"Jimmy Akin is a cyborg, sent by God from the future to save the Church." - Trent Horn. Darren Slade .... seems like he's going through a lot right now. I offered a prayer for him, and I'd encourage my fellow Christians to do the same.
@PintsWithAquinas Hey Matt, Just wanted to thank you for the comment and for watching the debate. Also wanted to say I was a big fan of your channel. It was definitely an honor to debate alongside the great Jimmy Akin.
I've never heard of Darren before I came across this debate. I'm having a hard time pinning down what he believes. I know you, Matt, wouldn't presume to answer for him, but to anyone else who might be reading this: What does Darren believe?
Dr. Slade’s performance in this debate is very disappointing. Apart from the fact he didn’t make a SINGLE argument, he also exhibited a very annoying melange of arrogance and ignorance. Jimmy’s level of patience is just amazing
@@BudLightBeerOfStarCommandhave you noticed that so-called “conservative“ channels are now attempting to portray Bill Maher as a conservative hero? It makes me cringe.
@@Hola-ro6yv I don't know if that's an appropriate statement to make . . . there are many atheists who manage to retain a calm, collected temperament. Just making a blanket statement doesn't really help.
Jimmy’s entire argument was, “The virgin birth is true because I believe in God and I believe God is perfect.” How is that a good argument? That’s the same as saying, “Scientology is true because I believe in Lord Xenu and I believe L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet.” Or, “The Mormon Church is true because I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and I believe God wouldn’t lie to a prophet.” All 3 of these are empty and meaningless, as “logical arguments”. They are anything but logical. There is ZERO logic. They are statements of belief, which is fine, we are all entitled to beliefs, but they do not prove anything or even attempt to prove anything. The sky is purple because I believe the sky is purple. Same exact level of logic.
@@NewportSolarWell, the argument was premised on the idea that if God was not perfect, he would not be God, therefore if God exists, he would be perfect. But that's entirely beside the point... there were plenty of points for the atheists to attack. They could have shown that there was an error in the Bible and that it, therefore, was not perfect and that God therefore was not perfect. They didn't. They could have demonstrated that the Bible was not inspired by God and therefore God's perfection or imperfection had no bearing on the accuracy of the Bible. They did not do that either. They instead chose to attack the one suppositional statement in the entire argument... that God was perfect, and even then they provided no evidence that God was not perfect, rather they simply stated it was a bad argument. If it's a bad argument, demonstrate that God is not perfect by attacking the argument, don't simply say "I don't accept your premise"... I already know you don't accept the premise because you are, after all, an Atheist (which goes back to Jimmy's point at the very, very start which is that this is not a well-framed debate since the debaters do not agree on the central premises in the first place). By the way, "I'm not studied enough on this topic" is a reasonable response. It doesn't necessarily make the argument true to say that, it simply says "There may be evidence out there of which I am not aware, so I'm going to cede this ground and say this looks like a reasonable argument but you've at least given me several areas to study if I wish to refute it." For instance, with your arguments on Scientology and Mormonism, I could say I don't know enough about what prophecies L. Ron Hubbard may or may not have written to know whether or not they were true and therefore can't really have an opinion on whether or not he was a prophet. I know that he said something to the effect of "The best way to make money is to create a religion", so he does have that against him, though I don't know the exact quote off the top of my head. Same with the Mormons... I know Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had to edit their version of the Bible several times, in meaningful ways, and change their prophecies as they were overcome by events... but as to the specifics of that, I would need to do more research and it's quite possible that it's just hearsay on my part. So those arguments stand until I can come up with the evidence to refute them, despite me knowing them to be incorrect and simply not having the details at hand to demonstrate their incorrectness. But it's the pride of John and Darren that does not allow them to even concede that much ground... they simply revert to "I reject your framing, with no evidence to the contrary."
Darren's demeanor was honestly shocking. It's a shame not much came from this. Jimmy even streamlined his stance for them and warned about derailing, but Darren immediately diverts into semantics.
These guys don't represent secularists. What is a typical secularist? There are a lot of dumb, crazy religious people in America, and the world, that doesn't mean they all are.
Thank you for hosting some debates, honestly love debates so it’s good to see them. But I have some constructive criticism. 1.) Debate topic, as Jimmy stated early on. The topic just doesn’t work with the group here. There’s to many things they disagreed about, you can’t have a full conversation on a topic, if your always bouncing around to something new. It sounded like John insisted on it, but seems to be worth vetoing, it just doesn’t work. 2.) I’m not sure 2v2 debates work. I’ve seen a couple of them now, and it always feels like you can’t get a full thought out, someone is always adding things, or adjusting the conversation down a different path, which means you never get anywhere. 3.) I’m not familiar with John’s or Darren’s work but they were rude. They often didn’t present arguments but resorted to absurdity. Didn’t think I’d hear Jesus conception, described as “rapey”, but alas here we are. I think there are better atheists debaters out there who would have provided a better more charitable response while still disagreeing. 4.) Bring Jimmy back, he is the BOMB. Honestly my favorite debater every time I see him. He makes things approachable, but still complex enough to have sound logic and such. An absolute gem of a man. I’ll just say I’m glad he’s debating the Catholic perspective.
Them: “There’s bo evidence! The NT isn’t evidence!” Jimmy: “actually here’s some cultural, archeological, and astronomical evidence” Them: “you’re problem is you’re bringing in all these extra-biblical things to fit your narrative” Holy smokes, these guys are either extremely ignorant, disingenuous, or both This was another example of the scriptural idea that unbelievers will be made fools. God was definitely infinitely accurate about that, that’s for sure.
Yes very much so. Apparently using evidence outside the Bible to corroborate the Bible is apparently wrong but then atheists try and use things outside the Bible to try and show the Bible is false
There Is NO Evidence For A God and The Old and New Testament Are Fantasies Written By People Who Were Ignorant Of The World Around Them, Jimmy Didn't Prove Anything, He Assumed and Asserted, What Archeological, Astronomical or Cultural Evidence Did He Provide and The Story About The Star or Neptune Was Asinine To Say The Least!!!
@@WhiteScorpio2 Jimmy was telling him about evidence outside of the Bible that supports the star in the gospel of Matthew for the Magi followed to arrive and meet Jesus as a baby.
@@ZacharyTLawson Both tactics are understandable. I just think it’s sad that a grown adult thinks acting like this in an intellectual debate is normal. Also, all the memes in his presentation. Just wish he would have acted like an adult
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvytthat would be incredible. They are also both very eccentric and unique within their own communities and have very distinctive personalities that would be super interesting to see coming together
Akin dominated? Did you watch a different debate than the rest of us? Every premise he offers is bare assertion and unsupported or a tautology. Loftus deflated his syllogism with a single sentence.
I agree with Akin's intial point that its not going to be very fruitful to have atheists try and debate the virgin birth, because theres no agreed upon premise for debate. It wouldve made more sense to have Christians who disagree on the virgin birth debate it. Or just to have a debate on atheism vs theism. Either way, the atheists in this argument were rather obnoxious and tried to personally attack and talk down to Jimmy on multiple occassions.
If one professes to be a Christian, which entails belief in the inerrant assertions of scripture, and scripture undeniably asserts that Jesus was conceived in Mary without her having relations, then it’s hard for a Christian to deny the virgin birth unless they are ignorant about scripture or lax in their belief (which is common). Basic reading comprehension shows the authors intend to convey a historical truth rather than metaphorical or something. However, I’m pretty sure nobody asserts that the virgin birth is a necessary thing theologically when it comes to Jesus’s incarnation, as in he could have incarnated any way he wanted, but it is quite fitting.
@@tomasrocha6139 I see what you mean. No, there were still Christians before the books of the NT were written and canonized. If you want, I should rather have said that being a professed Christian entails belief in the assertions of the word of God, which can be transmitted orally in apostolic tradition or written in sacred scripture. This means that before the gospels and epistles were written (teachings of the apostles in text), people would assent to the teaching of the apostles who spoke about the virgin birth for instance, or would implicitly affirm it if they haven't learned of it yet.
The demeanor that darren and john displayed made them seem foolish. I am in the hard sciences and I can't imagine approaching a conference or discussion with the lack of professionalism that they displayed. Even for a discussion like this I hope they know it really hurt their position.
I love how they assumed Jimmy had no other evidence than the Bible, and then when he presented extra-biblical evidence, Slade criticized him for using extra-biblical things. Just slimy stuff, honestly. A lot of times they also engaging in projection. Just unintellectual stuff, and it goes to show that graduate degrees don’t make someone wise are without extremely large biases
Darren was 💯 an asshole and the other guy just didn’t have the intellectual chops to be there. I do not think this debate did Cameron any good for his channel unless of course this chaos gets him a lot of clicks lol 😂
Atheists showed up to a gun fight with spit balls and fart jokes. You can tell who studied for the test and who thought they'd ace it just by showing up. Job well done by Jimmy and Caleb.
@@seandriver7923 That's not all he said. Lol. He gave a list of premises that led to his conclusion that the virgin birth was true (which is how you form an argument) and refuted every objection they made to his list of premises, including the reliability and interpretation of the New Testament accounts. That's not "it's true because the Bible says so".
This really does show you the difference between light and darkness just by the way people conduct themselves. This Dr. Slade guy, this guy almost made Matt Dillahunty look like a decent guy, which is almost impossible.
I don’t usually say this, but Darren should not have been given a platform here. There are actual arguments out there to contend with. He made inappropriate sexual innuendo and insults. Pretty gross behavior.
It's a shame that John and Darren were jerks, it doesn't show the other side as being fruitfully engaging, which is not usually the case. They didn't show their best side.
There argument was that the the logical argument regarding the virgin birth falls apart immediately due to the fact that the existence of god cannot be proven
Jimmy imo creamed them as far as logical argumentation and returning to the topic at hand. Then out of charity he also proved he understood the words in scripture in their Greek and historical context. The floor was wiped. These poor gentlemen were out of their league. Pace e bene’
Sorry but no. His arguments were weak. He doesn't understand inspiration, he doesn't get his image of God from the Bible, he doesn't understand the mindset of the authors, he commits one fallacy after another... Embarrassing to see this as a Christian that this is the level of debate we're at. David Friedrich Strauß had better arguments in 1840 than any of the debaters. The atheist side was just as bad BTW.
