Absolutely right it is a stepping stone .. i believed the narative that the bible and Jesus could be just fiction .. then i found out he was written about by all the different cultures back then in their languages .. he is the most written about person in history .. even kings and queens were not written about as much as him. Now the kicker was why would they do that if he was a myth ? And it wasnt like there was paper and ink sitting around or anyone that knew how to use it back then either. That started me on a 10 year journey trying to debunk or not believe the bible and it saved me.
Yes, you're right. It only takes a few minutes of searching to discover that when Dawkins was writing _The God Delusion_ around 2004, there really was a resurgence of the "Jesus is mythical" theory, led by authors such as Robert McNair Price and the rather less academically qualified Earl Doherty.
Ironically he wasn't actually wrong. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@ThunderLotus-il5cs you're absolutely right. That is exactly what it says. "Jesus **probably** existed, but it is quite **conceivable** that he did not. It is even **possible** to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all." He does precisely say that people could potentially make an argument that Jesus might not have existed. Is that a lie? Obviously it can't be a lie, it's an opinion. A perfectly reasonable opinion communicated with recognition that it is likely not even the correct view to have. However... What was it that Lennox even said originally to start this? "In your book you say that it is under scholarly dispute that Jesus ever existed at all". Well we've just seen that Dawkins said no such thing. In fact what Dawkins said amounts to the exact opposite of what Lennox has asserted is printed in Dawkins' book. So... If Dawkins didn't lie, and both the truth, and the printed words in Dawkins book are in direct opposition with what Lennox explicitly asserted as fact what does that mean? Lennox lied. Lennox intentionally lied about the contents of one of the books of an individual who he was hosting for an interview for the explicit purpose of falsely accusing that person of having lied themselves. Not only did Lennox explicitly, directly, intentionally lie but his lie was constructed to make Dawkins look like the one who was lying. How much more insidious can you get? Worse than lying, worse than refusing to take responsibility for that lie, Lennox tried to make someone else take responsibility for his lies. This comment section is filled with Christians decrying Dawkins as a liar and attributing his actions to evil influence. Ok, well... Now that we've discovered that Dawkins is in actuality completely innocent and that in fact the guilty party was the "Christian" Lennox... Do we decry him? Do we attribute his actions to the influence of evil? Do we regard him as the false prophet, as an enemy of God? The facts here are objective. Lennox lied. There is no other rational way to interpret this. So if your conviction forces you to call out liars and condemn them as evil... I'm still sitting here waiting for any of you to act like actual Christians.
Jesus if he existed was merely a Criminal executed by the Roman authorities he would not have been put in a tomb he would have been thrown in a mass grave God is a coping strategy for people afraid of death one day the Universe will die and the idea that you get to exist beyond the death of the Universe because you picked the right magic sky daddy is beyond arrogant I say grow up
Personally I think Jesus did exist but he was just a man who was exacuted for his Crimes by the Roman Authorities and thrown in to a mass Grave the Bible is a book of Myths and the Christian God is merely the creation of man's mind just as so many other Gods created to make man feel significant in an Uncaring Universe one day the Christian God will be nothing but a memory just as so many other Gods people who cannot see this are just delusional I get so tired of the same old Christian arguments over and over maybe some people are just not clever or strong enough to stand without God
Because it's trendy to say things like that if you're atheist as it's a means to justify your ignorance. He used it as a marketing ploy to sell his book to that specific demographic that finds it trendy.
@@JohnTracey-vl9tu Even if we needed a creator, you would still need to determine which creator it was, and it's definitely not the one that creationist Christians believe in.
Not really. If you are 100% certain Jesus was not the son of God then he was just one of trillions who happened to live before us and his life or story is inconsequential.
You may consider it inconsequential but the overall impact that Christ or his teachings have had on people and history still continue to this day i'd suggest you Dominion by Tom Holland for more info
@@walter5433 I don't consider it anything nor am I really interested in the topic. Second, the book is obviously from a bias perspective. I doubt I'll get a forward in there from any of the kids raped by catholic priests or at vacation bible school.
The problem isnt whether or not Jesus existed, the problem is "Did he have superhero magic powers that can defy the laws of physics"? And there is nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong, actually it shows good character.
@@Vottoduder-q8g actually yes, the problem is if jesus existed. the jesus that is depicted in the bible 99% chance doesn't exist. is there a chance that there was a carpenter named jeshua who was involved in terrorism against the roman regime? sure, jeshua is a common jewish name and the romans were widely hated by the jews.
@@Vottoduder-q8gaccording to the people who saw him do every miracle, I trust in the people who saw with their own eyes what he did even to the point of death, 11 out of 12 of the apostles were killed in a horrible way for their testimonies of Jesus, along with a large number of the believers in Jesus Christ. All were killed because they KNEW what they ALL saw and they ALL saw the same things and they all were willing to die because they know what they saw. Now my question to you. Are you willing to die a horrible and excruciating death in the belief that Jesus Christ is NOT God? If not why should I believe you over the eye witness testimony of the people in attendance whom did not receive anything for saying what they saw happen other than persecution and death
@@tomriddle483 I read what the authors wrote too. I believe that Alexander the Great existed, but if the story about him said that he rode a flying horse and that he could shoot lightning bolts from his eyes, I would question the authors of the story.
@@Vottoduder-q8g even if the people who lived in that time and saw it happened we’re willing to accept death without a second thought for what they know they saw
@@notcrediblesolipsism3851 We have more creationist and intelligent design proponents in academia than Jesus Mythers. Be exact there are zero mythers in academia period and as of this comment in all of modern historical scholarship a myther has managed to achieve peer review once. That still doesn't mean their stuff was good mind you, it just means it made it past the editor. Seriously mytherism is a joke
So someone wrote a book about disproving Jesus, lied about the fact he didn’t exist. That’s the best sermon a man could have! Thanks Dawkins! The Lord surely moves in. Mysterious ways. Amen.
You think it's that easy? Now, you prove Jesus. Bring him to me. Pray that he comes to me and lets me know he's real, because the first two times I was forced to be "saved" from something I had no part in didn't feel like a man was in my heart where a hole was because there was no hole there. You say Jesus. I ask where...if he's invisible and never speaks to me even if I've tried like a loon until I realized that fantasy isn't real. We're not filthy scum unless we believe what we're told without question. Babies aren't filth that must be saved from eternal damnation. But that's not to say that Christians want to behead all non-Christians (at least I'm sure the majority don't) the way the murderous doctrine of Islam does. #AtheistsForTrump2024 Logic, reason, truth. I'm a fool according to stories, so you might not want to suffer me.
Ironically he didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
The clip is cut out of context, Dawkins concedes the point to argue the fact that even if a Jesus really existed, there is no evidence for any of the miracles or of him being the son of God. Why is the owner of this channel lying?
@@palofrasca1775 wrong. All 4 gospels, letters of Paul, Peter, James and John all testify to the miracles and Lordship of Jesus Christ as well as non christian sources such as Josephus and even hostile graffiti known as the “Alexamenos graffito” testify to the early Christian belief of Jesus’s lordship. You just choose to reject these sources out of your own prejudice.
And this is why it is important to read the whole chapter at the very least. 44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF THAT TIME. NOT GOD. You are falling for the lies! Research things before you believe them! Research God before you believe or disbelieve!
Ironically he wasn't actually lying. It is in fact the interviewer who is lying here. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@brandonheath6713 ah yes because to you, "probably" is another word for "did".... The point still stands that he ignored the evidence that jesus walked the earth by historians, if he wanted to have created a book that can properly "debunk" religion he should have have used the truth of what really happend in history, for more power to his argument, because he didnt do this...how can we trust his whole argument if he ignores facts?
@@NPC2820z Look, nothing you've said is actually true... at all. 1. Probably means likely but not certain. No one can be certain Jesus of Nazareth existed. We have historical account that suggests he did but no evidence proving he did. We also have equally prevalent historical accounts that dragons existed but we have no proof thus we do not accept that as fact. 2. Dawkins didn't ignore any evidence. His claim explicitly states that the historical record makes it likely that Jesus existed. 3. Dawkins did not create a book with the intent of debunking Religion. His book is intended to demonstrate that religion and religious belief is a collection of subjective, unprovable, untestable claims made people who can not offer any evidence of those claims. That is objectively true. He is not claiming to know Religion to be objectively false or to be a false pretense for another goal. I think even you would admit that. I'm not aware of any representative of Christianity today who is openly providing objective proof of the truth of Christianity. The core tenant of Christianity is that you don't need proof. 4. Again, his argument is not about the existence of Jesus. He makes a single statement about it that even in and of itself is not intended to be conclusive or representative of his personal belief. Here are two provable, testable, objective facts of reality. 1. This interviewer is a liar who intentionally made a provably false claim about what Dawkins wrote. 2. You have built a strawman to argue against. Your counter opinions do not address any real belief or claim. Instead of address what Dawkins actually wrote, or the fact that this interviewer explicitly lied you've created a strawman of Dawkins who you believe wrote the book to debunk religion, believes Jesus never existed, made the claim that Jesus never existed, was exposed to evidence Jesus existed and refused to consider it, and has tainted his entire lifes worth of argumentation with a single misinterpreted statement. None of those things are actually true though. That strawman doesn't exist in reality. That strawman is not an accurate representation of Dawkins or his beliefs so you can argue against it all you want but the thing you're arguing against is a lie you yourself created that no one but you believes.
@@Mario.1997 this is because 80% of the global population believes in a god and about 40% believes in Jesus as the Messiah. But if you look at what we actually have and don't have without your bias, I think you'll find that there really isn't any convincing evidence that he ever really lived.
@@Daedalus1111 Actually the one who is biased is clearly you. The evidence of the existence of Jesus is so overwhelming in comparison to any other documentation of historical characters, that most scholarly atheists have stopped using this as an argument for many years. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not keen on historical facts or research, but you can easily type a few phrases on google to find out the truth yourself before sharing your opinion on the internet
@@Daedalus1111You said earlier that it is disputed among scholars then @Mario.1997 said that's not true and then you just jump to, yes but they were biased. You seem very confident
There are indeed scholars that think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins. And there are others that think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins book. Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
A guy named jesus most likely existed , BUT the jesus invented by a stup1d book for stup1d called the bible is just a pile of horse sh1t. Only deluded people believes fairy tale book as real . Grow some brain , its sad that our species fall for such a childish nonsense.
Remember when Dawkins got pushed on the beginning of the universe. He said the Big Bang game from nothing, and when pushed, he finally said, "Well, or course there was something!" To that, many in the audience laughed, or grumbled, and he asked, shocked, "Why is that funny?" Answer: because you just lost the foundational point in your debate. I guess he didn't think that was an important question either.
@jaimeangulo4880--- LOL Wrong! This is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the term, "nothing." The scientific meaning of the term is quite different from the layman's usage. The universe, as we know it today, did not exist prior to the "Big Bang" (which was NOT an explosion, as most theists believe), but rather an expansion of matter from the "singularity." It is only in that sense that it is sometimes said that there was "nothing" before the "Big Bang." No-one is suggesting that there was "nothing," in the scientific sense, as in completely devoid of matter. That's what Dawkins was trying to clarify, and why he asked, "Why is that funny?" Dealing with widespread scientific ignorance is quite frustrating at times!
