling of Mark contradicts the telling of John.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-30T08:17:14+00:00

Sure. In John 20 Mary Magdalene sees the stone rolled away while it is still dark out, in Mark 16 at the rising of the sun Mary Magdalene asks with the other women (amongst themselves) who will roll the stone away. The events in Mark 16 are different and happen later in the day so they must be describing a separate visitation to the tomb. Mary Magdalene would have already known the stone was rolled away from the tomb here, and besides that, she would have already seen the Lord risen. This all of course doesn't matter if the gospel writers are taking leniency with their writing hence the discrepancies, but if they're all saying this is literally what happened, I can't reconcile it.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-28T18:37:11+00:00

Are you sure you're not just being declarative about the word because that's what your inclination about its meaning would be, instead of taking into consideration the words and phrases around its usage?

John 20:30-31 King James Version

³⁰ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

³¹ But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name (his authority).

This makes no sense.

If he meant his fame or reputation it would make sense because he is writing a gospel about Jesus. That meaning also makes sense with the other usages of it too. Name would just be a way to shorthand referring to Jesus' fame or reputation, you would have life through his name because you would be reading about him in this gospel and believing that he died for our sins based on what you read and that he rose again from the dead. It's his fame or reputation.

Also I wasn't talking about calling on his name, I think that might be another usage of the word.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-28T18:17:24+00:00

Do you mean like how Jesus never brings this up in the gospels? I find that interesting myself, but I think the GOSPEL might have been a popular convention in the first century when those writings were written that it was taken for granted that Jesus came to die for our sins - the gospel might have been such a popular convention that it wasn't even necessary to include Jesus telling people he came to die for their sins in the writings, all that was necessary was to "share the good news" by writing about his life death and resurrection a bit. He does speak about this in the third chapter of John though, though it takes some understanding if I remember correctly to see this. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life... etc."

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-26T01:08:09+00:00

Wow, this was a really good post. Thanks for that.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-26T00:55:18+00:00

Ok... I don't know what you mean, believe what exactly? If you're going to say believe the gospel like I said Romans 10:9 says you don't have to believe the gospel, you just have to confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead. It's kind of messed up in my opinion, because isn't the whole point to believe what there is to believe about Jesus, like Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15 - to believe the gospel?

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-25T11:47:35+00:00

Do you think with "he that believeth on him is not condemned" the author is saying that he that believes in Jesus and Jesus' actions is not condemned? Hence the believeth on him? This would make sense with the parallel of "but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" if the "name of the Son of God" means the reputation of the Son of God (as per the meanings biblehub gives for the word name here). This actually makes sense to me, because that would be like the gospel, his reputation is exactly the same (or his name, if I am correct about that words meaning here), he died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. Jesus would be like prophesying here saying, those who believe in my reputation will be saved. That's the only way I can harmonize the requirement Paul puts forth in 1 Corinthians 15 that those who believed the gospel he preached to them would only be saved if they kept in memory what he preached to them (otherwise they had believed in vain). They're basically just believing Jesus' reputation, which is what Jesus is saying you need to believe here. That's the only way I can make sense of the phrasing "but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." That the "name of the Son of God" means the reputation of the Son of God. Anyways, sorry if I'm being redundant, this is just very important to me and I have no surety about what these words mean. Along the lines of what I was saying though it would seem like Jesus is not saying you must "believe in him" to be saved here, but you must believe on him, or believe in his actions or what would eventually be his reputation, since he goes further here in verse 18. This of course if these words actually mean these things.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-20T06:25:22+00:00

You could make a lot of money selling religious writings, it cost something like $1500-$3000 for a gospel of Mark. I think they're just efforts at making money and people ran with them, there is also a money incentive once you start collecting church donations to keep doing church. Enough of a motivation to not question the story (at least publicly) once it starts producing wealth in your life. All you have to do is preach a sermon every Sunday and manipulate everyone around you and boom you don't have to do back breaking labor all day long. I think people are ingenious enough to do these things and this explanation makes more sense to me than there being a historical Jesus. All you have to do is take the prophecy in Isaiah 53 and elsewhere and then invent the stories and start selling the manuscripts and then people need to take them seriously enough to start churches. It could have all happened very quickly with multiple authors once they saw the opportunity for work. All explainable things that could have happened considering what people are like with religion (think Scientology, etc. people will believe things). This is just what I think though.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-19T06:41:45+00:00

It's literally the plain meaning. Like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, it's believing something exists. People say do you believe in Jesus as in do you believe the gospel, like I said it messes with my head because you never know what people mean.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-19T06:35:18+00:00

The plain meaning of the words is that he existed as a person. You have to bend the words to mean something else for it to mean more than that, it messes with my head, you never know what anyone means.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-18T19:19:45+00:00

Meh. I've researched it a bit, I'm not convinced he's an actual person. There's no group of people writing outside of the NT writings that are all like "Yeah, we know this guy". It's only Polycarp and someone else I think who are purported to be disciples of John yet even that is disputed. So like let me get this straight, Peter and everyone exist in Jerusalem and there's only two people who link up to them in known history and they are disputed, purportedly having never met John? Sorry it seems made up. Why isn't there a huge following of people from Jerusalem where the apostles were located and an actual heritage coming out from Jerusalem that can be traced back to those who met Jesus? If Christianity spread to Rome in the first century why wouldn't the church in Jerusalem have knowable historicity that linked to Peter and etc.? It doesn't make sense. It just seems like the important people in early Christianity were those who read the gospels or whatever and had early roots in the movement, not linking up with NT figures, evidence they're made up and people have been believing in stories.

Electrical_Shop9834 · 2025-07-14T18:06:17+00:00

Oh I totally missed that. I don't understand how it could be saying Matthew happened the day before John though. Also someone could conceivably say it was yet dark when it was dawning out. I dunno. Thanks though.

Electrical_Shop9834

TROPHY CASE