@@MrSeedi76 Detail your objections with context. What you've done is made a stack of claims, and *not* backed a single one. Are you normally this vapid?
Summary of the 1st Part: On Our Lord being born of a Virgin: John: JC's geneology is inaccurate Jimmy: That doesnt invalidate the virgin birth. John: The bible contradicts itself Jimmy: That doesn't invalidate the Virgin birth John: The magi didnt understand jewish prophecy. Jimmy: That does not invalidate the Virgin birth. Here are my premise that need you would to refute John: The bible is not inerrant Jimmy: The debate is on the Virgin birth. Etc etc
It would've been more fruitful if Jimmy had just translated their unfocused approach into challenges to his premises, doing the work for them. But that's not really his job in the debate.
I thought they same thing. They were obviously challenging his premise that the Bible was inspired by God. Jimmy was trying to get them to explicitly say that, and they wouldn't, but he could've addressed the point anyway.
I think Jimmy was also resisting this as the debate would no longer be about the virgin birth but just the New Testament. Which he points out is what John should have requested to debate
Good on you, Cameron, for stepping in when necessary. If Darren and John hadn't lost because of their high-school level arguments, I would still have written them off for Darren's lack of class and basic respect. Also, you might consider examining the debaters' presentations before the debate. Darren's was lewd and blasphemous and shouldn't be acceptable in any civil debate let alone on a Christian channel.
I couldn't finish it. I'm happy to listen to debates and as a devouted Catholic, I was actually interested to hear the atheist views, but once they started behaving like snotty teenagers and using mockery as their "point," I gave up. I can't abide by the rudeness. A person's view or position cannot be taken seriously if they themselves cannot be taken seriously.
Yea, I don't know if I'm going to make it through this one. I love comparative study and debates about historicity claims, but Darren Slade's behavior in this interview is just appallingly puerile and arrogant. At least John Lofton, even if off-base, seemed to be under the impression that some sort of debate was taking place, albeit one which he was grossly ill-prepared for.
But Jimmy trying to turn a debate about the virgin birth into a debate about god's existence wasn't going off topic? You don't think it was odd that Jimmy complained about the debate going off topic and then demanded the atheists deal with his argument that completely assumed the existence of god? Really? If the atheists would of taken the bait the entire debate would of turned into a debate about god's existence.
What a childish behavior and argument from Darren! Very embarrassing and shameful act. Generally, these two atheists don’t know what they are talking about.
As a fan of a lot of skeptics in the Virgin Birth stuff, these two were cringy as hell. Caleb and Akin responded well to the few "honest" objections. It's sad to see someone with a postdoctoral degree behave so badly and have such a shallow argument (almost always resorting to the absurd) and facetious.
Could it be that skeptics really don’t have anything to hang their hat on other than their disbelief. Their arguments are nothing more than attacks based on their prejudiced feelings, not evidence, not facts, but their feelings. Logic is not logic unless it’s based on facts, and not feelings.
Yeah, no one who hears the Christmas story thinks that the star floated in front of the magi, hovering. Just because he has a 6 year-old’s imagination doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Do these guys know that mariners used the sky for navigation for millennia? And a celestial body never appears above things to humans ????? Well, look up, then look down. Are there five houses visible? Is one reported to have had some miraculous activity at it recently? Try that one. It might have the reported king you’re looking for. Also, “everyone else believes like I do” after saying “they didn’t even know where babies came from” is arguing that the truth is decided by consensus, and that it’s NOT decided by consensus. Oops!
I came across Jimmy from this channel and have loved checking out his other content. I was curious how he would be in a debate and man, he was rock solid. He just made a brick wall of an argument and I don’t think the other side was really equipped or prepared to deal with it.
@@tomasrocha6139 When you think more about it, it makes sense. For me it solves a contradiction between Luke and Matthew. Also, they were probably let into a house, but not in "people-section" of it.
I honestly don't know how Jimmy kept his poise during this. This was not a high-level interaction and my guess is that it taxed jimmy at times. I appreciate that he interacted with them but wow were they incoherent at times.
@@bruh-dg5yw Lack Of Philosophy???? What Has That Got To Do With The Bible, Using Philosophy Is A Scapegoat, A Lot Of Useless Words Going Nowhere, Use The Bible, Use Reality, Use Facts, Use Evidence, Don't Give A Damn About Philosophy Which Is Used To Obfuscate, Talking Loud and Saying NOTHING, I Care About Facts and Truth!!!
@@joeypuvel1228Jimmy’s intro from a theological point was good. The atheists were actually jerks and were unable to refute what he said and secondly offered no evidence whatsoever that the virgin birth didn’t occur. Asserting that they think the genealogical is untrue or asserting the star the Magi followed must be false because they don’t understand it therefore doesn’t then follow the Virgin Birth is not true. One doesn’t lead to the other. The Virgin Birth is a theological conclusion just as the Trinity is a theological conclusion form what we understand about God and also the life of Jesus.
Jimmy Akin on the Star… such an epic response. Total beat down on that point. They didn’t know what to say. I think their response was that people then didn’t understand science. The fact that so many gospel accounts fit science and archeology is actually a proof of their validity.
What I found telling about that interaction was how Slade conducted himself. He was criticizing Akin for “only using the Bible to defend his position”, and then when Akin presented this context, Slade criticized Akin for using “extra-biblical context to fit his narrative”. So, no matter what, in Slades mind, Akin is wrong no matter what evidences he brings in. That’s not an illustration of an intellectual giant; it’s the fruit of an intellectually corrupt fool
Here’s my attempt at formulating Loftus’s comments into an argument that interacts with Akin’s premises (I’m condensing a lot): 1) Everything God asserts is true. 2) Everything the NT asserts, God asserts. 3) But, the NT asserts known falsehoods (e.g. census, genealogy, etc) 4) Therefore, either not everything asserted by God is true or not everything asserted by the NT is asserted by God. This does not disprove the virgin birth but it does remove Akin’s justification for believing it. I figure Akin would contest the facts of (3), challenging either that those are not falsehoods or that the NT doesn’t assert it. I wish there was deeper discussion about what Akin meant by “assert” because I figure he would distinguish between assertions and incidental affirmations (eg three tier cosmology).
Wowzers, Loftus and Slade need to go into hiding, if only because if I were them I would be ashamed to show my face in public for a good long while. Those two were so unprepared, so immature, so poorly-spoken, so smug and cocky, so bad at debate argumentation, and used such terrible talking points that it not only embarrasses themselves, but embarrasses Cameron too, since now people can watch this and say “How unfair! Cameron picked the dumbest and smarmiest atheists to participate in this debate!” Those two are not simply clowns, they are the entire circus. I felt bad FOR them, watching them make utter unserious fools of themselves.
I could be off but it seems like Loftus and Slade are saying, at least partly, that because the text says that the star was moving and we know that stars don't behave that way, it therefore couldn't have been a star. However because the Bible identifies it as a star that means that the Bible was wrong. But that is such a wooden and uncharitable way of interpreting anything. If I said "yeah, that sunset was super pretty or the sunrise was absolutely beautiful this morning" and someone says "oh but don't you know the sun doesn't actually rise or set, and because you said that, you therefore must be affirming a earth-centered solar system and because we know that's false you must be untrustworthy"
For Slade, things can only be true if there is empirical evidence for them or their definition is in Merriam-Webster‘s (lmao btw). That is an unbreachable gap in itself, and it is neither empirically proven nor in any dictionary. Dude was right when he asked not to be referred to as a philosopher.
John's opening was your standard surface level rabid ashiest with next to no understanding of philosophy nonsense that you've heard a hundred times over. I don't even want to mention Darren, just a perfect representation of what atheisms leads to really. Jimmy absolutely crushed it. Atheism DESTROYED 😂 Caleb was the cherry on the top of the cake 😆
Darren's constant interrupting and accusing Jimmy as trying to play semantic tricks to justify his interrupting, just wreaks of some intellectual insecurity. I think he didn't realize Jimmy was an intellectual heavyweight and began to squirm.
Darren's arrogant tone is quite cringe. Jimmy came off calm and collected. He was trying to get these two to engage the syllogism, and they didn't. It's incredible really.
Did John assert more than once that muslims don't believe in the virgin birth? They literally teach that and that Jesus was without sin as satan never touched them, the only people in Islam to make that claim.
He asserted (at least on his slide) that Muslims don't believe that Mary gave birth to God as a virgin, which is 1) correct and 2) shifting the goalposts.
@@daisybrain9423 And presenting the slide, he spoke of just the virgin birth which is incorrect. So either he presents the slide accurately and shifts the goalposts or he presents inaccurately and spreads wrong information
Yes, Muslims absolutely believe that Jesus didn't have a human father. They believe that God caused the virginal Mary to conceive in her womb without ever engaging in sexual relations with a man, and without losing her virginity. But they don't believe that Jesus was divine, only that he was a human conceived in a miraculous way, and specifically to be a prophet. There is one sect of Islam that includes a teaching that the fact that Jesus did not have a father was proof that he is a lesser prophet, because although he was personally without sin, his lack of a father was a matter of shame. In a shame vs honor culture, that's a big deal
I’m glad Jimmy A. called out the “rapey” comment, as it seemed like a cheap shot meant to cut down his opponents rather than debate them. Rape shouldn’t be used that way. “Humor at someone else’s expense.” No. Not ok. And the other guy saying she was already pregnant? That’s not what the Bible says.
I agree more with the atheist side than I do with the Christian side, but this debate is the exact reason why I call myself an "Agnostic" instead of an Atheist. I cannot stand the idea of being assiated with those two "debators" on the atheist side. Sheesh.
Atheism isn’t an association, rather an arrival at a conclusion. Think about how many serial killers also are associated with the Round Earth believers - would that then be good reason to lean agnostic about your own conclusion?
@@ThePinsa42 I understand this, of course. I don't deny that atheism is a knowledge claim rather than an association of individuals. But humans are pattern-recognition machines, we form associations where there need not be any. People associate "atheist" will collections of people rather than a simple claim to knowledge. And since this is a very common association which is made, I will not identify myself using that term, even though I could and I would just need to do this whole song and dance every time.