@Lonewolf--- So, please give some idea of the characteristics of this singularity. Is it eternal? What caused the expansion if it existed prior and was stable? What is the origin of this singularity? Also, why didn't he just say there was a singularity before the big bang? Seems pretty easy.
@@jaimeangulo4880 --- Both the "singularity," and the "Big Bang," are based on the documented fact that the universe is expanding. The reverse extrapolation of that expansion led to the theories of the "singularity" and the resulting, so-called "Big Bang." As for the characteristics of the "singularity," it was matter and space that was extremely hot, dense, and small (compressed). Anything beyond that is currently unknown. What triggered the "Big Bang" expansion is also currently unknown. What IS known is that it happened, since scientists are able to detect it's "signature" in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The following is a quote on the subject by Jim Peebles, American astrophysicist, astronomer, and theoretical cosmologist who is currently the Albert Einstein Professor in Science, emeritus, at Princeton University: "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." ~P. J. E. Peebles, January 2001 edition of Scientific American (p. 44). Furthermore, the "Big Bang" does not address cosmological origin, and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a creator God exists! In fact, Georges Lemaître, who first proposed the "big bang" theory was a catholic priest! He was honest and bold enough to publish his findings, regardless of what anyone may think--the church included--and the "Big Bang" theory is simply the best model we currently have to describe the observed reality of the universe. The origin of the universe is--at least for now--unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven or dis-proven either way. For example, science can provide the theory of cosmic evolution, traced back to the "big bang," which resulted from the "singularity," but beyond that is unknown. Likewise, if "an intelligence" created the universe from nothing, then who created that intelligence? This pattern can be repeated to infinity without ever reaching a definitive conclusion. That's why any discussion of universal origin is nothing more than an exercise in futility!
That's the key difference between science and religion--science doesn't defer to the classic fallacy of the "argument from ignorance," by declaring, "I don't know, therefore, God did it!" Science is honest enough to say, "I don't know," then proceed to investigate. Religion just falsely claims to have all the answers!
What I find confusing is how religious folk will never answer where the universe came from. They will claim WHO created the universe, but never with WHAT. As far is I can tell the “something from nothing” is shared by physicists and their definition of nothing, and Christian’s and their interpretation of nothing.
@@jaimeangulo4880 Richard Dawkins is not a cosmologist and has never pretended to be one. For that kind of question you would want to look more to someone like Sean Carroll or Laurence Krauss, both of whom have debated William Lane Craig. As for why Dawkins would or would not say something, I would want to be able to see the actual clip and have a full quote before jumping to any firm conclusions. But again, Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist, and as far as I'm aware he has never pretended to have any deep knowledge of the Big Bang, and will always defer to people who actually have an expertise on the matter.
@@nicholasroth2804 I have never seen nor heard of a prayer changing the chance of something happening. Fortune and misfortune will fall on those equally regardless of how devout they are. For the world is immutable and uncaring over how much you believe in something ... The world will do what it wants and not what you want just because you asked nicely.
@@Gantali9305 do you believe God is sovereign? If so, keep knocking on His door, keep asking like the widow did with the evil judge. For God is a good and merciful judge who will listen
@@Gantali9305 try some jesus testimonies, they are for you. God worked miracles in my life. Set me free from the bondage of sin. Jesus reveals himself to those who seek him with all their heart.
I used to think Jesus was just a made up story in the Bible. Then I found him in roman reports. So I prayed and ask God what part of the Bible was real. All Of IT!!! Is what I heard. Since then I have read the Bible. Been born again. For the path to the father is thru me. That verse changed my ways. Thank you Jesus
We have no roman reports of Jesus. We have some outside attestation to the legend (e.g., Josephus mentions that some were claiming he came to life), but no independent first hand accounts of the historical personage of Jesus. Most scholars would agree that he was most likely a historical person that was executed but a lot of the narrative is historically dubious.
This is one reason why he drove so many atheists toward God. Not all atheists are trying to one up the other team. Many of them actually do care about what is true.
Yes, thankfully many have turned away from the "Four Horesmen," and the "New Atheists" in general for essentially being the same kind of intellectually dishonest, biased sophists and dogmatists that people stereotype religious believers as. Believers just need to run with the ball the other side dropped by showing ourselves to have intellectual integrity and reasonableness or they will all just stay sitting on the supposedly neural Agnostic fence. This is why Christians with terrible arguments, who make non-central doctrines into make-or-break tests of faith, and/or show intellectual dishonesty irritate me more than most atheists. Of course "they" will get caught lying, cheating, or being fools, but they are not holding themselves to the same standard as we must by the very nature of our position, and non-believers know this. A dishonest pastor or apologist hurts the Christian position more than a dishonest Atheist hurts his/her position.
So you think Dawkins drove anyone to Christianity by telling the truth? Everybody who has read the book knows Lennox is lying but Dawkins is to gentle to call him out.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 , apparently you’re completely out of touch with what’s been going on in the New Atheist movement. There are books written just about the subject of the damage that movement has caused to atheism and books written by people who abandoned atheism because of it. One book is interviews with people who left atheism because of Dawkins and Hitchens. It’s nothing to do with my opinion.
@@shawnglass108 Many atheists think Dawkins is too conservative regarding gay and trans rights. But we know he is an old man. That is the only controversy regarding Dawkins in the atheist community. The book you were talking about is clearly not part of the atheist community.
@@shawnglass108 You can leave the church but you can't 'leave atheism'. If those you speak of now believe in a God, I'd be interested to see the evidence that managed to convince them.
@@kingston163 Dawkins wrote that despite some scholars finding arguments for mysticism he would follow the mayority of scholars and assume that a wandering preacher named Joshua actually excited. Nothing of this is controversial, Lennox made up the controversy to score points with people like you.
and the religious are the worst culprits, once again taking something someone said and putting spin on it, jesus existed, most atheists will agree to that, he is dead and not god they will also agree with that. you people LOVE to swallow lies.
This is the biggest farce from Dawkins I have ever seen. The fact that he first slyly attempts to minimize the importance of his lie and then even still admits that he lied is absolutely shameful. He even comments that the existence of Jesus is not an important discussion, which is an amazing thing to postulate considering Jesus’ resurrection is the crux of Christianity.
@@scottgodlewski306 The contradiction between his writing and his admittance when confronted is the evidence, brother. We are beyond, “where is the lie?” We are actually at, “Why did you lie?”
@@Dylan-kz1ps I'm not making excuses for the man. I'm simply observing that there was no admission of lying. He made a claim in his book that he should have supported. Lennox also made a claim that he should have himself supported. Are there historians and Biblical scholars who are mythicists? There are. And Dawkins should have cited them. Here I see a guy ceding a point for the sake of argument. You can disagree. That's fine. Should he have done better? Yes. Does this clip rise to qualify the "Richard Dawkins ADMITS He Lied About JESUS"? Not in my estimation. I think it's reaching for something that's clearly not there.
Imagine saying your certain god exists and there is an after life, with literally 0 evidence and no reason apart from brainwashing (sorry...faith) to do so. Lol
@scoobihu1090 Like Peter who lied about the authenticity of Jesus and wrote a book to publicize and mislead people? Check your eyes again, it was Dawkins. What kind of people would rather believe in lies from such a man? What do they inspire to gain by living their beliefs supported by a liar?
@scoobihu1090And you (and all of us) lie all the time when it suits us! Why are we even allowed to live another day when we break God's law this much. God is merciful. Dawkins can be forgiven for his lying as Peter was. But we should still take lying seriously
@scoobihu1090 When you are blind to the lying atheist and just spewing hate towards Christianity, you are clearly showing bias. If you are hating on God so much you are willing to lie and support Dawkin in his lies, you are going through cognitive dissonance, just as what OP said
@@samtussing3974 Don’t need arguments since I don’t need to prove a negative. Christianity can be rejected because there is no evidential path to factually establish the supernatural which includes god, the resurrection or any supernatural claim.
Lennox lies. He claims he "checked with the ancient historians" What? Every single one of them? What a nonsensical claim!, an obvious lie! A quick Google check would reveal historians like; Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Frank Zindler, Earl Doherty and others debate the historical existence of Christ.
Lennox is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox is accusing him of. Ironically Dawkins wasn't actually wrong either. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@ericm9495 Shut up. If you want me to explain why I’ll ruin the obvious veil, he literally backtracks and fumbled over his words in the original video. Even atheists after this debate turned on him a bit for “misrepresenting” the atheistic view. There buddy.
Just another tactic by Dawkins to raise and increase doubts of Jesus' existence in people's minds, as a way of trying to further undermine the claims of Christianity...'He doesn't think the existence of Jesus is an important question', just highlights the blind arrogance of the man...
@@billsherman1565 Aye, post 'The God Delusion'...The point still went into people's minds reading his poorly researched and poorly written book, as did all his misinterpretations of scripture and misrepresentations of what practising Christians actually believe/know...Perhaps he needs to get somebody who knows what they're talking about regards 'religion', specifically 'Christianity', in this instance, to proof read any future atheistic manuscripts of his and offer him some mature and wise guidance, before he has the opportunity to let his misinformation settle into many people's minds, like a memetic virus would...
The best part about these people is they will ALL bend the knee and confess.. No matter how much they hate him now the times coming for Jesus to return indefinitely!
Nobody hates anybody. Further its impossible to hate the nonexistant. You bring up these giant emotional strawman of these overly fanatic lines of thinking that would get you to leave or hate Christianity. For most non believers, it is as settled and peaceful as the sun rising tomorrow.
We'll Just See About That Robert Morrison When The Lord Jesus Christ Comes Back To Earth! Then You'll Sing A Different Tune I Can Guarantee That Brother! Shalom And Amen!✝️✝️🛐🛐📛🕊️🕊️🕊️❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥🤰🤱🧬🤰🤱✨👑✨🦁🦁🦁❣️❣️❣️🌺🌺🌺😇🌟🤗🙏🙏🙏🇨🇦🇮🇱♾️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🗽🦅‼️
Ironically he wasn't actually wrong. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@louly3212 Look, I get it. You don't like being wrong. Unfortunately we all are sometimes. The objective truth here is that Lennox was lying. Neither the words, nor their sentiment that Lennox attributed to Dawkins are not representative of something that actually exists in the God Delusion. I provided you the quote Lennox is citing. There is no debate to be had. Lennox lied. You can listen to the words he said, and then read the quote from the God delusion and you will see the two do not line up. As for why Dawkins was willing to concede the point, he explained that explicitly, it wasn't important. It wasn't worth derailing an entire interview over Lennox's misunderstanding or deliberate lie. Unfortunately this is pretty common in debates between the religious and non-religious because the religious spend the majority of their efforts constructing straw men to argue against. It is often quicker, easier, and more useful to keep the conversation focused by simply conceding unimportant arguments about inconsequential fact claims or incorrect information. Dawkins also probably couldn't remember what he wrote specifically. He wrote that book nearly 20 years ago. I'm sure he thought it was possible he did make that claim and figured it wasn't worth trying to defend against it because as previously mentioned it's unimportant. I know when Christian's here "its unimportant" they immediately become confused and for good reason, it's difficult to understand from a Christian perspective how the historicity of Jesus could be unimportant to the validity of the belief and I get that, the problem is when you're talking about "evidence" for the truth of Christianity whether or not Jesus was real is irrelevant. Jesus being real does not support any claim that he is divine. Jesus being real does not support any claim of any miracle he performed. Similarly if I claimed to have performed miracles the fact of my mere existence would not suffice as evidence for those claims. When you're arguing the fact of a claim, the existence of its claimant is not a relevant factor. A claim can be true even if it was spread through lies and a claim spread by the Pope can be false regardless of the fact that he is the Pope. Claims and their factuality stand on their own. The facts here are pretty simple. Lennox lied about what is written in the God Delusion, and then confronted Dawkins asking him to justify a claim he never actually made. Dawkins, realizing the truth or falsity of the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with the truth claim of Christianity as a whole, tried to move beyond the semantic argument by conceding the point. If you watch the rest of the interview you'll see that despite this Lennox did not move on and clearly only ever intended on lying to attempt to damage Dawkin's credibility. If your apologists have to lie to justify your beliefs... your beliefs are likely not valid.
