Zone1 Explaining Jesus to a Jew

[theHawk]

Does it get any better than this?

John MacArthur explains Jesus to Ben Shapiro.

You either accept Jesus is the Messiah, or that he is a blasphemer. There is no middle ground.

He also covers the animal sacrifice and why it was never good enough to cover for Israel’s sins.




Can any of you anti-Christs refute this?

Poor Ben, has no response.

 

[BULLDOG]

So many questions, but I'll just ask one. He said the resurection is a provable, historical fact. Could someone prove that for those of us who haven't seen this evidence?

 

[rosends]

Ben Shapiro listened. That's called "being respectful." He didn't make himself the focus. Nothing that gentleman said had any real value, theologically, to a Jew.

Jesus wasn't a blasphemer under Jewish law. He gives no proofs, just claims. And the claims are wrong, unless one wants to support them by the exact same texts that only have value if you already accept the claims as truth. Sad and self-serving. I'll give this to Ben -- he only laughed out loud once.

 

[Meriweather]

So many questions, but I'll just ask one. He said the resurection is a provable, historical fact. Could someone prove that for those of us who haven't seen this evidence?

What proof would you accept?

A short summary is that historians look at the results. They note witnesses who saw the risen Christ. They noted the events that arose from that claim, including the fact people chose death over disclaiming what they had witnessed.

The real question is, How many historians who held no belief in the resurrection were convinced? About .5%. How many historians who held a belief in the resurrections were convinced not enough proof existed? About .5%.

It appears, based on following events, the likelihood is that the resurrection did occur. The arguments above is whether historians can say it definitely occurred. That consensus (by historians) seems to be that no, historians cannot definitely prove the resurrection since the only accounts are mostly second-hand (hearsay) accounts of witnesses of that time.

 

[jwoodie]

You either accept Jesus is the Messiah, or that he is a blasphemer.

That seems to be a false dichotomy combined with a straw man argument. I would much rather listen to a Jew explain what he believes about Jesus than to a Christian telling him what he believes.

 

[Meriweather]

My question: Where, specifically, (and particularly in the Old Testament) does God say sins must be punished?

 

[jwoodie]

What proof would you accept?

A short summary is that historians look at the results. They note witnesses who saw the risen Christ. They noted the events that arose from that claim, including the fact people chose death over disclaiming what they had witnessed.

The real question is, How many historians who held no belief in the resurrection were convinced? About .5%. How many historians who held a belief in the resurrections were convinced not enough proof existed? About .5%.

It appears, based on following events, the likelihood is that the resurrection did occur. The arguments above is whether historians can say it definitely occurred. That consensus (by historians) seems to be that no, historians cannot definitely prove the resurrection since the only accounts are mostly second-hand (hearsay) accounts of witnesses of that time.

What, exactly, was the Resurrection? Did a physical Jesus ascend to a physical heaven? If not, the witness accounts deserve some skepticism.

 

[BULLDOG]

What proof would you accept?

A short summary is that historians look at the results. They note witnesses who saw the risen Christ. They noted the events that arose from that claim, including the fact people chose death over disclaiming what they had witnessed.

The real question is, How many historians who held no belief in the resurrection were convinced? About .5%. How many historians who held a belief in the resurrections were convinced not enough proof existed? About .5%.

It appears, based on following events, the likelihood is that the resurrection did occur. The arguments above is whether historians can say it definitely occurred. That consensus (by historians) seems to be that no, historians cannot definitely prove the resurrection since the only accounts are mostly second-hand (hearsay) accounts of witnesses of that time.

It's a stretch to say that is a provable historical event. Those that already believed it said the proof was enough. That's right in line with what I usually hear You have to accept it is all true before you accept the proof" You don't see the absurdity in that?

 

[Meriweather]

What, exactly, was the Resurrection? Did a physical Jesus ascend to a physical heaven? If not, the witness accounts deserve some skepticism.

Accounts after the resurrection note Jesus breaking bread, Jesus eating, and Jesus offering his hands to an apostle.

 

[BULLDOG]

Accounts after the resurrection note Jesus breaking bread, Jesus eating, and Jesus offering his hands to an apostle.

Any accounts other than the bible?