Its alright to disagree and put up arguments, there is no need to be angry at the other or hate the other because you dont share his views. Dr. Slade, a guy smart enough do earn that Dr. tiitle he has, should know how to conduct himself decently and respectfully. Its fine if you dont agree with Jimmy, this is just a debate and discussion.
This was painful. Slade wants to be referred to as an historian but also recognized as a philosopher, and then goes on to butcher philosophy, beginning with an amateur understanding of basic logic.
I only could stomach the rudeness and belittling manner the atheists presented in their presentations just to hear what Jimmy and Caleb had to say. I think it's very valuable to hear intelligent people on different viewpoints respectfully debate, because we can all learn so much. There are many atheists out there that I highly respect and appreciate them sharing their view. But this debate was only respectful on one side. They not only belittled the Christian debaters but anybody else that believed differently than them. Thank you Jimmy for calling Darren out for being so disrespectful to all Christians at 1:23:00 when he disrespected the blessed mother and for standing up for her. Why anybody would insult half their audience's beliefs and expect to win them over to his way of thinking is beyond me.
What's most frustrating, 33 - 34 minutes in, is that the Christians (mostly Jimmy) are trying to offer any means by which to have some sort of debate here while Loftus makes tangential arguments and Dr. Slade argues semantics. Jimmy is practically spoonfeeding them things to object to and they're just acting snide. Come on, asking what the definition of truth is after you just asserted yourself to be a philosopher? The hemming and hawing just doesn't come off as if it's from someone skilled in making a case. The debate is about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and you’re objecting to the definition of God???
Can atheists like Dr. Slade and John Loftus tell us why anything exists at all, I would so love to hear even a rational possible explanation from an atheist on that question, which is the most fundamental question there is.
A paraphrase of John Loft's repetitive request: "Why don't you just say this: I believe in fairy tales with no evidence. You're allowed to do that. I'm being charitable to you by saying you're allowed to believe in things with no evidence just be honest and say you believe in fairytales. Why don't you do that? Why can't you see how gracious I'm being by allowing you to do that?" 37:4345:42
Because the entire premise of what he’s saying is faulty. Belief doesn’t exist without evidence. Belief comes from evidence that someone finds reasonable. Now what I find reasonable may be different than you and that’s fine
@@catholicguy1073 "Belief doesn’t exist without evidence." Of course it does. A belief always has reasons but evidence is absolutely not required to have any particular belief.
@@WhiteScorpio2 we can agree to disagree. For example people who believe aliens exist can cite reasons for that belief. Atheists who believe God does not exist can cite reasons for their unbelief in God etc So to be more specific an authentic belief requires evidence.
@@catholicguy1073 "an authentic belief requires evidence" And whether a belief is authentic or not is determined by it being or not being based on evidence? The point being is that not all beliefs are based on evidence. I'd rather say most aren't. If you forgive me being anecdotal, the Christians that I have personally talked to cited reasons that are not evidence for their beliefs (their upbringing, their culture, their feelings, their desire to meet their dead loved ones, etc.). My personal atheism is not based on evidence, but rather on a lack of anything I would recognize as evidence and my conviction that the Christian God specifically isn't real is also based not on evidence, but rather on a semantic argument (that is to say, I posit that Christian idea of a God is incoherent, so nothing can exist that matches that idea).
This only shows that no matter how many arguments you have you can't make someone accepted even logical statement if they don't want to.... The lesson here is to identify these people so you don't waste your time....
Topic: Virgin Birth pt.8 The curse of Jeconiah (which was under the old covenant) is a futile argument because Jesus the Christ did not sit on the throne during His first advent. So the first time Jesus the Christ came, he did not violate the judgement that was placed on Jeconiah. If we read Acts 2:30-31 we can clearly see that king David understood that Jesus the Christ was going to rise from the dead with all power and authority and then He (Jesus) would be able to sit upon the throne (which would be under the new covenant where all sins, including past sins will be forgiven) without violating the judgment that TMH place upon Jeconiah.
The guy with the red beard is the most passive-aggressive man I have ever seen. He refused to answer the questions the others posed but rather insisted they had to answer his points which were all based on his theology rather than arguing the position. He would be a totally controlling pastor and the kind of academic that would fail any student who had a different view. He did way more harm than good to his position.
Darren sadly does not understand logical reasoning and argumentation. Jimmy was not begging the question. Webster definitions don’t define argumentation, but what is meant by the one making the argument does. Jimmy’s definition of “God” is specific, and there is philosophical reason to believe in that specific definition which can further be debated.
Topic: Virgin Birth pt.7 Let’s examine Luke 3:23. But first let’s begin here. Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense. With that being said let’s read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It reads, "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph...". It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained within parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph. Defined the term "being" in Luke 3:23 and then examine how it’s used throughout the Bible (New Testament). Question. Was the phrase "as was supposed" in the original text? I don’t think it was. But correct me if I’m wrong. I recently was told that it was. This may be true when considering that the phrase “as was supposed” isn’t in italics.
As an atheist and a former believer, I am disappointed by the atheist debaters. I totally agree with Loftus' points but, in my opinion, he was supposed to interact with Akin's arguments after they were done with their presentations. Perhaps, he is just not a good speaker. He is better in writing (I read one of his books). The other guy just sounded arrogant.
At time 10:26, the beginning of John's speech, John asserts that Muslims don't believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin. While it is true that Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God. Muslims do believe that Jesus was born from a Virgin. So that's a misleading comment.
I noticed "Muslims" was in the list but didn't clock it! Shameful on my part, since I almost converted to Islam when I was younger and know full well that they agree with the virgin birth.
I think Dr. Slade forgot the audience of the debate because he was triggered by Jimmy. He seems like a reasonably intelligent guy and it is really a shame to see. Reminds me of the typical cringelord reddit atheist (which judging by the quality and quantity of the memes probably applies) If you’re reading this please keep in mind that debates aren’t supposed to be a chance for you to dogpile with all your buds on the other guy, but rather an opportunity to help people sitting on the fence decide what makes the most sense.
The Virgin Birth pt.2 The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is considered to be an essential belief for biblical believers. It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus was born (Jn. 7:43) but not about "how" Jesus was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary and Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would have interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews did not bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because (in my opinion) they did not interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. I believe they understood the term “virgin “to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't. I don’t believe that the people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous (in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews did not think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this is not the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would have been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.
I provided a ten part explanation to why I disagree with the orthodox biblical doctrine on the “Virgin Birth” in the comment section. Scroll through the comment section and read them. Feel free to leave me a comment. And just so you’ll know, I believe in the Bible, which contains the words of God.
The atheists are so upset that Jimmy uses logic, science and reason to explain Christianity and they were expecting evangelical hocus pocus Bible magic and they can’t cope.
The Star of Bethlehem was not a literal Star but an Angel. The Bible uses "Stars" as a Metaphor for Angels in both Old and New Testaments, and in Revelation it clearly tells you that the Stars are Angels!
The Virgin Birth pt.1 To all biblical believers that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, and based off the Greek definition for “came together” which would be cohabit conjugally or of conjugal cohabitation, I interpret the phrase “before they came together” to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Hence the phrase “took unto him”. Examine Genesis 24:67 to see how the term “took” is used. So again, before Joseph and Mary were officially married (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof. Before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary was impregnated by Joseph. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were officially married. Again, Joseph and Mary were not officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they were not officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ did not come through a lineage of sinless beings. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents (read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). Joseph began thinking irrationally. This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in whatever sense of the phrase. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he was not willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could have had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could have easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could have said that he did not have sex with Mary and she would have been stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. But Joseph was a just man. So Joseph was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. This is the reason why Matthew decided to highlight that Joseph was a just man. Because a wicked man would have placed all the blame on Mary. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Wouldn’t that would mean that Mary's hymen would have still been intact? I would think so. If that's the case they could have easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual affair simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would have had sex, Mary would have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity) because her hymen would have broken and everyone would have assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Moving on. The text states that Jesus the Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren (Hebrews 2:16-17). Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being (existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained His fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father. But the flesh comes from the seed (sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he knew her not til she brought forth her firstborn son....",. In my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. I’m well aware that the phrase “knew her not” in that passage is a clear reference to Joseph not engaging in sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Here lies the problem. Some are struggling with what the author is actually trying to communicate because based off how that passage is worded, they have concluded that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus but rather only after. In my opinion, their coming to this false conclusion because the text doesn’t read knew her not “again”. Since the term “again” isn’t included in that particular passage, they’re assuming that Mary and Joseph did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus. Let me prove that the text does not have to read “and knew not again” in order to support my argument. In 1 Samuel 1 :5 the LORD shut up Hannah, the wife of Elkanah’s womb. 1 Samuel 1:2 says that Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah had children but Hannah did not. What does this prove? It proves that Elkanah was having sex with both of his wives. One was able to have children (Peninnah) and the other one was not (Hannah). 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah KNEW Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her”. The text says that Elkanah “knew” Hannah his wife. The text does not say that Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”. One would then assume, like in the case of Matt. 1:25 that this was the first time Elkanah had sex with his wife because the term “again” is excluded. But we’ve already determined that Elkanah and Hannah were having sexual relations in 1 Samuel 1:2. So why doesn’t the text say Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”? It’s doesn’t have to based off the context and the surrounding information that has been disclosed. So when we reexamine Matt. 1:25 one can’t assume that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus based off the exclusion of the term “again” or how that particular passage is worded. Question: If Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed? Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8. Or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father not stepfather. Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should have automatically understood that Jesus was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...",. But they did not have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there was not referring to a woman who had never had sex before. Why do I say this? Because Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. The immediate fulfillment was referring to Isaiah’s wife. Isaiah’s wife was the virgin being referred to in Is. 7:14 and the prophetess in Is. 8:3. Prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving we know that Isaiah already had a son with his wife. Proving that the term virgin in that context is not a reference to virginity. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I’ll conclude with a question. Can you produce one single passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah’s birth being or would be one that was uncommon to man or miraculous? Update: As of March 12, 2022, my position on what the phrase "put her away” is currently uncertain. There is a possibility that the phrase "put her away" can in fact be a reference to divorce.