I hope and pray since your time in jail you have found Jesus. The lies in this world have caused so much harm. Jesus said we would know the timing of his return and right now things are looking like that time. Seek Jesus with your heart. God bless.
@@cruge5774 You are powerfully deluded, and you refer to "lies in this world" as causing so much harm! But what is a bigger lie than telling yourself (with a lot of help from people who taught you) that you're going to be "saved" by a magical invisible father figure from an ancient myth? If you *really* cared about what was true you'd make an effort to learn instead of accepting what you were taught without question.
Read the book. You'll see Lennox is the liar. What Dawkins actually said is "It is even possible, to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all". Dawkins then claims that Jesus clearly existed. What Lennox has done yet again, and he's good at this, is misrepresent someone and then make a mountain out of a molehill for his own arguements. Perhaps check the source material next time instead of blindly believing the person who agrees with your whole life view.
@@alanknotts5975 So you have just forgotten that lennox lied then or chosen to ignore the lie? I can accept that. I'm not actually a big fan of Dawkins to be honest and the book was poorly argued in many places but I find the arguements of Lennox and other thiests much worse. That's all athiesm is after all, a disbelieve in god. It doesn't mean I have to agree with all the new athiest ideas. I read the god delusion because the selfish gene is a genuine game changer in his field but after reading the god delusion it's clear he should stick to science just as Lane Craig should avoid science. Perhaps you could enlighten me on your thoughts on the book. I still recommend you actually fact check this stuff first because Lennox has yet again taken something an athiest has said and got the point wrong. Athiests can do this just as well.
@@aaronfunnell5220If you aren't a fan of Richard Dawkins, then why are you complaining? Just accept that he is intellectually dishonest and move on. I'm not familiar with the arguments that Lennox has put forward, but if you think that they are dishonest, make a video explaining that. Your comment is just an attempt to change the subject to one you are more comfortable with.
@@aaronfunnell5220 The book is wasted effort and time to piggyback on the "Jesus is a myth" movement (see also Price and Doherty). What's twisting me up is the clip itself. You say "actually" Lennox lied. If you watch the clip, Dawkins admits to the accusation. Where do yall get that Lennox is at fault? As an aside, I've seen for myself that "actually" is just a means to force the opinon of the speaker. But the fault lies with me, here, in that I'm attempting a conversation in a place where most come to fling mud.
Well, that's not how these things work; demonstrating a lie/fraud/inaccuracy in one claim doesn't demonstrate the same in others. Also, if we follow your reasoning and apply it to the bible, there is a clear conflict as Paul, arguably the Creator of Christianity directly refutes you in Romans 3:1-19 - lies enhance the truth of god. Also, God lies in the bible - repeatedly: Genesis - God says Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate from the tree - they didn't, Adam lived 900 years! - do we throw out the rest of the bible now?
@@carlanderson9224 I would encourage you to do more research on these issues you have with scripture. Many misunderstand the meaning due to translation deficiencies. Many people try and claim slavery was accepted by God. But this is a egregious error. God led people out of unlawful slavery. See Deuteronomy. In other situations it was allowed. However the word slave in those situations would be more similar to the modern term employee or servant. Language and dialects have interesting differences in phrases and meaning. People who speak multiple languages typically understand this. It's best to find help understanding the true meaning behind these texts rather than assume something that just isn't the case. As with the two fold creation account story, where God reiterates the same account twice, it was how ancient people wrote things. Much like how we have titles or a spoiler for movies, they gave a outline of what happened and then went into greater detail. Hope this helps you find answers to the questions you have. Keep seeking truth and you will find it.
@@MrDuckskin It’s rather interesting and somewhat arrogant you telling me to do more research on the scriptures when you’re whole argument refers to things not in question on this thread. Please explain how, your straw man of “many people try and claim” ‘X’; your (poor) apologetics about the word slave vs servant; or the post hoc explanation of the two genesis accounts, any of that relates the credibility of someone who lies or the credibility of any other claim if one is supposedly shown false? Now, let me briefly engage your fallacious arguments It is an error that God accepted slavery - true, god does not explicitly say slavery is good, and yes he leads his chosen people out of slavery (though this never actually happened - and the story has god impede Pharoah’s free will so he can he can show off, then kills a whole lot of innocent animals and children for the thing he forced Pharaoh to do). But god also never explicitly condemns it, though it’s interesting you point to Deuteronomy, which refers to indentured servitude - but conveniently ignore Exodus which differentiates between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves(only one can go free after a period unless tricked) and Leviticus which tells you where you must get your non-Hebrew SLAVES and that those SLAVES are your property that can be passed down through inheritance. While you are looking into languages and dialects, you should pay more attention to the usage and context of words, not just the word itself; you can say someone that is owned as property is a Servant if you wish, but the commonly accepted word to describe that situation is slave. Now to your assertion about genesis. Firstly, common theology has the text traditionally being authored by Moses NOT God, so god reiterates nothing here. That out the way, accepted scholarship identifies the two creation stories as being from two distinct sources, the Priestly (P), which is the more contemporary source, and the Jahweist (J) with P being a retelling/expansion of J written approx. 3-4 centuries later. So you may want to continue your studies, perhaps after removing your bias, and stop appealing to post hoc rationalisation, without evidence to support. People may well have wrote accounts differently, entirely understandable when coming from oral traditions, but they wouldn’t forcefully incorporate both narratives into the same text, allegedly written by the same hand. And even if they did offer a summary then detailed account, THEY WOULD STILL MATCH, which they don’t. Now, if I were to grant your nonsense about linguistics and dialects - that merely shows the supposed omniscient being who inspired the text to be an utter fool and that same omnipotent entity to be incompetent. Why does it take research and expertise to divine the truth of text? Why must we study and learn a dead language (by thousands of years) to discover the nuance that was meant, and then apologists such as yourself proclaim to know the truth yet it’s at odds with other self professed in-the-know and more importantly the experts in biblical studies, theology and linguistics? Stop apologising for a horrendous series of books, that isn’t particularly well written, that contradicts itself (in whatever language you care for). And relevant to this thread, endorses lying and self delusion as virtuous concepts, as seemingly evidenced by you
There most certainly are academics who argue that Jesus of Nazareth may not have been an actual person. There’s no evidence outside of religious texts.
The important question is, why did he lie? The answer is only known to him, unless he's said why. He said he took it back, but he didn't say why he lied.
I think it's because he's mad at God. When I was a child and I was mad at my mom I'd say she wasn't my mom. I didn't go so far as to say she didn't exist, I just wanted to hurt her like she hurt me. Once upon a time I heard Richard admit he was molested by a teacher. He acts like it wasn't a big deal, but of course it's a big deal. But don't offer him any sympathy, because he rebuffs it as if it's annoying to him. So I think that's it. He's angry at God.🥺
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Your comment at the end of the video was perfect. I believe it's very evident that you Take how and why you present the information very seriously. This is handling the word properly, this is rightly dividing. I have a great deal of respect for you my brother
Lord have mercy on that man’s soul. The fact that Jesus Christ exists is the most important thing ever. Anyone who would try to deny His existence is clearly at enmity with God.
The historicity of Jesus is unclear. They might have been a preacher, among many, who had that name or a name similar to it. It is kinda hard to pin down the actual life of someone not under a lot of attention in ancient times. Sure, if you are a roman emperor people will write about what you had for breakfast. But some preacher in what was an unimportant little country at that time?
It’s been a while since I read it, but “The Dawkins Delusion,” absolutely destroys Dawkin’s credibility. The author points out that Dawkin’s arguments are even insulting to atheist philosophers who have given real, intellectually honest, thought and effort on the subject.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
"and some point towards Dawkins as their evidence for this belief." - really? Are "some" really pointing to him as some sort of authority on the matter? Why?
@darkeen42 it's not a lie. Richard Dawkin's arguments in the God Delusion are so bad that when I searched for their counterarguments, I was introduced to Christian apologetics.
He's not lying about anything....and he's certainly not admitting to lying.... Plus, go ask Richard Carrier for a list of his fellows who agree with this idea...
So a guy who wasn't divine was a virtually unknown laborer until 30, walked around a talked for 3 years before being killed having raised no army and acquiring no wealth and almost 2000 years later, the world's calendar is still based on his life and the culture of the whole world was impacted. Almost seems like there was something different about him than any other human who ever lived.
Because a roman emperor made it law and it spread through his empire. Nothing more magical about Jesus than Muhammad spreading Islam through his conquest. The western calendar is based on Jesus' birth again because of the Romans, but the Islamic calender is based on Muhammad, Indian, Chinese calenders are based on their religions etc.