 

[theHawk]

Ben Shapiro listened. That's called "being respectful." He didn't make himself the focus. Nothing that gentleman said had any real value, theologically, to a Jew.

Jesus wasn't a blasphemer under Jewish law. He gives no proofs, just claims. And the claims are wrong, unless one wants to support them by the exact same texts that only have value if you already accept the claims as truth. Sad and self-serving. I'll give this to Ben -- he only laughed out loud once.

Then why did the Sanhedrin accuse him of blasphemy? He was saying that he was the Son of Man. I know you like to ignore historical facts, but they found him guilty of violating the Sabbath, threatening to destroy the temple, and claiming to be the Messiah. They demanded his death for this, and pressured the Romans to do it for them since they were not allowed to do it themselves.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Meriweather]

It's a stretch to say that is a provable historical event. Those that already believed it said the proof was enough. That's right in line with what I usually hear You have to accept it is all true before you accept the proof" You don't see the absurdity in that?

The point: Witnesses of that time insisted they saw Jesus, and their lives changed. What other historical event can emulate this? No one has to accept it is all true before accepting proof. That is not what historians are saying. The world today is proof that something happened, and that something is traced back to witnesses proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. What is the likelihood of this happening without the resurrection? Not likely at all, in fact, improbable.

However, improbability (or likelihood) is not proof something actually did happen. The point is that there is no physical proof, and physical, measurable proof is what those who do not believe want to evaluate--and there is no physical, measurable evidence to provide them.

 

[Meriweather]

Any accounts other than the bible?

Not that I have ever been able to find.

Have you ever wondered how many of the events recorded in the Diary of Anne Frank (or any journal) can be verified by an outside source?

 

[theHawk]

My question: Where, specifically, (and particularly in the Old Testament) does God say sins must be punished?

Leviticus 5, aside of course from Genesis 3 when he punished Adam and Eve for their sin…

 

[Meriweather]

Leviticus 5, aside of course from Genesis 3 when he punished Adam and Eve for their sin…

Leviticus is not the Ten Commandments, and seems more like punishments decided by mankind for those not keeping the Commandments. While Genesis 3 might be construed as punishment, it also seems like God is explaining the consequences of their acts. For example, a child jumps off the roof. The doctor wouldn't say, "The punishment for jumping off the roof is a broken leg," he would remark the consequence of jumping off high places is usually a broken bone.

Where do we come to the conclusions that God was just waiting to punish someone for the sins of all? Where in Jesus' ministry does he proclaim that he was there so God might punish him alone in place of punishing each person individually? If it was going to be punishment for the remission of sins, why was Jesus always teaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[BULLDOG]

Not that I have ever been able to find.

Have you ever wondered how many of the events recorded in the Diary of Anne Frank (or any journal) can be verified by an outside source?

There are stacks and stacks of doccumentation showing what Ann Frank wrote about.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's a stretch to say that is a provable historical event. Those that already believed it said the proof was enough. That's right in line with what I usually hear You have to accept it is all true before you accept the proof" You don't see the absurdity in that?

Only Stupid People Believe That College Graduates Are "Smart in School"

This is what "Begging the Question" really means, not the Low IQ Influencers usage of it:

"God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."

 

[BreezeWood]

You either accept Jesus is the Messiah, or that he is a blasphemer. There is no middle ground.

jesus was neither nor did he ever claim to be a messiah -

all of which was required for their book of forgeries and fallacies to entrap those that read the c-bible to become a member of their religion of servitude.

rather - what jesus taught, liberation theology, self determination as the means for admission to the everlasting.

 

[BULLDOG]

Only Stupid People Believe That College Graduates Are "Smart in School"

This is what "Begging the Question" really means, not the Low IQ Influencers usage of it:

"God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist."

That might be the stooopidest post I have ever seen.

 

[irosie91]

Then why did the Sanhedrin accuse him of blasphemy? He was saying that he was the Son of Man. I know you like to ignore historical facts, but they found him guilty of violating the Sabbath, threatening to destroy the temple, and claiming to be the Messiah. They demanded his death for this, and pressured the Romans to do it for them since they were not allowed to do it themselves.

You can’t have it both ways.

HISTORICAL FACTS? what evidence do you have that the Sanhedrin accused Jesus
of anything or ever heard a case against him? ROFLMAO @ "pressured
the Romans"