Speaking as an athiest. First Darren was a bit rude. That said the Akin premises fall over pretty rapidly. The fact that there are errors in bible demonstrates that p5 was wrong. If the bible was inspired by god and therefore true (according to Akin) then demonstrating any falsehood or error demonstrates that either god isnt perfect or wasnt inspired by god
The Virgin Birth pt.3 I believe that there is so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because so many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). John 1:13 is a great example of what "of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" means. Another example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. This was the will of the flesh (John 1:13). Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man (mankind) who is flesh (Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". In regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that a virgin(young woman) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.
@@gsp3428 Being composed from chemicals (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) are more likely to have come as a result of combination of the said chemicals rather than appear out of nothing or from some other matter. Do you disagree? Whether someone combined these chemicals intentionally or they combined on their own is another discussion, but the fact that living organisms on Earth came from pre-existing chemicals is not really a controversial stance, even among Christians. After all, God created humans from dirt in the Bible, didn't he?
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Christians believe we were made from dirt, not atheists.
"Jimmy Akin is a cyborg, sent by God from the future to save the Church." - Trent Horn. Darren Slade .... seems like he's going through a lot right now. I offered a prayer for him, and I'd encourage my fellow Christians to do the same.
@PintsWithAquinas Hey Matt, Just wanted to thank you for the comment and for watching the debate. Also wanted to say I was a big fan of your channel. It was definitely an honor to debate alongside the great Jimmy Akin.
I've never heard of Darren before I came across this debate. I'm having a hard time pinning down what he believes. I know you, Matt, wouldn't presume to answer for him, but to anyone else who might be reading this: What does Darren believe?
@@ivanmoore4749no idea but he was an asshole during the debate
@@calebjackson99come home, Caleb. You’d make a great Catholic lol.
@@harleydavidson4247I doubt that will ever happen, but I appreciate the offer. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Dr. Slade’s performance in this debate is very disappointing. Apart from the fact he didn’t make a SINGLE argument, he also exhibited a very annoying melange of arrogance and ignorance. Jimmy’s level of patience is just amazing
Dude had Bill Maher-tier levels of Reddit atheist smugness
@@BudLightBeerOfStarCommandhave you noticed that so-called “conservative“ channels are now attempting to portray Bill Maher as a conservative hero? It makes me cringe.
@@BudLightBeerOfStarCommandyou should see Kyle Dunnigan’s impression of Maher btw it’s hilarious and so accurate it triggered Maher himself 😅
@@Hola-ro6yvlol I’ve seen that. It’s hilarious and so accurate. Pretty low bar that Bill Maher is a voice of reason on pretty much anything lol
The cringe was true with Slade. Unwillingness to attack a single premise.
Dr Slade is an angry atheist. Wow. Look at how Jimmy conducts himself, calmly, politely.
That is because Jimmy knows he's right.
“Angry atheist” has got to be the most redundant phrase I have ever heard.
Kind of like saying “corrupt or dishonest politician”.
@@Hola-ro6yv🤣🤣
@@mgpc. There is a way of conducting yourself either way.
@@Hola-ro6yv I don't know if that's an appropriate statement to make . . . there are many atheists who manage to retain a calm, collected temperament. Just making a blanket statement doesn't really help.
Dr. Slade needs to retake his undergrad elementary logic class.
Jimmy Akin resembled a cat playing with his food.
Jimmy Aikin Looked and Sounded Like A Mouse Looking For A Hole To Run Into!!!
@@phoenixrising4172Quite the opposite. The atheists we’re looking down most of the time Akin was talking to them.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m If They Were Looking Up At The Ceiling Makes No Difference!!!
Jimmy’s entire argument was, “The virgin birth is true because I believe in God and I believe God is perfect.”
How is that a good argument?
That’s the same as saying, “Scientology is true because I believe in Lord Xenu and I believe L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet.”
Or, “The Mormon Church is true because I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and I believe God wouldn’t lie to a prophet.”
All 3 of these are empty and meaningless, as “logical arguments”.
They are anything but logical. There is ZERO logic.
They are statements of belief, which is fine, we are all entitled to beliefs, but they do not prove anything or even attempt to prove anything.
The sky is purple because I believe the sky is purple. Same exact level of logic.
@@NewportSolarWell, the argument was premised on the idea that if God was not perfect, he would not be God, therefore if God exists, he would be perfect. But that's entirely beside the point... there were plenty of points for the atheists to attack. They could have shown that there was an error in the Bible and that it, therefore, was not perfect and that God therefore was not perfect. They didn't. They could have demonstrated that the Bible was not inspired by God and therefore God's perfection or imperfection had no bearing on the accuracy of the Bible. They did not do that either. They instead chose to attack the one suppositional statement in the entire argument... that God was perfect, and even then they provided no evidence that God was not perfect, rather they simply stated it was a bad argument. If it's a bad argument, demonstrate that God is not perfect by attacking the argument, don't simply say "I don't accept your premise"... I already know you don't accept the premise because you are, after all, an Atheist (which goes back to Jimmy's point at the very, very start which is that this is not a well-framed debate since the debaters do not agree on the central premises in the first place).
By the way, "I'm not studied enough on this topic" is a reasonable response. It doesn't necessarily make the argument true to say that, it simply says "There may be evidence out there of which I am not aware, so I'm going to cede this ground and say this looks like a reasonable argument but you've at least given me several areas to study if I wish to refute it." For instance, with your arguments on Scientology and Mormonism, I could say I don't know enough about what prophecies L. Ron Hubbard may or may not have written to know whether or not they were true and therefore can't really have an opinion on whether or not he was a prophet. I know that he said something to the effect of "The best way to make money is to create a religion", so he does have that against him, though I don't know the exact quote off the top of my head. Same with the Mormons... I know Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had to edit their version of the Bible several times, in meaningful ways, and change their prophecies as they were overcome by events... but as to the specifics of that, I would need to do more research and it's quite possible that it's just hearsay on my part. So those arguments stand until I can come up with the evidence to refute them, despite me knowing them to be incorrect and simply not having the details at hand to demonstrate their incorrectness. But it's the pride of John and Darren that does not allow them to even concede that much ground... they simply revert to "I reject your framing, with no evidence to the contrary."
Darren's demeanor was honestly shocking. It's a shame not much came from this. Jimmy even streamlined his stance for them and warned about derailing, but Darren immediately diverts into semantics.
I found his intentional ignorance of common sense definitions to be slimy
@@Joe-gi3nj typical secularists
These guys don't represent secularists. What is a typical secularist? There are a lot of dumb, crazy religious people in America, and the world, that doesn't mean they all are.
Thank you for hosting some debates, honestly love debates so it’s good to see them.
But I have some constructive criticism.
1.) Debate topic, as Jimmy stated early on. The topic just doesn’t work with the group here. There’s to many things they disagreed about, you can’t have a full conversation on a topic, if your always bouncing around to something new. It sounded like John insisted on it, but seems to be worth vetoing, it just doesn’t work.
2.) I’m not sure 2v2 debates work. I’ve seen a couple of them now, and it always feels like you can’t get a full thought out, someone is always adding things, or adjusting the conversation down a different path, which means you never get anywhere.
3.) I’m not familiar with John’s or Darren’s work but they were rude. They often didn’t present arguments but resorted to absurdity. Didn’t think I’d hear Jesus conception, described as “rapey”, but alas here we are. I think there are better atheists debaters out there who would have provided a better more charitable response while still disagreeing.
4.) Bring Jimmy back, he is the BOMB. Honestly my favorite debater every time I see him. He makes things approachable, but still complex enough to have sound logic and such. An absolute gem of a man. I’ll just say I’m glad he’s debating the Catholic perspective.
Jimmy has a podcast with Dom Betinelli on his channel where they explore other topics, it's great
Who the hell allowed that Darren to have a PhD ? What an embarrassing approach, it’s pathetic and painful to hear.
Them: “There’s bo evidence! The NT isn’t evidence!”
Jimmy: “actually here’s some cultural, archeological, and astronomical evidence”
Them: “you’re problem is you’re bringing in all these extra-biblical things to fit your narrative”
Holy smokes, these guys are either extremely ignorant, disingenuous, or both
This was another example of the scriptural idea that unbelievers will be made fools.
God was definitely infinitely accurate about that, that’s for sure.
Yes very much so. Apparently using evidence outside the Bible to corroborate the Bible is apparently wrong but then atheists try and use things outside the Bible to try and show the Bible is false
"cultural, archeological, and astronomical evidence"
For a virgin birth?
What do stars possibly have to do with someone having or not having sex?
There Is NO Evidence For A God and The Old and New Testament Are Fantasies Written By People Who Were Ignorant Of The World Around Them, Jimmy Didn't Prove Anything, He Assumed and Asserted, What Archeological, Astronomical or Cultural Evidence Did He Provide and The Story About The Star or Neptune Was Asinine To Say The Least!!!
@@WhiteScorpio2 Jimmy was telling him about evidence outside of the Bible that supports the star in the gospel of Matthew for the Magi followed to arrive and meet Jesus as a baby.
@@catholicguy1073 And what would that have to do with any kind of virgin birth, even if established as true?
I strive to have a fraction of the patience, class, and charity that Jimmy and Caleb exhibited in this discussion.
How is Jimmy able to absolutely dominate every debate he is in? Also I’m glad he called out Darren for his gross actions.
Honestly, I thought Caleb did the better move of just ignoring it altogether. Much like with toddlers, the behavior that gets attention gets rewarded.
@@ZacharyTLawson
Both tactics are understandable. I just think it’s sad that a grown adult thinks acting like this in an intellectual debate is normal. Also, all the memes in his presentation. Just wish he would have acted like an adult
I wanna see Jimmy debate Aron Ra. They are both very smart and have absolutely opposite views.
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvytthat would be incredible. They are also both very eccentric and unique within their own communities and have very distinctive personalities that would be super interesting to see coming together
Akin dominated? Did you watch a different debate than the rest of us?
Every premise he offers is bare assertion and unsupported or a tautology. Loftus deflated his syllogism with a single sentence.
I agree with Akin's intial point that its not going to be very fruitful to have atheists try and debate the virgin birth, because theres no agreed upon premise for debate. It wouldve made more sense to have Christians who disagree on the virgin birth debate it. Or just to have a debate on atheism vs theism. Either way, the atheists in this argument were rather obnoxious and tried to personally attack and talk down to Jimmy on multiple occassions.