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out. There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins. And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book. Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
Where did you get this information?... if its your pastor you might want to examine the motives behind this... There is a notion in the church that its ok to lie to people to get them to believe.... if they believe, they will get to heaven, and then they can learn real truth (so its ok to lie to them as long as they are saved).... As for evidence: All historical sources just repeat the scriptures... that's not evidence. (for example: passages in Josephus are disputed and likely added by Christians later) There is nothing written about the early church. The earliest we have is Paul... and he writes about Jesus as a revelation and foretold in the scriptures. Not an actual human on earth. Everything else was invented a generations later (the scriptures) as the "literal Jesus" sect wrestled for power with other sects. A real Jesus was way easier to sell to the people then some mystical teachings. Jesus is total fiction. Christianity started just like Mormonism (from revelations). Have a look at this video... its about evidence. th-cam.com/video/8zpV4hcTwYE/w-d-xo.html
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
it missed the point actually. Dawkins is a wishy washy lame debater, his voice, his mannerisms. He sits on the fence. But he is correct that “it isn’t an important question because it’s NOT the real question - IS IT? Lennox is NOT actually being 100 per cent honest either. NOR is the video. Ancient historians and the vast majority of modern historians do BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE CALLED JESUS lived around the time stated. THEY ALSO believe that MOHAMMAD EXISTED TOO. BUT they DON’T BELIEVE THAT JESUS DID ANY MIRACLES, or resurrected from the DEAD or SAVED ANY SINS OR ASCENDED TO HEAVEN OR MET WITH THE DEVIL. Never mind was GOD or the SON of GOD Any more than they Believe that MOHAMMAD WAS A PROPHET OF GOD OR FLEW ON A MAGIC HORSE. So it’s NOT a stepping stone. A cult existed about a person called Iesous - for sure. That was interlaced with the existing pagan festivals and used to unite under one “GOD” and the church compiled from 100’s of possible books about this cult a Cannon of official books and called it The Bible. NOW ASK THE SAME HISTORIANS IF THEY THINK ABRHAM ISAAC JACOB NOAH AND MOSES EXISTED. You’ll get a very different answer to WHETHER JESUS existed. One stepping stone that doesn’t include ANY of the written accounts in the GOSPELS but confirms people started a Messianic cult - step sideways - 10 STEPS BACKWARDS becaue the legitimacy of the Israelites historical accounts (excluding any miracles) is hardly believed by ANY historian in the world. Doesn’t mean it’s not true. But it’s believed to be highly inaccurate - even without the God bits. GOOD TRY THOUGH
@@martinsolomon5500 You just drug that out so much for absolutely no reason when the dude in the video literally said that everything you just talked about was NOT the point of this video lol and then you lie and say Lennox is lying smh. To then proceed to go and ramble on about everything the topic of this video ISN'T about. smh. Geez dude. You must follow Dawkins. You're trying to make it about something else lol. The topic Lennox brought up concerning Dawkins lying in his book IS the topic. Dawkins then says he lies yet you're so blinded by hatred in God that you overlook Dawkins admittedly lying and proceed to start rambling about another debate topic to deflect from the topic in this video...... do better bro. Don't cost anything to pay attention.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
HE makes an assertion because he feels its not important. When called on it, he makes another that there must be some historical expert, and possibly two that would support him. That's blind faith that he is right based on no actual evidence. Its hard to take him seriously when he bases something on his feelings and then assumes that someone will back up his opinion. If you believe something that is one thing, but to go out of your way to trying to disprove something and then have zero support of the people you say will back you up points to just how much of a fool he is.
Jesus fucking Christ, you're making a lot out of this xD "Maybe I alluded to the possibillity of" ..."and I take that back". WHERE IS THE LIE? "I've checked with the ancient historians!" Have you, really?
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out. There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins. And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book. Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview". @@OnkelStein
It’s like when a national newspaper puts a lie on the front page for everyone to see and then a month later retracts the story in small writing on page 10. The damage is done already, how many people who read that book will see this interview? Good job on posting this.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@willcampbell8829 Thanks Will. The church is full of people who know they need God, with some who, unfortunately, think they deserve to be there. And subjectivism has caused a lot of bad thinking and practice to be too prevalent. I’m doing what I can to help. Have a good day.
I tried reading "The God Delusion" once. Got 100 pages or so in and realized Dawkins' problem isn't with God, but with Christians who misrepresent God.
@@ninjason57 Exactly. What I noticed in his book is that Dawkins gave several examples of people doing some really messed up stuff in the name of Christianity, and somehow viewed those actions as properly practicing the Bible's teachings. Tbh, I think Dawkins is more anti-Christian than atheist.
@@germanwulf40 nobody ever killed anyone in the name of nothing I personally think some people are just not strong or intelligent enough to function without God
While God calls us to "be holy for I am holy" it takes longer than a day. Some it can take a long while. And others, well, have NO idea what it means to be Christian, don't read their Bibles, don't go to church, and I even met a "Christian" that didn't believe in Jesus, THE Christ. I have NO idea how to come to call herself Christian.
In this conversation, he said he took it back. My problem is that it’s still written in his book and people who read the book are gonna think that’s his belief.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 You are factually incorrect. Even Dawkins disagreed with you when he was put on the spot publicly and admitted that most historians accept the evidence as sufficient to establish that the person we call Jesus of Nazareth lived and died as described in the Gospels.
Thank you for running this channel content. Just came across it. I'm a Roman Catholic covert from Protestantism and an engineer. I was brought to the Catholic Church through the logical explanation of Christianity and its ties to the history of ancient Judaism. These academic and philosophy videos are tremendously helpful to be able to articulate the faith and existence of our loving God. God bless your work
That was a perfect example of an out right lie from Dawkins covered up by claiming that he only meant a tiny percentage of pseudo historians and Jesus myth conspiracy theorists believe this. As if a scientist of Dawkins statute didn’t know that Jesus was an historical character? Furthermore, a half truth is actually worse than an outright lie as it’s more difficult to detect especially when it’s hidden behind the cloak of rhetoric and the rational high ground. Now Christopher Hitchens was a master of outright factual errors, rhetorical flair and half truths.
Half truth? Go watch the full clip. He cut him off before he could finish what he was saying. He wasn’t admitting anything. He was setting up a scenario for an argument. That’s shady. This guy is going straight to fake hell.
@@JCJMC21 Bro stop that’s embarrassing 😂 just listen to the clip he didn’t deny that it was written in he’s book and after that he Literally said "I take that back Jesus existed" I don’t think you can make up a context that would show he didn’t lie. Come on man take the L and move on just because he lie doesn’t prove God Don’t be mad
Yes, a terrier with zero brains. 'I checked with ancient historians and that's not so'. What is not so? Which historian has said the Jesus that Lennox is referring to - Jesus, the son of God doing miracles, resurrecting after dying - existed?
You mean the bit where he straight up lies to try to gotcha Dawkins on an incredibly insignificant point? Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@scottgodlewski306People who don't believe in God think murder is wrong until they lose someone they love to a child r@pist who is also a murderer and necrophiliac. Then they yell "DEATH SENTENCE!" to the court because capital punishment satisfies their thirst for vengeance (disguised as justice) as if they did the killing themselves. Try asking one. See how they'll reply.
@@scottgodlewski306Essentially, ask an atheist, "If your child gets r@ped, murdered, and r@ped in that order, and you saw everything, and you have a chance to kill the suspect that very instant, would your murder be justified? If they say yes, then murder isn't wrong but subjective. Then that means morality is subjective, meaning we might as well have no conscience if we "feel" we can be justified to do something bad. Not with God though. True believers would repay evil with goodness, because that's what God told us to do, because that would end cycles of hatred.
@@indigofenrir7236 Ooh boy. Morality is subjective. Always. There’s no instance where it’s not. Even if God declares what is moral. Then his morals are subjective because they’re subject to him. We can objectively defy those commandments but the commandments themselves are subjective. This may seem a bit fuzzy at first but think about it for more than a few seconds.
This was part of the aggressive New Atheism which was not about objective discussion but silencing the opposing view by reducing their position to stupidity. Lying is justified in this pursuit.
@@user-br3sz3oo3x Have you seen the full video of this point. It sounds a lot different if you don't cut off some rather important words at the end. Almost like lying.... sigh.
@@user-Adsum I have been reading Dawkins's book. Dawkins's position was that despite some discussions of Bible scholars Dawkins himself accepted the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua.
You are correct. He lost intellectual credibility when he encouraged his acolytes to mock Christians at every opportunity. He did not encourage them to engage in thoughtful debate.
@@elibennett6168 The only agressive side I can see here are the Christians. Lenox acted aggressive by lying and wrongfully accusing Dawkin of lying. And the Uploader comitted the lie of omission.
So can you prove jesus or god existed? Instead of wasting your time talking about Sam Harris or any other people, you should be proving your imaginary friends existed. It’s called the burden of proof. Talking about other people will never help you prove your imaginary friends exist.
@FourDeuce01 you are a lazy thinker. Are you serious? You have trained experts that go through the historical evidence but you expect laymen to do all the heavy lifting? The objective thing to do is to assess all that the experts have to say, not reject them because you don't like their conclusions.
Richard Carrier and Robert Price are two academics who argue the case for Jesus not existing. Dawkins was right. There are one or two. He didn't need to take that back.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
But he never existed. He is a figment of collective imaginations. Your side doubts climate change exists despite the claims of all climate scientists. You somehow think anyone should then trust all ancient historians.
Yes, at least he admitted it, but unfortunately the damage is done, he’s a best selling author and thousands of people have read his books and been led astray. How many of them are going to see this interview?😢🙏🏽
Why is no one acknowledging Dr Lennox’s careful use of the word “ancient”? It is true to say that ANCIENT historians were in agreement, but modern historians are not. Roman historians (which are the only ancient historians to be familiar with Christianity) were all in agreement that Romulus existed, but almost all modern historians reject this. Very important distinction, surprised Prof Dawkins didn’t argue so.
this is why you can’t always rely on what someone says about God even if they’re considered well educated on the subject- do your own research like John! Amen! ❤
I'm curious, if you're not relying on someone else's testimony, what exactly are you using to research - the bible is entirely "what someone says about god", even down to what books are cannon or not... And have you read the entire bible? There's a whole host of absurdities and buffoonery from a supposedly all knowing, all powerful and all benevolent being. (I mean, your brother's baby goo doesn't magically make the offspring yours if you're dead!)
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Why? Are we removing the bible for the blatant lies and falsehoods it contains? I believe a bat is not a bird and Adam lived to 900 after eating the fruit that would see him die that day...
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
If you listen to other interviews with Dawkins you also find out he knows very little of what the Bible actually says yet criticizes it consistently - he has no cred.
That is the reason he pointed to the discussion of Bible scholars. People that read the untranslated texts. Dawkins mainly discusses how Evolution has formed our minds.
Only, science is about evidence and independently verified data, the subjective honesty of one person is irrelevant to the scientific process. The biggest liar can't outsmart scientific peer review.
Why is everyone insisting it's a lie? It could be a mistake, it could be that he just wanted to grant that Jesus was an historical figure for the sake of argument but that's no evidence he was divine. I find this whole emotional storm in the comments section to be very telling to be honest.
@@notcrediblesolipsism3851 Agreed! To say there have been historians who have cast doubt on the 'existence' of Jesus is clearly not a lie. For Dawkins to concede that 'Jesus' existed does not mean the Jesus of the Bible existed....The supernaturalists in the comments are getting excited over nothing.
There were a lot of wandering preachers in the Roman empire. Jesua was a common name in Israel. The existence of a wandering preacher at that time that was called Jesua is pretty mondain.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 I don’t have to. I wasn’t aware this was my job. If you’re wondering about Jesus, you have hundreds of resources both Christian and secular of His existence in history. There is no disputing His existence. To know about Him, you need to go to non secular sites as they will lie about him as Richard has always done. Lee Stroebel James Wallace -Cold Case Detective who explains it from that perspective Those are just two but they’re former atheists who poked the holes and found the truth.
His whole point is religion lies, while himself says its no big deal that he lied. If he's willing to and stretch truth to his convenience on something he deems not very important, what will he do for things he thinks are of the utmost importance?
@@karstenschuhmann8334 Is that the truth? I mean you can't say ALL, I understand if you same most or some, but you can not say all. I mean you can say what you want its your mouth/brain. I meant it in this context. That there could be a % that don't tell the truth, but its not all.
@@thelthrythquezada8397 If you claim to be sure about something to be true despite you cannot demonstrate to be true, you are lying. Well, and that is the job description for apologists.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 Perhaps I misread or misunderstood you. I understood you to say that ALL OF THEM (apologist) lie. Are you talking about not being able to prove Jesus, Biblical stuff etc? I just want to make sure I am understanding you 100%. I love the comment section but sometimes we can misunderstand ppl here. I prefer to have one on ones, buuuut what are we going to do, you know?
@@thelthrythquezada8397 Beliving in something is not a lie. But claiming to be sure about something you cannot demonstrate is indeed a lie. You may indeed find an appologist that never claims to know there is a god. But I doubt it.
In the later eighties I had a bench of books with authors, who wrote that Jesus never existed and the Gospel would describe several different persons and their teaching in the figure of Jesus. Dawkins came later. It took me years to find Josephus and Tacitus to verify for me that Jesus is historical, and the truth, the way and the life.
Absolutely not. @@scottgodlewski306 I think he read the same kind of literature as I did and believed them without proof. So he reproduced a lie. That influenced people. Very sad. That he admitted this failure shows, that the truth is working on him. Maybe this is not the end of the story.
Oh dear. Josephus' supposed account of Jesus is an obvious fake even acknowledged by historians. Tacitus' accounts are 100 years after the supposed events based on oral reports of people who were not there!
King? Why is he king? Hes suposidly the son of god acording to a book that has no evidnce apart from the books saying he is wih cant prove anything. Why can you belive one part of the bible but ignore the other part were it talks about owning slaves, women being infirior and so on. Those are all out of date by quite a while. Women gays and people of colour are not lesser beings we are all the same species. If you beilve any of them to be lesser than you are deluded (not implying you do). The phrase Jesus is king is stupid. If my veiws are wrong and the christian god is the answer to the universe than i am not worried as christians say he is "all loving" so will likely forgive me. There is no reason however that it is your god and not another it is better in my view to belive in none than the wrong one.
@@Ethan_lofthouse there’s so much to unpack in the claims your making, but all I will say is go and read the Bible for yourself, it’s very good for the soul and the Word of God, it does say Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, so be careful in what you say, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and if truly I hope and pray that God will bring you to a genuine faith and life of repentance in Christ Jesus, (John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him “ I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no man comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus already forgives you but once you die your time is up, you have your whole life to accept that forgiveness and to love Jesus instead of hating Him when all you have known is wrong teachings of who He is.
@@ThroughJesusYT I apologise for not chcking to see you claim was true i porberbly should of done that. I have no reason to belive in god the onky way i could is if i was to be presebted with evidnce of his existance outside of religious texts. If he wants people to belive in him i dont understand why he doesnt give us evidnce to for him out of the manny gods i think the chistian one is as real a zues or cratos. I respect you for being able to have faith in ones existance but i cannot make myself belive.
@@Ethan_lofthouse you’re welcome, I am learning how to better love others as well, but I do say all creation testifies there is a God, for anything to exist( be created) there has to be a creator that exists outside of the creation itself, since God has always been eternal therefore He exists outside of the time and space created before your very eyes, that is the evidence, look at everything you can and ask yourself this question “ who created this?” The phone you’re holding, the clothes you wear, the food and drink you have, and the house you live in? This all had to be made, and just like your house has a builder even though you may not have been there when it was built, the universe has a Creator, who existed before all. Therefore God. In this we have evidence of creation, science and common sense shows us that anything that is made had been made from a creator, nothing can be created from nothing(no one). Hopefully this is the moment God pulls you to the knowledge of sin and sacrifice for sin, and you understand what Jesus really did on that cross.
It's called filtering, in fact Dawkins is particularly known for this and within his own scientific field he is known as a pop scientist, and therefore to be taken with a pinch of salt. With all the filtering he does, he ends up been more anti science than scientific. He's an influencer.
Thank you for the excellent video 😊 The Lord’s love + grace be with you Hope you are all well and resting in Jesus saving love + grace 😊 Blessings friends 😊
There is much more evidence of Jesus’ existence than the speculation of him not existing by these historian hacks you reference. Do more honest research rather than believing biased atheists.
Yes, Lennox says ANCIENT historian. Dawkins should have said CONTEMPORARY historians. But Hawkins is correct, doesn't matter if he existed or not. Its the divinity and all the "rules" that matter.
This is SO DISTURBING! HOW ON EARTH COULD ANY SCIENTIST DARE TO LIE ON A FACT LIKE THAT!!! To publicly "take back" something that he or she wrote is incredible... Dawkins is ethically bound to take that back ON A WRITTEN BOOK! SHAME ON HIM!
The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed. The question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, and today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed. Wikipedia
@@artgalleryandcraftsbydeb9135Richard Carrier is a counter-example to John Lennox's claim. I wrote he argued, not whether he is right or wrong. Dawkins's argument seems to be that the historicity or not is an unimportant question.
@@artgalleryandcraftsbydeb9135Wikipedia's 'Christ myth theory': "Scholars such as Robert M. Price and G. A. Wells argue that evidence of the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that nothing about him is certain" Though further down: "Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity [...]"
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out. There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins. And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book. Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing. This is the quote from the God Delusion: "The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..." He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@bigtxsdude My point still stands. If you are sure NO gods exist, then it wouldn't matter. That point still stands. I suppose your point would be Jesus is essential for the Christian and you are right but he isn't calling BS on just your religion. He is calling BS on all of them.
@@robertmorrison107 Sorry it matters because he is a non-Christian denier and since Jesus is the main focus actually the only really focus to Christianity it matters
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out. There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins. And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book. Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
That's quite the stretch to make. There is a difference between a lie and not knowing. Dawkins is right that there are historians who don't think Jesus was real. Could it be at that moment he conceded the point so the conversation could move forward rather than bogging it down with debatable facts?
I had doubts until i began to study the sanctuary built during the time of Moses. The first item i learned of is the correlation of the laver with the spear wound into Jesus's side. From there i learned that each furniture piece was a wound on Jesus's body. Then i learned even more. Like how the curtain hung from the crossbeam by iron nails. How the bread inside the sanctuary was pressed down on four spikes. How the golden lamp has decoritive buds and blossoms but no fruit, that is until you read of the staff of Aaron. The branch that was cut off a tree, died, then came to life, budded, blossomed, and produced almonds. What shape is the flame again? No wonder they call it the fruit of the spirit. King Solomon makes the connection that love is a vehement flame. The knowledge of God is irrefutable for me. The kicker is that the churches have it wrong, and the bible got it right. The spear pierced Jesus side. Meaning it went all the way through and out the other side. Water came out one side, and blood the other. In the sanctuary, the laver is halfway between the sanctuary tent opening, and the altar of sacrifice. The lavar was on the south side opposite the place of blood letting on the north side. Mercy is symbolized by water and washing away the blood. The northside, the place of blood letting symbolized guilty by blood. I question everything the churches teach, if it is not found in the sanctuary, or spoken of by Jesus.
moses never existed, that's historical fact, jesus existed, we atheists will agree on that for the most part, was he related to god, nope, gods are mythology. this guy is the liar, he's the one twisting dawkins words to suit.
He didn't say he had lied, he said that for the purposes of this question of the conversation he could have taken back so as to make the other's position as strong as he wants it and he still wouldn't lose.
Yes, this is a short...he shortened the 2 hr long clip... And I've seen the entire debate, he quickly moves on past this point coz all of a sudden it doesn't matter that he existed...while the entire weight of Jesus' impact is the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts
Absolutely right it is a stepping stone .. i believed the narative that the bible and Jesus could be just fiction .. then i found out he was written about by all the different cultures back then in their languages .. he is the most written about person in history .. even kings and queens were not written about as much as him.
Now the kicker was why would they do that if he was a myth ?
And it wasnt like there was paper and ink sitting around or anyone that knew how to use it back then either.
That started me on a 10 year journey trying to debunk or not believe the bible and it saved me.
Thank you for sharing this! Praise God! Those who truly seek Him, find Him ❤️
So you just needed a hobby!
Jesus is the most documented person in history.
No he wasn't
Great argument.. "no he wasn't", so convincing.
This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty
It is and it occurs when one focuses on pride or hate rather than truth.
No the epitome of intellectual dishonesty is the propagation of superstitious myth as truth, i. e. Religion
atheist love to lie
Yes, you're right. It only takes a few minutes of searching to discover that when Dawkins was writing _The God Delusion_ around 2004, there really was a resurgence of the "Jesus is mythical" theory, led by authors such as Robert McNair Price and the rather less academically qualified Earl Doherty.
Are you referring to Dawkins or Daily Dose of Wisdom? I'd argue within the context of what we're presented with here, DDW is the dishonest one.
I find it upsetting how he said, basically, “Yeah sure, maybe I was fibbing a little, but it doesn’t matter.” Dude. IT MATTERS.
Darwin’s is greater than any fat bully mathematician
He is to be ignored.
In the Bible it talks about false prophets, deceivers, people who will lead you astray. Dawkins is one of them.
Ironically he wasn't actually wrong.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@ThunderLotus-il5cs you're absolutely right. That is exactly what it says.
"Jesus **probably** existed, but it is quite **conceivable** that he did not. It is even **possible** to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all."
He does precisely say that people could potentially make an argument that Jesus might not have existed.
Is that a lie? Obviously it can't be a lie, it's an opinion. A perfectly reasonable opinion communicated with recognition that it is likely not even the correct view to have.
However... What was it that Lennox even said originally to start this? "In your book you say that it is under scholarly dispute that Jesus ever existed at all".
Well we've just seen that Dawkins said no such thing. In fact what Dawkins said amounts to the exact opposite of what Lennox has asserted is printed in Dawkins' book.
So... If Dawkins didn't lie, and both the truth, and the printed words in Dawkins book are in direct opposition with what Lennox explicitly asserted as fact what does that mean?
Lennox lied. Lennox intentionally lied about the contents of one of the books of an individual who he was hosting for an interview for the explicit purpose of falsely accusing that person of having lied themselves.
Not only did Lennox explicitly, directly, intentionally lie but his lie was constructed to make Dawkins look like the one who was lying.
How much more insidious can you get? Worse than lying, worse than refusing to take responsibility for that lie, Lennox tried to make someone else take responsibility for his lies.
This comment section is filled with Christians decrying Dawkins as a liar and attributing his actions to evil influence.
Ok, well... Now that we've discovered that Dawkins is in actuality completely innocent and that in fact the guilty party was the "Christian" Lennox... Do we decry him? Do we attribute his actions to the influence of evil? Do we regard him as the false prophet, as an enemy of God?
The facts here are objective. Lennox lied. There is no other rational way to interpret this. So if your conviction forces you to call out liars and condemn them as evil... I'm still sitting here waiting for any of you to act like actual Christians.
If the existence of Jesus is so unimportant, why did Dawkins even bother mentioning the issue in his book?
Dude! You said it 😮
Jesus if he existed was merely a Criminal executed by the Roman authorities he would not have been put in a tomb he would have been thrown in a mass grave God is a coping strategy for people afraid of death one day the Universe will die and the idea that you get to exist beyond the death of the Universe because you picked the right magic sky daddy is beyond arrogant I say grow up
Or even lie about his existence
Personally I think Jesus did exist but he was just a man who was exacuted for his Crimes by the Roman Authorities and thrown in to a mass Grave the Bible is a book of Myths and the Christian God is merely the creation of man's mind just as so many other Gods created to make man feel significant in an Uncaring Universe one day the Christian God will be nothing but a memory just as so many other Gods people who cannot see this are just delusional I get so tired of the same old Christian arguments over and over maybe some people are just not clever or strong enough to stand without God
Because it's trendy to say things like that if you're atheist as it's a means to justify your ignorance. He used it as a marketing ploy to sell his book to that specific demographic that finds it trendy.