Can a Christian reject the Virgin birth? I'm an atheist, mind you, but I thought that was pretty essential to the Christian faith.
If one professes to be a Christian, which entails belief in the inerrant assertions of scripture, and scripture undeniably asserts that Jesus was conceived in Mary without her having relations, then it’s hard for a Christian to deny the virgin birth unless they are ignorant about scripture or lax in their belief (which is common). Basic reading comprehension shows the authors intend to convey a historical truth rather than metaphorical or something. However, I’m pretty sure nobody asserts that the virgin birth is a necessary thing theologically when it comes to Jesus’s incarnation, as in he could have incarnated any way he wanted, but it is quite fitting.
@@killianmiller6107 So were there no Christians before some of the scriptures were written and canonized?
@@tomasrocha6139 I see what you mean. No, there were still Christians before the books of the NT were written and canonized. If you want, I should rather have said that being a professed Christian entails belief in the assertions of the word of God, which can be transmitted orally in apostolic tradition or written in sacred scripture. This means that before the gospels and epistles were written (teachings of the apostles in text), people would assent to the teaching of the apostles who spoke about the virgin birth for instance, or would implicitly affirm it if they haven't learned of it yet.
The demeanor that darren and john displayed made them seem foolish. I am in the hard sciences and I can't imagine approaching a conference or discussion with the lack of professionalism that they displayed. Even for a discussion like this I hope they know it really hurt their position.
I love how they assumed Jimmy had no other evidence than the Bible, and then when he presented extra-biblical evidence, Slade criticized him for using extra-biblical things.
Just slimy stuff, honestly.
A lot of times they also engaging in projection.
Just unintellectual stuff, and it goes to show that graduate degrees don’t make someone wise are without extremely large biases
Darren was 💯 an asshole and the other guy just didn’t have the intellectual chops to be there. I do not think this debate did Cameron any good for his channel unless of course this chaos gets him a lot of clicks lol
😂
Atheists showed up to a gun fight with spit balls and fart jokes. You can tell who studied for the test and who thought they'd ace it just by showing up. Job well done by Jimmy and Caleb.
It's in the bible so it must be true is not an argument. Anything can be real I believe in Smurfs it's in a smurf book so it must be true.
@@seandriver7923 Where was that argument presented?
That's all he said , it's in the bible and the bible is the word of God. God dose not tell lies.
@@seandriver7923 That's not all he said. Lol. He gave a list of premises that led to his conclusion that the virgin birth was true (which is how you form an argument) and refuted every objection they made to his list of premises, including the reliability and interpretation of the New Testament accounts. That's not "it's true because the Bible says so".
@@pendletondrew everyone is it's because God is real , and he believes in God. No evidence. No one could ever prove a virgin birth.
This really does show you the difference between light and darkness just by the way people conduct themselves. This Dr. Slade guy, this guy almost made Matt Dillahunty look like a decent guy, which is almost impossible.
I don’t usually say this, but Darren should not have been given a platform here. There are actual arguments out there to contend with. He made inappropriate sexual innuendo and insults. Pretty gross behavior.
Well he is a lightweight and being embarrassed.
Hope you make more vídeos. 👊
33:25 - "Epistemology 101" - Jimmy Akin
That slayed so hard it nearly killed me 🤣🤣🤣
It's a shame that John and Darren were jerks, it doesn't show the other side as being fruitfully engaging, which is not usually the case. They didn't show their best side.
Damn, these atheist debaters were very embarrassing…
Got an example
People wonder why education has become devalued in this country when we have PhDs acting like teenagers in a debate.
The atheist position was pretty embarrassing, I don’t think I heard any actual argument. But they’re going against Jimmy so I feel bad for them.
There argument was that the the logical argument regarding the virgin birth falls apart immediately due to the fact that the existence of god cannot be proven
Neither of the guys on the negative side of the debate presented themselves well. They really should feel embarrassed for this debate performance
This is so embarassing....lol. Jimmy destroyed them...
Jimmy imo creamed them as far as logical argumentation and returning to the topic at hand. Then out of charity he also proved he understood the words in scripture in their Greek and historical context. The floor was wiped. These poor gentlemen were out of their league. Pace e bene’
Sorry but no. His arguments were weak. He doesn't understand inspiration, he doesn't get his image of God from the Bible, he doesn't understand the mindset of the authors, he commits one fallacy after another...
Embarrassing to see this as a Christian that this is the level of debate we're at. David Friedrich Strauß had better arguments in 1840 than any of the debaters. The atheist side was just as bad BTW.
@@MrSeedi76name a single fallacy, I would be glad to refute your naive statement
@@MrSeedi76 Detail your objections with context.
What you've done is made a stack of claims, and *not* backed a single one.
Are you normally this vapid?
lol @@MrSeedi76
What gentleman?
Caleb’s contributions were fruitful and thought provoking. His demeanor was also quite pleasant.
They were also destroyed by Jimmy the Man Akin
Thanks, I appreciate that!
That’s the fruit of the spirit. It’s hard not to react in a hostile way to hostility when you don’t have the spirit.
@@CJP.-pq3krI think you’re referring to Slade, not Jackson.
Summary of the 1st Part: On Our Lord being born of a Virgin:
John: JC's geneology is inaccurate
Jimmy: That doesnt invalidate the virgin birth.
John: The bible contradicts itself
Jimmy: That doesn't invalidate the Virgin birth
John: The magi didnt understand jewish prophecy.
Jimmy: That does not invalidate the Virgin birth. Here are my premise that need you would to refute
John: The bible is not inerrant
Jimmy: The debate is on the Virgin birth.
Etc etc
It was so painful. I couldn't finish.
It would've been more fruitful if Jimmy had just translated their unfocused approach into challenges to his premises, doing the work for them. But that's not really his job in the debate.
I thought they same thing. They were obviously challenging his premise that the Bible was inspired by God. Jimmy was trying to get them to explicitly say that, and they wouldn't, but he could've addressed the point anyway.
I think Jimmy was also resisting this as the debate would no longer be about the virgin birth but just the New Testament. Which he points out is what John should have requested to debate
lol amen
"Not his job" bingo,
I actually thought the same thing
Good on you, Cameron, for stepping in when necessary. If Darren and John hadn't lost because of their high-school level arguments, I would still have written them off for Darren's lack of class and basic respect. Also, you might consider examining the debaters' presentations before the debate. Darren's was lewd and blasphemous and shouldn't be acceptable in any civil debate let alone on a Christian channel.
I totally agree! He needs a doctor
Lack of respect does not mean they lost the debate.
Is Darren's MO to just consistently interrupt as he pleases? I've never seen someone be so assertive about having virtually nothing worthwhile to say.
ASSertive
“A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.”
- Sir Winston Churchill
I couldn't finish it. I'm happy to listen to debates and as a devouted Catholic, I was actually interested to hear the atheist views, but once they started behaving like snotty teenagers and using mockery as their "point," I gave up. I can't abide by the rudeness. A person's view or position cannot be taken seriously if they themselves cannot be taken seriously.
Yea, I don't know if I'm going to make it through this one. I love comparative study and debates about historicity claims, but Darren Slade's behavior in this interview is just appallingly puerile and arrogant. At least John Lofton, even if off-base, seemed to be under the impression that some sort of debate was taking place, albeit one which he was grossly ill-prepared for.
Akin predicted they would get off topic before he even finished his premises. Dang.
But Jimmy trying to turn a debate about the virgin birth into a debate about god's existence wasn't going off topic? You don't think it was odd that Jimmy complained about the debate going off topic and then demanded the atheists deal with his argument that completely assumed the existence of god? Really? If the atheists would of taken the bait the entire debate would of turned into a debate about god's existence.
Yeah thats what happens when You create Your out topic and pretend everybody stays in the box you set up for them
What a childish behavior and argument from Darren! Very embarrassing and shameful act. Generally, these two atheists don’t know what they are talking about.
As a fan of a lot of skeptics in the Virgin Birth stuff, these two were cringy as hell.
Caleb and Akin responded well to the few "honest" objections.
It's sad to see someone with a postdoctoral degree behave so badly and have such a shallow argument (almost always resorting to the absurd) and facetious.
Could it be that skeptics really don’t have anything to hang their hat on other than their disbelief. Their arguments are nothing more than attacks based on their prejudiced feelings, not evidence, not facts, but their feelings. Logic is not logic unless it’s based on facts, and not feelings.
Yeah, no one who hears the Christmas story thinks that the star floated in front of the magi, hovering. Just because he has a 6 year-old’s imagination doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Do these guys know that mariners used the sky for navigation for millennia?
And a celestial body never appears above things to humans ?????
Well, look up, then look down. Are there five houses visible? Is one reported to have had some miraculous activity at it recently? Try that one. It might have the reported king you’re looking for.
Also, “everyone else believes like I do” after saying “they didn’t even know where babies came from” is arguing that the truth is decided by consensus, and that it’s NOT decided by consensus. Oops!
These atheists are like watching Aron Ra debate, basic philosophy, logic, and maturity go right out the window. Thank God for Jimmy Akin
I came across Jimmy from this channel and have loved checking out his other content. I was curious how he would be in a debate and man, he was rock solid. He just made a brick wall of an argument and I don’t think the other side was really equipped or prepared to deal with it.
Jimmy Akin crushed Bart Ehrman in a debate too.
That's awesome haha, I gotta watch that one!@@2010Juve
@@2010Juve In light of Luke 2:7 Jimmy Akin's egregious theory that Joseph owned properties in both Bethlehem and Nazareth cost him the debate.
@@tomasrocha6139 When you think more about it, it makes sense. For me it solves a contradiction between Luke and Matthew. Also, they were probably let into a house, but not in "people-section" of it.
@@mortensimonsen1645 If Joseph owned a house Bethlehem as Jimmy Akin suggested they would've just gone into his house.
I can't believe the level of immaturity Darren's slides. Wow. And this guy is a professor?
Universities have really gotten desperate.
Oh no...
Did Darren really just attack the notion of "truth"?
I honestly don't know how Jimmy kept his poise during this. This was not a high-level interaction and my guess is that it taxed jimmy at times. I appreciate that he interacted with them but wow were they incoherent at times.
Praying for these atheists and hope that they reflect back and see what charity actually looks like and are embarrassed by their behavior.