If Dawkins lies about something he considers unimportant why should we believe anything else he says?
He didn't actually lie.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Instead of insisting on his claim, he acted like John Lennox 'caught' him and backtracked a bit.
He didn't lie. It was a concession to keep the conversation moving rather than tying up the time with debatable facts.
Dawkins didn't lie. Dawkins book specifcially concludes "Jesus probably existed." Ironically, it's the caption of this video that is a lie.
Exactly.
If you have to lie to prove your argument, you don't actually have an argument.
How many lies have your side propped up as truth?
Exactly why creationists have nothing.
Just like Democrats
@@83Bongo🤣🤣🤣🤣oh, my dear boy, if only you knew; the cosmological sciences show very conclusively we were created, this entire universe...
@@JohnTracey-vl9tu Even if we needed a creator, you would still need to determine which creator it was, and it's definitely not the one that creationist Christians believe in.
When you think you need to tell a lie to support your belief, you need to question your beliefs.
Well said 👏
That would implicate all creationists! Please practice what u preach.
@@markl8679 What "lie" do creationists claim?
Existence of the Christian god, bible prophesies, genesis, Noah’s ark, etc, etc, etc.
@@markl8679 I have never needed to lie for Christ.
He does not think it is important but decided to purpously lie about it in his book.
He got backed into a corner and tried to run
Atheists are all about destruction of history and evidence but they think they care about evidence and proof and they don't believe in magic 😂
And many lectures and speeches.
Dawkins book is basically trying to prove something he does not believe in doesn't exist. I think it should be called the dawkins delusion
@@ededwards7226 Sure thing
Stunning admission. The fact that he manipulated his words to misrepresent the truth shows that he is not to be trusted.
Like the bible. That says stuff that didn't happen also.
Yes I'm glad that we can trust in an ancient book that says the earth is flat, covered by a crystal dome and that snakes can talk
@@Gantali9305and you know more than the Bible because?
@@Gantali9305 Your statement is such an intellectually fallacious statement
@@inspirednaija7204 How so.. it says there was a world wide flood but we know that didn't happen...
I mean that's a huge thing to mislead people about.
Atheists are all about destruction of history and evidence but they think they care about evidence and proof and they don't believe in magic 😂
Not really. If you are 100% certain Jesus was not the son of God then he was just one of trillions who happened to live before us and his life or story is inconsequential.
You may consider it inconsequential but the overall impact that Christ or his teachings have had on people and history still continue to this day i'd suggest you Dominion by Tom Holland for more info
@@walter5433 I don't consider it anything nor am I really interested in the topic. Second, the book is obviously from a bias perspective. I doubt I'll get a forward in there from any of the kids raped by catholic priests or at vacation bible school.
@@robertmorrison107Catholics are not Christians
If someone lies to you once they will lie to you again
Unless they come to know Jesus.
That’s a good description of religion. Without lies, religion couldn’t exist.😈
@@nikokapanen82know which version..I am sure yours is the right one, no?
Totally agree. For example, God. The first lie is said by God.
Claiming certainty about something you cannot demonstrate means you are lying.
The guy just admitted he was wrong, not that he lied. Huge difference
The problem isnt whether or not Jesus existed, the problem is "Did he have superhero magic powers that can defy the laws of physics"?
And there is nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong, actually it shows good character.
@@Vottoduder-q8g actually yes, the problem is if jesus existed. the jesus that is depicted in the bible 99% chance doesn't exist. is there a chance that there was a carpenter named jeshua who was involved in terrorism against the roman regime? sure, jeshua is a common jewish name and the romans were widely hated by the jews.
@@Vottoduder-q8gaccording to the people who saw him do every miracle, I trust in the people who saw with their own eyes what he did even to the point of death, 11 out of 12 of the apostles were killed in a horrible way for their testimonies of Jesus, along with a large number of the believers in Jesus Christ. All were killed because they KNEW what they ALL saw and they ALL saw the same things and they all were willing to die because they know what they saw. Now my question to you. Are you willing to die a horrible and excruciating death in the belief that Jesus Christ is NOT God? If not why should I believe you over the eye witness testimony of the people in attendance whom did not receive anything for saying what they saw happen other than persecution and death
@@tomriddle483 I read what the authors wrote too. I believe that Alexander the Great existed, but if the story about him said that he rode a flying horse and that he could shoot lightning bolts from his eyes, I would question the authors of the story.
@@Vottoduder-q8g even if the people who lived in that time and saw it happened we’re willing to accept death without a second thought for what they know they saw
- "No historian said Jesus didn't exist"
- "There is one or two"
- "Who?"
- "Me and myself".
Nah there's a few. But the fact is that we have very little evidence outside the bible that he existed.
@@Daedalus1111agreed, there were one or two and that means Dawkins didn't lie. So the only lie is in the title of the video. Funny that.
@@notcrediblesolipsism3851 Again, Who were the ancient historians that denied Jesus's existence? Name them.
@@Daedalus1111"there's a few" then name them. Name the ancient historians that said Jesus did NOT exist and had evidence of him not existing
@@notcrediblesolipsism3851 We have more creationist and intelligent design proponents in academia than Jesus Mythers. Be exact there are zero mythers in academia period and as of this comment in all of modern historical scholarship a myther has managed to achieve peer review once. That still doesn't mean their stuff was good mind you, it just means it made it past the editor.
Seriously mytherism is a joke
So someone wrote a book about disproving Jesus, lied about the fact he didn’t exist. That’s the best sermon a man could have! Thanks Dawkins! The Lord surely moves in. Mysterious ways. Amen.
Who was that guy, you are talking about? It was clearly not Dawkins.
You think it's that easy? Now, you prove Jesus. Bring him to me. Pray that he comes to me and lets me know he's real, because the first two times I was forced to be "saved" from something I had no part in didn't feel like a man was in my heart where a hole was because there was no hole there. You say Jesus. I ask where...if he's invisible and never speaks to me even if I've tried like a loon until I realized that fantasy isn't real. We're not filthy scum unless we believe what we're told without question. Babies aren't filth that must be saved from eternal damnation. But that's not to say that Christians want to behead all non-Christians (at least I'm sure the majority don't) the way the murderous doctrine of Islam does. #AtheistsForTrump2024 Logic, reason, truth. I'm a fool according to stories, so you might not want to suffer me.
He didn't write a book to 'disprove Jesus'. What a ridiculous statement!!
Ironically he didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Sounds like Richard needs to write a new book called "The Dawkins Delusion" 😅
Oh brother this guy stinks!!
Jk😂
Professor Alister McGrath "The Dawkins Delusion" already exists.
@@emperorsteveeahh beat me to it. Yes Alister Mcgrath has done this. The Wea Flee also has done the Dawkins Letters.
The clip is cut out of context, Dawkins concedes the point to argue the fact that even if a Jesus really existed, there is no evidence for any of the miracles or of him being the son of God. Why is the owner of this channel lying?
@@palofrasca1775 wrong. All 4 gospels, letters of Paul, Peter, James and John all testify to the miracles and Lordship of Jesus Christ as well as non christian sources such as Josephus and even hostile graffiti known as the “Alexamenos graffito” testify to the early Christian belief of Jesus’s lordship. You just choose to reject these sources out of your own prejudice.
John8:44 He does the will of his father...and his father is "the father of the lie".
And this is why it is important to read the whole chapter at the very least.
44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF THAT TIME. NOT GOD.
You are falling for the lies! Research things before you believe them! Research God before you believe or disbelieve!
Ps 137:7-9
Ironically he wasn't actually lying. It is in fact the interviewer who is lying here.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@brandonheath6713 ah yes because to you, "probably" is another word for "did"....
The point still stands that he ignored the evidence that jesus walked the earth by historians, if he wanted to have created a book that can properly "debunk" religion he should have have used the truth of what really happend in history, for more power to his argument, because he didnt do this...how can we trust his whole argument if he ignores facts?
@@NPC2820z Look, nothing you've said is actually true... at all.
1. Probably means likely but not certain. No one can be certain Jesus of Nazareth existed. We have historical account that suggests he did but no evidence proving he did. We also have equally prevalent historical accounts that dragons existed but we have no proof thus we do not accept that as fact.
2. Dawkins didn't ignore any evidence. His claim explicitly states that the historical record makes it likely that Jesus existed.
3. Dawkins did not create a book with the intent of debunking Religion. His book is intended to demonstrate that religion and religious belief is a collection of subjective, unprovable, untestable claims made people who can not offer any evidence of those claims. That is objectively true. He is not claiming to know Religion to be objectively false or to be a false pretense for another goal. I think even you would admit that. I'm not aware of any representative of Christianity today who is openly providing objective proof of the truth of Christianity. The core tenant of Christianity is that you don't need proof.
4. Again, his argument is not about the existence of Jesus. He makes a single statement about it that even in and of itself is not intended to be conclusive or representative of his personal belief.
Here are two provable, testable, objective facts of reality.
1. This interviewer is a liar who intentionally made a provably false claim about what Dawkins wrote.
2. You have built a strawman to argue against. Your counter opinions do not address any real belief or claim. Instead of address what Dawkins actually wrote, or the fact that this interviewer explicitly lied you've created a strawman of Dawkins who you believe wrote the book to debunk religion, believes Jesus never existed, made the claim that Jesus never existed, was exposed to evidence Jesus existed and refused to consider it, and has tainted his entire lifes worth of argumentation with a single misinterpreted statement. None of those things are actually true though. That strawman doesn't exist in reality. That strawman is not an accurate representation of Dawkins or his beliefs so you can argue against it all you want but the thing you're arguing against is a lie you yourself created that no one but you believes.
He doesn't think it's an important question when it calls him out for straight-up lying.
It's not a lie though...his existence is disputed among scholars and for good reason.
@@Daedalus1111 I'm sure you could find a handful of people who doubt Jesus's existence. However, doubting that Jesus exists is not mainstream.
@@Mario.1997 this is because 80% of the global population believes in a god and about 40% believes in Jesus as the Messiah. But if you look at what we actually have and don't have without your bias, I think you'll find that there really isn't any convincing evidence that he ever really lived.
@@Daedalus1111 Actually the one who is biased is clearly you. The evidence of the existence of Jesus is so overwhelming in comparison to any other documentation of historical characters, that most scholarly atheists have stopped using this as an argument for many years. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not keen on historical facts or research, but you can easily type a few phrases on google to find out the truth yourself before sharing your opinion on the internet
@@Daedalus1111You said earlier that it is disputed among scholars then @Mario.1997 said that's not true and then you just jump to, yes but they were biased.
You seem very confident
"I take that back. Jesus existed." - Richard Dawkins
My new favorite quote
I was wondering if his good friend Aron Ra would agree with him ...
There are indeed scholars that think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins.
And there are others that think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins book.
Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
A guy named jesus most likely existed , BUT the jesus invented by a stup1d book for stup1d called the bible is just a pile of horse sh1t.
Only deluded people believes fairy tale book as real .
Grow some brain , its sad that our species fall for such a childish nonsense.
He not only existed. He lives today and forevermore.
He not only existed. He lives today and forevermore.
Remember when Dawkins got pushed on the beginning of the universe. He said the Big Bang game from nothing, and when pushed, he finally said, "Well, or course there was something!" To that, many in the audience laughed, or grumbled, and he asked, shocked, "Why is that funny?" Answer: because you just lost the foundational point in your debate. I guess he didn't think that was an important question either.
@jaimeangulo4880---
LOL Wrong!
This is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the term, "nothing." The scientific meaning of the term is quite different from the layman's usage.
The universe, as we know it today, did not exist prior to the "Big Bang" (which was NOT an explosion, as most theists believe), but rather an expansion of matter from the "singularity." It is only in that sense that it is sometimes said that there was "nothing" before the "Big Bang."
No-one is suggesting that there was "nothing," in the scientific sense, as in completely devoid of matter.
That's what Dawkins was trying to clarify, and why he asked, "Why is that funny?" Dealing with widespread scientific ignorance is quite frustrating at times!
@Lonewolf--- So, please give some idea of the characteristics of this singularity.
Is it eternal?
What caused the expansion if it existed prior and was stable?
What is the origin of this singularity?
Also, why didn't he just say there was a singularity before the big bang? Seems pretty easy.
@@jaimeangulo4880 ---
Both the "singularity," and the "Big Bang," are based on the documented fact that the universe is expanding. The reverse extrapolation of that expansion led to the theories of the "singularity" and the resulting, so-called "Big Bang."
As for the characteristics of the "singularity," it was matter and space that was extremely hot, dense, and small (compressed). Anything beyond that is currently unknown. What triggered the "Big Bang" expansion is also currently unknown. What IS known is that it happened, since scientists are able to detect it's "signature" in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
The following is a quote on the subject by Jim Peebles, American astrophysicist, astronomer, and theoretical cosmologist who is currently the Albert Einstein Professor in Science, emeritus, at Princeton University:
"That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began."
~P. J. E. Peebles, January 2001 edition of Scientific American (p. 44).
Furthermore, the "Big Bang" does not address cosmological origin, and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a creator God exists! In fact, Georges Lemaître, who first proposed the "big bang" theory was a catholic priest! He was honest and bold enough to publish his findings, regardless of what anyone may think--the church included--and the "Big Bang" theory is simply the best model we currently have to describe the observed reality of the universe.
The origin of the universe is--at least for now--unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven or dis-proven either way. For example, science can provide the theory of cosmic evolution, traced back to the "big bang," which resulted from the "singularity," but beyond that is unknown.
Likewise, if "an intelligence" created the universe from nothing, then who created that intelligence? This pattern can be repeated to infinity without ever reaching a definitive conclusion. That's why any discussion of universal origin is nothing more than an exercise in futility!
That's the key difference between science and religion--science doesn't defer to the classic fallacy of the "argument from ignorance," by declaring, "I don't know, therefore, God did it!" Science is honest enough to say, "I don't know," then proceed to investigate. Religion just falsely claims to have all the answers!
What I find confusing is how religious folk will never answer where the universe came from. They will claim WHO created the universe, but never with WHAT.
As far is I can tell the “something from nothing” is shared by physicists and their definition of nothing, and Christian’s and their interpretation of nothing.
@@jaimeangulo4880 Richard Dawkins is not a cosmologist and has never pretended to be one. For that kind of question you would want to look more to someone like Sean Carroll or Laurence Krauss, both of whom have debated William Lane Craig.
As for why Dawkins would or would not say something, I would want to be able to see the actual clip and have a full quote before jumping to any firm conclusions. But again, Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist, and as far as I'm aware he has never pretended to have any deep knowledge of the Big Bang, and will always defer to people who actually have an expertise on the matter.
Let's continue to pray for him
Yeah... that will accomplish nothing... prayers don't do jack.
@@Gantali9305 with man it is impossible but all things are possible for God
@@nicholasroth2804 I have never seen nor heard of a prayer changing the chance of something happening. Fortune and misfortune will fall on those equally regardless of how devout they are.
For the world is immutable and uncaring over how much you believe in something ... The world will do what it wants and not what you want just because you asked nicely.
@@Gantali9305 do you believe God is sovereign? If so, keep knocking on His door, keep asking like the widow did with the evil judge. For God is a good and merciful judge who will listen
@@Gantali9305 try some jesus testimonies, they are for you. God worked miracles in my life. Set me free from the bondage of sin. Jesus reveals himself to those who seek him with all their heart.
I used to think Jesus was just a made up story in the Bible. Then I found him in roman reports. So I prayed and ask God what part of the Bible was real. All Of IT!!! Is what I heard. Since then I have read the Bible. Been born again. For the path to the father is thru me. That verse changed my ways. Thank you Jesus
What Roman reports testify to the existence of Jesus?
And if all of it is true, why are there so many conflicting accounts within it?
@@carlanderson9224He hasn't found any, and there is a fair amount of evidence that he didn't exist, but like Dawkins said , it makes no difference. 👹
So you believed in God and you where in communication with him, but you believed the Bible was wrong?
Sounds like a made up story.
We have no roman reports of Jesus. We have some outside attestation to the legend (e.g., Josephus mentions that some were claiming he came to life), but no independent first hand accounts of the historical personage of Jesus. Most scholars would agree that he was most likely a historical person that was executed but a lot of the narrative is historically dubious.
Just HUSH!@@carlanderson9224
This is one reason why he drove so many atheists toward God. Not all atheists are trying to one up the other team. Many of them actually do care about what is true.
Yes, thankfully many have turned away from the "Four Horesmen," and the "New Atheists" in general for essentially being the same kind of intellectually dishonest, biased sophists and dogmatists that people stereotype religious believers as.
Believers just need to run with the ball the other side dropped by showing ourselves to have intellectual integrity and reasonableness or they will all just stay sitting on the supposedly neural Agnostic fence.
This is why Christians with terrible arguments, who make non-central doctrines into make-or-break tests of faith, and/or show intellectual dishonesty irritate me more than most atheists. Of course "they" will get caught lying, cheating, or being fools, but they are not holding themselves to the same standard as we must by the very nature of our position, and non-believers know this. A dishonest pastor or apologist hurts the Christian position more than a dishonest Atheist hurts his/her position.
So you think Dawkins drove anyone to Christianity by telling the truth?
Everybody who has read the book knows Lennox is lying but Dawkins is to gentle to call him out.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 , apparently you’re completely out of touch with what’s been going on in the New Atheist movement. There are books written just about the subject of the damage that movement has caused to atheism and books written by people who abandoned atheism because of it. One book is interviews with people who left atheism because of Dawkins and Hitchens. It’s nothing to do with my opinion.
@@shawnglass108 Many atheists think Dawkins is too conservative regarding gay and trans rights. But we know he is an old man.
That is the only controversy regarding Dawkins in the atheist community. The book you were talking about is clearly not part of the atheist community.
@@shawnglass108 You can leave the church but you can't 'leave atheism'. If those you speak of now believe in a God, I'd be interested to see the evidence that managed to convince them.
Well done! Jesus Christ is Lord!✝️🙏🌹
Atheists are all about destruction of history and evidence but they think they care about evidence and proof and they don't believe in magic 😂
Jesus is Lord indeed!! THE ONE AND ONLY!
@@lol8090 Amen!🙏✝️❤️🔥🕊
Yes, well done sir 👏
1 Timothy 3:16
This is the reason why "Trust the Science" is now a fearful command.
Incredible that Lennox can call himself a scientist. He is falsely accusing Dawkins.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 exactly how so?
@@kingston163 Dawkins wrote that despite some scholars finding arguments for mysticism he would follow the mayority of scholars and assume that a wandering preacher named Joshua actually excited.
Nothing of this is controversial, Lennox made up the controversy to score points with people like you.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 You just can't handle truth!!
@@kingston163 Well, I explained the truth of this situation. It seems to be you who cannot handle it.
Evil will ALWAYS contradict itself.
HAhahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me?
HAhahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me?
Then the Bible is evil
Must be why the bible is so full of contradictions
@@OnkelSteinwhere’s your counter argument?
Demons will spread misinformation.
Satan is called the Father of Lies
And interestingly enough, so does god in the Bible: 1 kings 21-23 as an example
If you clain certaincy about something you cannot demonstrate you are lying.
Claiming certainty about something you cannot demonstrate means you are lying.
and the religious are the worst culprits, once again taking something someone said and putting spin on it, jesus existed, most atheists will agree to that, he is dead and not god they will also agree with that. you people LOVE to swallow lies.
This is the biggest farce from Dawkins I have ever seen. The fact that he first slyly attempts to minimize the importance of his lie and then even still admits that he lied is absolutely shameful. He even comments that the existence of Jesus is not an important discussion, which is an amazing thing to postulate considering Jesus’ resurrection is the crux of Christianity.
Quote me the part where he admitted a lie.
@@scottgodlewski306 The contradiction between his writing and his admittance when confronted is the evidence, brother. We are beyond, “where is the lie?” We are actually at, “Why did you lie?”
@@scottgodlewski306wow.
Did you even watch the video?
@@Skarlet-ju8sr I did. Quote me the bit where he admitted to lying.
@@Dylan-kz1ps I'm not making excuses for the man. I'm simply observing that there was no admission of lying. He made a claim in his book that he should have supported. Lennox also made a claim that he should have himself supported. Are there historians and Biblical scholars who are mythicists? There are. And Dawkins should have cited them. Here I see a guy ceding a point for the sake of argument. You can disagree. That's fine. Should he have done better? Yes. Does this clip rise to qualify the "Richard Dawkins ADMITS He Lied About JESUS"? Not in my estimation. I think it's reaching for something that's clearly not there.
A Christian lecturing about "intellectual integrity"!
The irony.
Imagine hating God so much that you’re willing to lie, while ALSO claiming you don’t believe He exists… Cognitive dissonance on steroids.
Imagine saying your certain god exists and there is an after life, with literally 0 evidence and no reason apart from brainwashing (sorry...faith) to do so.
Lol
@scoobihu1090
Like Peter who lied about the authenticity of Jesus and wrote a book to publicize and mislead people? Check your eyes again, it was Dawkins. What kind of people would rather believe in lies from such a man? What do they inspire to gain by living their beliefs supported by a liar?
@scoobihu1090And you (and all of us) lie all the time when it suits us! Why are we even allowed to live another day when we break God's law this much. God is merciful. Dawkins can be forgiven for his lying as Peter was. But we should still take lying seriously
@scoobihu1090 When you are blind to the lying atheist and just spewing hate towards Christianity, you are clearly showing bias. If you are hating on God so much you are willing to lie and support Dawkin in his lies, you are going through cognitive dissonance, just as what OP said
@@sodium281where’s the lie?
It goes to your credibility dr. Dawkins, if you willfully lie, to shut down debate. Its a tiny step to start lying about the science.
He's lied about the science for naturalism already.
@@korvonfrancis6552science of naturalism is the only truth we have.can you name any supernatural truths.
@@korvonfrancis6552 Do you have an example?
Have you read the Dawkins passage being discussed? It may surprise you.
@@marksnow7569 Would you MFs stop talking in code and just say what you mean already?
In order to dismiss the Lord, one has to lie.
Nope….Christianity can be dismissed because it lacks basic supporting facts.
@@AWalkOnDirt
Nobody can dismiss Rev 13:17
@@angelsordemons Sure I can. The only thing good about Christianity is that Islam is worse.