They can go to hell for all I care.
You can pray for us, we'll think for you
@@maccusmc ok
@@maccusmc secularists: “we’ll think for you”
Also secularists: let’s the mainstream media tell them what to think
@@Hola-ro6yv That’s not right. We should hope they turn to God.
Akin made those guys look ignorant. They could not engage the arguments at all.
The Only Ignorance I Saw Displayed Was Jimmy Aikin and Caleb Jackson, Little Boys and Their Imaginary Friend!!!
@@phoenixrising4172 Any serious atheist would laugh at the lack of understanding of philosophy shown by the atheist side of this debate.
@@bruh-dg5yw Lack Of Philosophy???? What Has That Got To Do With The Bible, Using Philosophy Is A Scapegoat, A Lot Of Useless Words Going Nowhere, Use The Bible, Use Reality, Use Facts, Use Evidence, Don't Give A Damn About Philosophy Which Is Used To Obfuscate, Talking Loud and Saying NOTHING, I Care About Facts and Truth!!!
@@bruh-dg5yw “serious atheist” ? is that like… an “honest atheist” ? 😅😅😅
@@phoenixrising4172 Slade… is that you?
Jimmy’s intro was goated
Only if you ignore any historical analysis of ancient texts and jump straight to, "God is great, therefore Bible true".
@@MrSeedi76 thanks for exposing you didn’t actually watch the debate past the first 10 minutes.
@@joeypuvel1228Jimmy’s intro from a theological point was good. The atheists were actually jerks and were unable to refute what he said and secondly offered no evidence whatsoever that the virgin birth didn’t occur. Asserting that they think the genealogical is untrue or asserting the star the Magi followed must be false because they don’t understand it therefore doesn’t then follow the Virgin Birth is not true. One doesn’t lead to the other.
The Virgin Birth is a theological conclusion just as the Trinity is a theological conclusion form what we understand about God and also the life of Jesus.
@@joeypuvel1228 I Watched The Debate, Jimmy Provided No History or Evidence, ONLY Fantasy!!!
“Goat” is not a verb.
Jimmy Akin on the Star… such an epic response. Total beat down on that point. They didn’t know what to say. I think their response was that people then didn’t understand science. The fact that so many gospel accounts fit science and archeology is actually a proof of their validity.
What I found telling about that interaction was how Slade conducted himself.
He was criticizing Akin for “only using the Bible to defend his position”, and then when Akin presented this context, Slade criticized Akin for using “extra-biblical context to fit his narrative”.
So, no matter what, in Slades mind, Akin is wrong no matter what evidences he brings in.
That’s not an illustration of an intellectual giant; it’s the fruit of an intellectually corrupt fool
@@dirtydevil tell me you didn’t listen to Akin’s explanation without telling me.
All celestial bodies were known as stars in the ancient world
@@dirtydevil you’re projecting
@@dirtydevil bro, what are you even talking about?
@@dirtydevil e cause the bible isn’t a science book, it’s a book of Gods redemption to mankind
I need some of Jimmy's patience and calm as a mother of 3. Wow!
probably his brand of pipe tobacco
Here’s my attempt at formulating Loftus’s comments into an argument that interacts with Akin’s premises (I’m condensing a lot):
1) Everything God asserts is true.
2) Everything the NT asserts, God asserts.
3) But, the NT asserts known falsehoods (e.g. census, genealogy, etc)
4) Therefore, either not everything asserted by God is true or not everything asserted by the NT is asserted by God.
This does not disprove the virgin birth but it does remove Akin’s justification for believing it. I figure Akin would contest the facts of (3), challenging either that those are not falsehoods or that the NT doesn’t assert it.
I wish there was deeper discussion about what Akin meant by “assert” because I figure he would distinguish between assertions and incidental affirmations (eg three tier cosmology).
I would say premise 3 is false and ruins the rest of the argument. Akin would attack there
It would have been so easy for the atheists to make this argument l, but I guess it’s too hard for them
@@endygonewild2899 as far as I’ve gotten in the video, this appears to be precisely what John is saying
Wowzers, Loftus and Slade need to go into hiding, if only because if I were them I would be ashamed to show my face in public for a good long while.
Those two were so unprepared, so immature, so poorly-spoken, so smug and cocky, so bad at debate argumentation, and used such terrible talking points that it not only embarrasses themselves, but embarrasses Cameron too, since now people can watch this and say “How unfair! Cameron picked the dumbest and smarmiest atheists to participate in this debate!”
Those two are not simply clowns, they are the entire circus. I felt bad FOR them, watching them make utter unserious fools of themselves.
I could be off but it seems like Loftus and Slade are saying, at least partly, that because the text says that the star was moving and we know that stars don't behave that way, it therefore couldn't have been a star. However because the Bible identifies it as a star that means that the Bible was wrong. But that is such a wooden and uncharitable way of interpreting anything. If I said "yeah, that sunset was super pretty or the sunrise was absolutely beautiful this morning" and someone says "oh but don't you know the sun doesn't actually rise or set, and because you said that, you therefore must be affirming a earth-centered solar system and because we know that's false you must be untrustworthy"
It Could NOT Have Been A Star, The Bible Says It Was A Star, Therefore, The Bible Is Correct????????
For Slade, things can only be true if there is empirical evidence for them or their definition is in Merriam-Webster‘s (lmao btw). That is an unbreachable gap in itself, and it is neither empirically proven nor in any dictionary. Dude was right when he asked not to be referred to as a philosopher.
Rather embarrassing on the atheist side. They seemed to want to be more inflammatory to get attention than actually address the arguments.
This debate was hard to watch due to Darren. He never offered a single good point and was beyond rude.
Wow, Jimmy's patience is so inspiring.
I agree 100%
John's opening was your standard surface level rabid ashiest with next to no understanding of philosophy nonsense that you've heard a hundred times over. I don't even want to mention Darren, just a perfect representation of what atheisms leads to really.
Jimmy absolutely crushed it. Atheism DESTROYED 😂 Caleb was the cherry on the top of the cake 😆
Darren's constant interrupting and accusing Jimmy as trying to play semantic tricks to justify his interrupting, just wreaks of some intellectual insecurity. I think he didn't realize Jimmy was an intellectual heavyweight and began to squirm.
Still doesn't. I certainly don't.
Darren's arrogant tone is quite cringe. Jimmy came off calm and collected. He was trying to get these two to engage the syllogism, and they didn't. It's incredible really.
Did John assert more than once that muslims don't believe in the virgin birth? They literally teach that and that Jesus was without sin as satan never touched them, the only people in Islam to make that claim.
He asserted (at least on his slide) that Muslims don't believe that Mary gave birth to God as a virgin, which is 1) correct and 2) shifting the goalposts.
@@daisybrain9423 And presenting the slide, he spoke of just the virgin birth which is incorrect. So either he presents the slide accurately and shifts the goalposts or he presents inaccurately and spreads wrong information
@@TheWorstApologist I'm with you here, it's dishonest either way.
Yes, Muslims absolutely believe that Jesus didn't have a human father. They believe that God caused the virginal Mary to conceive in her womb without ever engaging in sexual relations with a man, and without losing her virginity. But they don't believe that Jesus was divine, only that he was a human conceived in a miraculous way, and specifically to be a prophet. There is one sect of Islam that includes a teaching that the fact that Jesus did not have a father was proof that he is a lesser prophet, because although he was personally without sin, his lack of a father was a matter of shame. In a shame vs honor culture, that's a big deal
If they didn’t mention Darren’s phd, I would have thought he was just some random layman considering how bad his “arguments” were
Loftus and this other clown are some of the worst atheist debaters I have seen in a while. God bless Jimmy Akin's patience with them.
Yeah, I was so disappointed with their performance
Cameron I'm disappointed that you're not stopping these two clowns who are so rude you need to do better
I’m glad Jimmy A. called out the “rapey” comment, as it seemed like a cheap shot meant to cut down his opponents rather than debate them. Rape shouldn’t be used that way.
“Humor at someone else’s expense.” No. Not ok.
And the other guy saying she was already pregnant? That’s not what the Bible says.
I agree more with the atheist side than I do with the Christian side, but this debate is the exact reason why I call myself an "Agnostic" instead of an Atheist. I cannot stand the idea of being assiated with those two "debators" on the atheist side. Sheesh.
Atheism isn’t an association, rather an arrival at a conclusion. Think about how many serial killers also are associated with the Round Earth believers - would that then be good reason to lean agnostic about your own conclusion?
@@ThePinsa42 I understand this, of course. I don't deny that atheism is a knowledge claim rather than an association of individuals. But humans are pattern-recognition machines, we form associations where there need not be any. People associate "atheist" will collections of people rather than a simple claim to knowledge. And since this is a very common association which is made, I will not identify myself using that term, even though I could and I would just need to do this whole song and dance every time.
@@ThePinsa42lol FAR more people have died because of atheists it’s not even close
@@Kevigen "atheism is a knowledge claim"
No, atheism is a lack of belief, not a knowledge claim.
@@Kevigen Atheist = Does NOT Believe A God or Gods Exist,
That Is All, No More, No Less, What Is This About A "Knowledge Claim"???
Jimmy Akin has the patience of a saint. I'm not even RC. Darren's behavior was disgusting.
More impressed with John Loftus on the Atheist side. I imagine we could be good friends in rl despite disagreements.
The whole debate seems to have not been framed well.
Its alright to disagree and put up arguments, there is no need to be angry at the other or hate the other because you dont share his views. Dr. Slade, a guy smart enough do earn that Dr. tiitle he has, should know how to conduct himself decently and respectfully. Its fine if you dont agree with Jimmy, this is just a debate and discussion.
This was painful. Slade wants to be referred to as an historian but also recognized as a philosopher, and then goes on to butcher philosophy, beginning with an amateur understanding of basic logic.
Jimmy Akin is lika cheetah, no atheist can get him. When he want to get them, he just run and bite 😂
I only could stomach the rudeness and belittling manner the atheists presented in their presentations just to hear what Jimmy and Caleb had to say. I think it's very valuable to hear intelligent people on different viewpoints respectfully debate, because we can all learn so much. There are many atheists out there that I highly respect and appreciate them sharing their view. But this debate was only respectful on one side. They not only belittled the Christian debaters but anybody else that believed differently than them. Thank you Jimmy for calling Darren out for being so disrespectful to all Christians at 1:23:00 when he disrespected the blessed mother and for standing up for her. Why anybody would insult half their audience's beliefs and expect to win them over to his way of thinking is beyond me.
What's most frustrating, 33 - 34 minutes in, is that the Christians (mostly Jimmy) are trying to offer any means by which to have some sort of debate here while Loftus makes tangential arguments and Dr. Slade argues semantics. Jimmy is practically spoonfeeding them things to object to and they're just acting snide. Come on, asking what the definition of truth is after you just asserted yourself to be a philosopher? The hemming and hawing just doesn't come off as if it's from someone skilled in making a case. The debate is about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and you’re objecting to the definition of God???
Can atheists like Dr. Slade and John Loftus tell us why anything exists at all, I would so love to hear even a rational possible explanation from an atheist on that question, which is the most fundamental question there is.
That's the first time I've ever seen John Loftus without a hat.
It was blown off by the arguments of the great Jimmy Akin
@@CJP.-pq3kr
Not arguments-bare assertions and filibustering.
You mean without his small hat? 😂
A paraphrase of John Loft's repetitive request: "Why don't you just say this: I believe in fairy tales with no evidence. You're allowed to do that. I'm being charitable to you by saying you're allowed to believe in things with no evidence just be honest and say you believe in fairytales. Why don't you do that? Why can't you see how gracious I'm being by allowing you to do that?" 37:43 45:42
Because the entire premise of what he’s saying is faulty. Belief doesn’t exist without evidence. Belief comes from evidence that someone finds reasonable. Now what I find reasonable may be different than you and that’s fine
@@catholicguy1073 "Belief doesn’t exist without evidence."
Of course it does. A belief always has reasons but evidence is absolutely not required to have any particular belief.
@@WhiteScorpio2 we can agree to disagree. For example people who believe aliens exist can cite reasons for that belief. Atheists who believe God does not exist can cite reasons for their unbelief in God etc
So to be more specific an authentic belief requires evidence.
@@catholicguy1073
"an authentic belief requires evidence"
And whether a belief is authentic or not is determined by it being or not being based on evidence?
The point being is that not all beliefs are based on evidence. I'd rather say most aren't. If you forgive me being anecdotal, the Christians that I have personally talked to cited reasons that are not evidence for their beliefs (their upbringing, their culture, their feelings, their desire to meet their dead loved ones, etc.).
My personal atheism is not based on evidence, but rather on a lack of anything I would recognize as evidence and my conviction that the Christian God specifically isn't real is also based not on evidence, but rather on a semantic argument (that is to say, I posit that Christian idea of a God is incoherent, so nothing can exist that matches that idea).
@@WhiteScorpio2*Why* is it incoherent?
Nobody can outdo Jimmy his intelligence level is Way Beyond the panel
You know it's going to be a good debate when Jimmy akin is in it.
Jimmy Akin brings fire. Reddit owned once again!
Jimmy Akin is so calm and respectful. Atheists in this debate are angry and not respectful.
I think they forgot THEY are trying to refute HIS argument and they can't expect HIM to just come after THEIRS preemptively.
This only shows that no matter how many arguments you have you can't make someone accepted even logical statement if they don't want to....
The lesson here is to identify these people so you don't waste your time....
Jimmy's face when John said "child sacrifice" was priceless
Topic: Virgin Birth pt.8
The curse of Jeconiah (which was under the old covenant) is a futile argument because Jesus the Christ did not sit on the throne during His first advent. So the first time Jesus the Christ came, he did not violate the judgement that was placed on Jeconiah. If we read Acts 2:30-31 we can clearly see that king David understood that Jesus the Christ was going to rise from the dead with all power and authority and then He (Jesus) would be able to sit upon the throne (which would be under the new covenant where all sins, including past sins will be forgiven) without violating the judgment that TMH place upon Jeconiah.
What I want to know is where did they dig up John Loftus? Haven't seen him since he showed up at that debate years ago absolutely schnockered.
This was embarrassing. Typical Akin W.
Also finding out at 1:33:39 that Caleb is NonDenom was a mental flashbang.
Yeah, Caleb doesn’t let his theological bias to warp his view of the evidence
The guy with the red beard is the most passive-aggressive man I have ever seen. He refused to answer the questions the others posed but rather insisted they had to answer his points which were all based on his theology rather than arguing the position. He would be a totally controlling pastor and the kind of academic that would fail any student who had a different view. He did way more harm than good to his position.
I thought Jimmy was condescending and passive-aggressive.
1:32:50 “I was a Protestant minister and I never gave any credence to…”
Maybe that’s part of the problem.
Darren sadly does not understand logical reasoning and argumentation. Jimmy was not begging the question. Webster definitions don’t define argumentation, but what is meant by the one making the argument does. Jimmy’s definition of “God” is specific, and there is philosophical reason to believe in that specific definition which can further be debated.
Topic: Virgin Birth pt.7
Let’s examine Luke 3:23. But first let’s begin here. Round brackets (also called parentheses, especially in American English) are mainly used to separate off information that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you removed the bracketed material the sentence would still make perfectly good sense.
With that being said let’s read Luke 3:23 without reading the information contained within parentheses. It reads, "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph...". It's clear when Luke 3:23 is read without reading the information contained within parentheses that Jesus the Christ was(is) in fact the earthly, biological son of Joseph.
Defined the term "being" in Luke 3:23 and then examine how it’s used throughout the Bible (New Testament).
Question.
Was the phrase "as was supposed" in the original text? I don’t think it was. But correct me if I’m wrong. I recently was told that it was. This may be true when considering that the phrase “as was supposed” isn’t in italics.
Darren is a shame to atheism. His attitude is embarrassing. Cameron should have kicked him out during the debate.
As an atheist and a former believer, I am disappointed by the atheist debaters. I totally agree with Loftus' points but, in my opinion, he was supposed to interact with Akin's arguments after they were done with their presentations. Perhaps, he is just not a good speaker. He is better in writing (I read one of his books). The other guy just sounded arrogant.
😂😂😂😂
At time 10:26, the beginning of John's speech, John asserts that Muslims don't believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin. While it is true that Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God.
Muslims do believe that Jesus was born from a Virgin. So that's a misleading comment.
The Quran Jesus is created by jibreel, an angel mankind hybrid by blowing in marym privates Sura 66:12
I noticed "Muslims" was in the list but didn't clock it!
Shameful on my part, since I almost converted to Islam when I was younger and know full well that they agree with the virgin birth.
Jimmy did a good job and explained evidence to them and the atheists tried to switch it up and got mad .
I think Dr. Slade forgot the audience of the debate because he was triggered by Jimmy. He seems like a reasonably intelligent guy and it is really a shame to see. Reminds me of the typical cringelord reddit atheist (which judging by the quality and quantity of the memes probably applies)
If you’re reading this please keep in mind that debates aren’t supposed to be a chance for you to dogpile with all your buds on the other guy, but rather an opportunity to help people sitting on the fence decide what makes the most sense.
The Virgin Birth pt.2
The Jews never questioned Mary and Joseph about how Mary was impregnated but yet the virgin birth doctrine is considered to be an essential belief for biblical believers. It's odd that there was a divide amongst the people over "where" Jesus was born (Jn. 7:43) but not about "how" Jesus was born and yet many adamantly assert that the virgin birth doctrine is essential and true. It's clear that there was no need for the Jews of that day to question Mary and Joseph about how Mary conceived because they obviously knew. If the Jews of Mary's day would've interpreted the term "virgin" mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 as a reference to virginity, they would have interrogated Mary about how she was impregnated. The Jews did not bother interrogating Mary or Joseph about how Mary was impregnated because (in my opinion) they did not interpret the term "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 as a woman who had never engaged in sexual relations with a man before. I believe they understood the term “virgin “to mean a young woman. I believe that the Jews understood the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to mean, a young woman who had never had sex with a man before will eventually have sex with a man and as a result of that sexual act, she will bear a son. Again, "where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but "how" Jesus the Christ was born wasn't. I don’t believe that the people and/or Jews were not under the impression that the Messiah's birth would be miraculous (in the sense of being born without a earthly biological father). Simply put, the people and/or the Jews did not think that the Messiah would come through the womb of a female who had never slept with a man before. If this is not the case, why wasn't Mary or Joseph ever questioned about how Mary got pregnant? The Sadducees themselves say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Taking this verse into consideration, we know that the Sadducees would not have believed that Mary got impregnated without sexual intercourse. "How" Mary conceived would have been a point of contention for the Sadducees but it wasn't. "Where" Jesus the Christ was born was questioned but not "how" He was born.
OMG! Jimmy absolutely destroyed them LOL
I provided a ten part explanation to why I disagree with the orthodox biblical doctrine on the “Virgin Birth” in the comment section. Scroll through the comment section and read them. Feel free to leave me a comment. And just so you’ll know, I believe in the Bible, which contains the words of God.
This was an unfair debate.
It's like sending an average Joe into a boxing ring with Tyson Fury.
Jimmy must have been bored.
The atheists are so upset that Jimmy uses logic, science and reason to explain Christianity and they were expecting evangelical hocus pocus Bible magic and they can’t cope.
The Star of Bethlehem was not a literal Star but an Angel. The Bible uses "Stars" as a Metaphor for Angels in both Old and New Testaments, and in Revelation it clearly tells you that the Stars are Angels!
👍
In eastern orthodoxy its understood as a miracle sign from God.
It’s crazy b/c Luke is regarded as one of the best & most accurate ancient historians🤷🏽♂️
Oh my. The condescension. Typical . Never listened to Akin before but I have a lot of respect for him!
The Virgin Birth pt.1
To all biblical believers that subscribe to the orthodox virgin birth doctrine, I respectfully would like to say that I'm in disagreement with your position on the virgin birth. Let's me explain why. In Matthew 1:18, when the text says "before they came together", in my opinion, and based off the Greek definition for “came together” which would be cohabit conjugally or of conjugal cohabitation, I interpret the phrase “before they came together” to mean before Joseph and Mary officially became husband and wife (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Hence the phrase “took unto him”. Examine Genesis 24:67 to see how the term “took” is used. So again, before Joseph and Mary were officially married (which occurred in Matthew 1:24). Before Joseph and Mary began to live under one roof. Before Joseph left his father and mother (Genesis 2:24), Mary was impregnated by Joseph. You'll notice in Luke 2:5 the text states, ".... Mary his ESPOUSED WIFE being great with child". This passage proves that Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph were officially married. Again, Joseph and Mary were not officially married at this point. Hence, the phrase "ESPOUSED wife". "ESPOUSED wife" meaning that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married but they were not officially married at this point but sexual relations between the two had already transpired. Joseph and Mary jumped the gun. They had sex before marriage. Before you say am I saying that Joseph and Mary committed fornication, read Exodus 22:16. Those that make the argument about fornication need to realize that Jesus the Christ did not come through a lineage of sinless beings. Hence, David and Solomon. Consider rereading Romans 3:23; 5:12. When you reread those verses keep Joseph and Mary in mind. Here's the dilemma: Joseph and Mary had sex while they were still living at different locations. Mary was still living under her parents roof when her and Joseph had sex. A woman who commits such an act brings shame upon her parents (read Deuteronomy 22:21 and Ecclesiasticus 42:9-11 in the apocrypha). Joseph began thinking irrationally. This is why Joseph was considering putting Mary away. Putting her away in whatever sense of the phrase. Joseph understood that if he went forward with the custom of marriage, that during the marriage ceremony when the time came when the engaged or married couple would go into the marriage chamber to consummate the marriage, Mary would not have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity), which was a sign of a woman's virginity. Again, read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. See Joseph understood that this was a problem. Joseph was a just man and he was not willing to make Mary a public example. Meaning Joseph could have had Mary stoned. Once again read Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If Joseph was an unjust wicked man he could have easily had Mary stoned. Joseph could have said that he did not have sex with Mary and she would have been stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. But Joseph was a just man. So Joseph was trying to find a way to prevent Mary from getting stoned. This is the reason why Matthew decided to highlight that Joseph was a just man. Because a wicked man would have placed all the blame on Mary. Okay let's say that the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Christ's birth was miraculous and Joseph did not have sex with Mary. Wouldn’t that would mean that Mary's hymen would have still been intact? I would think so. If that's the case they could have easily covered up her pregnancy or covered up their premarital sexual affair simply by going into the marriage chamber and consummate the marriage. Think about it. They would have had sex, Mary would have bled on the light colored sheet (token of virginity) because her hymen would have broken and everyone would have assumed that Joseph impregnated Mary. A simple solution wouldn't you say? Moving on. The text states that Jesus the Christ took not on him the nature of angels but was made like unto His brethren (Hebrews 2:16-17). Question: How was Christ's brethren made? Christ's brethren came into being (existence) as a result of an sexual act that took place between a male and a female. So we can safely conclude that Christ was born and obtained His fleshly tabernacle just like His brethren did. Remember, it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. The Spirit comes from the Father. But the flesh comes from the seed (sperm) of man. In regards to Matthew 1:25 when the text says "And he knew her not til she brought forth her firstborn son....",. In my opinion, this passage is simply saying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary again until or after Jesus the Christ was born. I’m well aware that the phrase “knew her not” in that passage is a clear reference to Joseph not engaging in sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. Here lies the problem. Some are struggling with what the author is actually trying to communicate because based off how that passage is worded, they have concluded that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus but rather only after. In my opinion, their coming to this false conclusion because the text doesn’t read knew her not “again”. Since the term “again” isn’t included in that particular passage, they’re assuming that Mary and Joseph did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus. Let me prove that the text does not have to read “and knew not again” in order to support my argument. In 1 Samuel 1 :5 the LORD shut up Hannah, the wife of Elkanah’s womb. 1 Samuel 1:2 says that Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah had children but Hannah did not. What does this prove? It proves that Elkanah was having sex with both of his wives. One was able to have children (Peninnah) and the other one was not (Hannah). 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah KNEW Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her”. The text says that Elkanah “knew” Hannah his wife. The text does not say that Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”. One would then assume, like in the case of Matt. 1:25 that this was the first time Elkanah had sex with his wife because the term “again” is excluded. But we’ve already determined that Elkanah and Hannah were having sexual relations in 1 Samuel 1:2. So why doesn’t the text say Elkanah knew Hannah his wife “again”? It’s doesn’t have to based off the context and the surrounding information that has been disclosed. So when we reexamine Matt. 1:25 one can’t assume that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus based off the exclusion of the term “again” or how that particular passage is worded.
Question: If Joseph did not have anything to do with the birth of Christ, why is he mentioned not only in one but in both of Christ's genealogies? Many claim that Luke 3 is Mary's lineage but I'm not convinced. I could be wrong but again I'm not convinced. If Luke 3 is Mary's lineage, why isn't Mary mentioned in her own lineage? That's odd if you ask me. Could it be that the duty of an husband's brother was performed? Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Ruth 3:12-13; 6:5-8. Or could it be that Luke 3 is Joseph's lineage on his mother's side? These are plausible explanations. Here's something else people are overlooking. Joseph is referred to as the son of David and of the house and lineage of David. This is recorded in the biblical text for a reason. That reason would be this: The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah and they knew He would come through the lineage of King David. Joseph is recorded as being the son of David and of the house and lineage of David to validate and solidify Jesus the Christ's Messiahship. The Jews, the author of the book of Luke and even Mary referred to Joseph as Christ's father not stepfather. Read Matthew 13:55; Luke 2:48; 3:23 and Jn. 6:42. Question: If the power of the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ, why is it that neither Joseph nor Mary understand that Jesus the Christ was referring to His and our Heavenly Father in Luke 2:49? If Joseph is not the earthly biological father of Jesus the Christ it seems to me that both Joseph and Mary should have automatically understood that Jesus was referring to His and our Heavenly Father when He said "... wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business...",. But they did not have a clue to what He meant. One last point. In reference to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving in Isaiah 7:14. The virgin mentioned there was not referring to a woman who had never had sex before. Why do I say this? Because Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. The immediate fulfillment was referring to Isaiah’s wife. Isaiah’s wife was the virgin being referred to in Is. 7:14 and the prophetess in Is. 8:3. Prior to the prophecy of a virgin conceiving we know that Isaiah already had a son with his wife. Proving that the term virgin in that context is not a reference to virginity. With that being the case, how can one define the term virgin in Matthew 1:23 to mean a woman who had never had sex before? I’ll conclude with a question. Can you produce one single passage in the old testament that alludes to the Messiah’s birth being or would be one that was uncommon to man or miraculous?
Update: As of March 12, 2022, my position on what the phrase "put her away” is currently uncertain. There is a possibility that the phrase "put her away" can in fact be a reference to divorce.
Speaking as an athiest. First Darren was a bit rude. That said the Akin premises fall over pretty rapidly. The fact that there are errors in bible demonstrates that p5 was wrong. If the bible was inspired by god and therefore true (according to Akin) then demonstrating any falsehood or error demonstrates that either god isnt perfect or wasnt inspired by god
The Virgin Birth pt.3
I believe that there is so much controversy surrounding the virgin birth because so many are misinterpreting what "of the Holy Ghost" actually means. First of all, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the the Spirit of the Most High God. The Most High God is Holy(Lev. 19:2; Rev. 4:8). The Most High God is a Spirit(Jn. 4:24). Again, the Holy Ghost(Spirit) is the Spirit of the Most High God. The term "of" in the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" is interchangeable with the term "from". So "of the Holy Ghost" can be read "from the Holy Ghost". Now that that's clarified, let's explain what the phrase "of the Holy Ghost" means. When you examine and read Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 46:10 you'll notice that these passages are revealing how the Most High declares that something will transpire before it occurs. This is what's meant by "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". When the Most High God declares that a particular event will happen in the future and it does, that event was from God or of God. That event was from the Holy Ghost(Spirit) or of the Holy Ghost(Spirit). John 1:13 is a great example of what "of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)" means. Another example of "of the Holy Ghost" would be the birth of Isaac. Sarai was barren. So Sarai decided that she would give Hagar, her handmaiden to Abram to be his wife. Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived and bore a son who we know was Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael transpired because Sarai gave her handmaiden Hagar to her husband Abram. The Most High God wasn't involved with this act. This was the will of the flesh (John 1:13). Sarai came up with this idea on her own. This was an act of man (mankind) who is flesh (Galatians 4:23). However, in regards to the birth of Isaac, the Most High God was involved. The birth of Isaac was ordained by the Most High God Himself(Genesis 17:15-21). Issac was a child of promise(Galatians 4:23,28). The birth of Isaac was from the Most High God. The Most High God declared that Sarai would bear a child and the child's name would be Isaac. The birth of Isaac was of God. Isaac's birth was an act of God, who is a Spirit. Remember the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Most High God. So to be clear, what I'm saying is: The birth of Isaac was "of the Holy Ghost(Spirit)". In regards to Mary and the birth of Jesus the Christ, Mary's pregnancy was also ordained by the Most High God. Similar to Isaac, Jesus the Christ was a child of promise(Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:31-33) as well. The Most High God declared that a virgin(young woman) would bear a Son and that's exactly what happened. A virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was a pre-announced event that the Most High God Himself ordained and declared. In other words, a virgin conceiving and bearing a Son was "of the Holy Ghost". Hopefully this will help.
Atheist: The virgin birth is impossible,
Atheist: Every living being on earth male and female came from the dirt.
@@michaelsbeverly How could it not come from dirt. There was no grass or trees, or plants. So it either came from the dirt or a rock or the water.
@@michaelsbeverlythe primordial soup. Not alive chemicals becoming biomolecular machines by sheer chance. Why don't you read a book.
@@johnsoutherland3403this is satire right
@@gsp3428 Being composed from chemicals (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) are more likely to have come as a result of combination of the said chemicals rather than appear out of nothing or from some other matter.
Do you disagree?
Whether someone combined these chemicals intentionally or they combined on their own is another discussion, but the fact that living organisms on Earth came from pre-existing chemicals is not really a controversial stance, even among Christians. After all, God created humans from dirt in the Bible, didn't he?
Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Christians believe we were made from dirt, not atheists.
@IanCrossland you need to tangle with Jimmy's arguments over these topics. He's been instrumental in my journey to better understand the faith.