@@AWalkOnDirtyou say that yet with no arguments of your own 😂you’re silly
@@samtussing3974
Don’t need arguments since I don’t need to prove a negative. Christianity can be rejected because there is no evidential path to factually establish the supernatural which includes god, the resurrection or any supernatural claim.
He can not be trusted 🤫🤔😡...well done brother Lennox 👏 👍😃. God bless 🙏 🙌.
Well, we were already there before that.
Lennox lies. He claims he "checked with the ancient historians" What? Every single one of them? What a nonsensical claim!, an obvious lie!
A quick Google check would reveal historians like; Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Frank Zindler, Earl Doherty and others debate the historical existence of Christ.
Lennox is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox is accusing him of.
Ironically Dawkins wasn't actually wrong either.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Dawkins got called out on it. Dawkins lied. His reputation is shot.
How?
@@davidmarsh3058Figure it out yourself. If anyone replies after don’t tell him.
I wish.
@@notme5205 Why does he have to figure it out for himself? Sounds like you have no justification yourself and are just covering for that.
@@ericm9495 Shut up. If you want me to explain why I’ll ruin the obvious veil, he literally backtracks and fumbled over his words in the original video. Even atheists after this debate turned on him a bit for “misrepresenting” the atheistic view. There buddy.
Caught red handed 😂
Atheists are all about destruction of history and evidence but they think they care about evidence and proof and they don't believe in magic 😂
Caught with his ass out😂
He wasnt tho...hes right, hes just changed his view
Just another tactic by Dawkins to raise and increase doubts of Jesus' existence in people's minds, as a way of trying to further undermine the claims of Christianity...'He doesn't think the existence of Jesus is an important question', just highlights the blind arrogance of the man...
@@billsherman1565 Aye, post 'The God Delusion'...The point still went into people's minds reading his poorly researched and poorly written book, as did all his misinterpretations of scripture and misrepresentations of what practising Christians actually believe/know...Perhaps he needs to get somebody who knows what they're talking about regards 'religion', specifically 'Christianity', in this instance, to proof read any future atheistic manuscripts of his and offer him some mature and wise guidance, before he has the opportunity to let his misinformation settle into many people's minds, like a memetic virus would...
The best part about these people is they will ALL bend the knee and confess.. No matter how much they hate him now the times coming for Jesus to return indefinitely!
Nobody hates anybody. Further its impossible to hate the nonexistant. You bring up these giant emotional strawman of these overly fanatic lines of thinking that would get you to leave or hate Christianity. For most non believers, it is as settled and peaceful as the sun rising tomorrow.
We'll Just See About That Robert Morrison When The Lord Jesus Christ Comes Back To Earth! Then You'll Sing A Different Tune I Can Guarantee That Brother! Shalom And Amen!✝️✝️🛐🛐📛🕊️🕊️🕊️❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥🤰🤱🧬🤰🤱✨👑✨🦁🦁🦁❣️❣️❣️🌺🌺🌺😇🌟🤗🙏🙏🙏🇨🇦🇮🇱♾️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🗽🦅‼️
Not me, even if your myth comes true, I will not worship anything that allows children to be raped in their name.
@@marionmarcetic7287sounds like a threat. Are you saying your loving God will hurt me for not being Christian?
you'll be waiting a long time buddy, he's not coming
At least Dawkins is humble enough to admit it,bless him
Ironically he wasn't actually wrong.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
@@brandonheath6713that was seriously stupid.
admit to being caught? why dont you send him a gift..
he literally said one or two when not talkin about g. hancock, would the third be a pharaoh?
@@louly3212 Look, I get it. You don't like being wrong. Unfortunately we all are sometimes. The objective truth here is that Lennox was lying. Neither the words, nor their sentiment that Lennox attributed to Dawkins are not representative of something that actually exists in the God Delusion. I provided you the quote Lennox is citing. There is no debate to be had. Lennox lied. You can listen to the words he said, and then read the quote from the God delusion and you will see the two do not line up.
As for why Dawkins was willing to concede the point, he explained that explicitly, it wasn't important. It wasn't worth derailing an entire interview over Lennox's misunderstanding or deliberate lie.
Unfortunately this is pretty common in debates between the religious and non-religious because the religious spend the majority of their efforts constructing straw men to argue against. It is often quicker, easier, and more useful to keep the conversation focused by simply conceding unimportant arguments about inconsequential fact claims or incorrect information.
Dawkins also probably couldn't remember what he wrote specifically. He wrote that book nearly 20 years ago. I'm sure he thought it was possible he did make that claim and figured it wasn't worth trying to defend against it because as previously mentioned it's unimportant.
I know when Christian's here "its unimportant" they immediately become confused and for good reason, it's difficult to understand from a Christian perspective how the historicity of Jesus could be unimportant to the validity of the belief and I get that, the problem is when you're talking about "evidence" for the truth of Christianity whether or not Jesus was real is irrelevant. Jesus being real does not support any claim that he is divine. Jesus being real does not support any claim of any miracle he performed. Similarly if I claimed to have performed miracles the fact of my mere existence would not suffice as evidence for those claims. When you're arguing the fact of a claim, the existence of its claimant is not a relevant factor. A claim can be true even if it was spread through lies and a claim spread by the Pope can be false regardless of the fact that he is the Pope. Claims and their factuality stand on their own.
The facts here are pretty simple.
Lennox lied about what is written in the God Delusion, and then confronted Dawkins asking him to justify a claim he never actually made.
Dawkins, realizing the truth or falsity of the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with the truth claim of Christianity as a whole, tried to move beyond the semantic argument by conceding the point. If you watch the rest of the interview you'll see that despite this Lennox did not move on and clearly only ever intended on lying to attempt to damage Dawkin's credibility.
If your apologists have to lie to justify your beliefs... your beliefs are likely not valid.
I read that book in jail. 12 yrs ago and it put my mind in the wrong place and to hear him say that now is sickening
*"it put my mind in the wrong place"*
Care to explain how?
*"to hear him say that now is sickening"*
What did he say that was "sickening"?
You are already in prion as a Christian, so how did he put you in the wrong mindset. There is no evidence Jesus existed. Non whatsoever.
I hope and pray since your time in jail you have found Jesus. The lies in this world have caused so much harm. Jesus said we would know the timing of his return and right now things are looking like that time. Seek Jesus with your heart. God bless.
@@cruge5774 You are powerfully deluded, and you refer to "lies in this world" as causing so much harm!
But what is a bigger lie than telling yourself (with a lot of help from people who taught you) that you're going to be "saved" by a magical invisible father figure from an ancient myth?
If you *really* cared about what was true you'd make an effort to learn instead of accepting what you were taught without question.
@@chikkipopI searched all my Life, what is true and what not. And I can tell you Jesus is real, there is God and an after Life. Ask God, he answers.
Lennox: You lied!
Dawkins: Yeah but...
Read the book. You'll see Lennox is the liar. What Dawkins actually said is "It is even possible, to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all". Dawkins then claims that Jesus clearly existed.
What Lennox has done yet again, and he's good at this, is misrepresent someone and then make a mountain out of a molehill for his own arguements. Perhaps check the source material next time instead of blindly believing the person who agrees with your whole life view.
@@aaronfunnell5220
I knew yall would get here eventually...I've read the book and in fact used to be an atheist. Try again.
@@alanknotts5975
So you have just forgotten that lennox lied then or chosen to ignore the lie? I can accept that. I'm not actually a big fan of Dawkins to be honest and the book was poorly argued in many places but I find the arguements of Lennox and other thiests much worse. That's all athiesm is after all, a disbelieve in god. It doesn't mean I have to agree with all the new athiest ideas. I read the god delusion because the selfish gene is a genuine game changer in his field but after reading the god delusion it's clear he should stick to science just as Lane Craig should avoid science.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on your thoughts on the book. I still recommend you actually fact check this stuff first because Lennox has yet again taken something an athiest has said and got the point wrong. Athiests can do this just as well.
@@aaronfunnell5220If you aren't a fan of Richard Dawkins, then why are you complaining? Just accept that he is intellectually dishonest and move on.
I'm not familiar with the arguments that Lennox has put forward, but if you think that they are dishonest, make a video explaining that.
Your comment is just an attempt to change the subject to one you are more comfortable with.
@@aaronfunnell5220
The book is wasted effort and time to piggyback on the "Jesus is a myth" movement (see also Price and Doherty). What's twisting me up is the clip itself. You say "actually" Lennox lied. If you watch the clip, Dawkins admits to the accusation. Where do yall get that Lennox is at fault?
As an aside, I've seen for myself that "actually" is just a means to force the opinon of the speaker. But the fault lies with me, here, in that I'm attempting a conversation in a place where most come to fling mud.
Once someone is exposed as a fraud or a liar, then the work where they made those claims to support their argument is also discredited.
Instantly.
Well, that's not how these things work; demonstrating a lie/fraud/inaccuracy in one claim doesn't demonstrate the same in others.
Also, if we follow your reasoning and apply it to the bible, there is a clear conflict as Paul, arguably the Creator of Christianity directly refutes you in Romans 3:1-19 - lies enhance the truth of god. Also, God lies in the bible - repeatedly: Genesis - God says Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate from the tree - they didn't, Adam lived 900 years! - do we throw out the rest of the bible now?
Him being willing to say "I may have made a mistake" makes him more credible, in my view, not less.
@@carlanderson9224 I would encourage you to do more research on these issues you have with scripture. Many misunderstand the meaning due to translation deficiencies. Many people try and claim slavery was accepted by God. But this is a egregious error. God led people out of unlawful slavery. See Deuteronomy. In other situations it was allowed. However the word slave in those situations would be more similar to the modern term employee or servant.
Language and dialects have interesting differences in phrases and meaning. People who speak multiple languages typically understand this. It's best to find help understanding the true meaning behind these texts rather than assume something that just isn't the case. As with the two fold creation account story, where God reiterates the same account twice, it was how ancient people wrote things. Much like how we have titles or a spoiler for movies, they gave a outline of what happened and then went into greater detail. Hope this helps you find answers to the questions you have. Keep seeking truth and you will find it.
@@MrDuckskin It’s rather interesting and somewhat arrogant you telling me to do more research on the scriptures when you’re whole argument refers to things not in question on this thread. Please explain how, your straw man of “many people try and claim” ‘X’; your (poor) apologetics about the word slave vs servant; or the post hoc explanation of the two genesis accounts, any of that relates the credibility of someone who lies or the credibility of any other claim if one is supposedly shown false?
Now, let me briefly engage your fallacious arguments
It is an error that God accepted slavery - true, god does not explicitly say slavery is good, and yes he leads his chosen people out of slavery (though this never actually happened - and the story has god impede Pharoah’s free will so he can he can show off, then kills a whole lot of innocent animals and children for the thing he forced Pharaoh to do). But god also never explicitly condemns it, though it’s interesting you point to Deuteronomy, which refers to indentured servitude - but conveniently ignore Exodus which differentiates between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves(only one can go free after a period unless tricked) and Leviticus which tells you where you must get your non-Hebrew SLAVES and that those SLAVES are your property that can be passed down through inheritance. While you are looking into languages and dialects, you should pay more attention to the usage and context of words, not just the word itself; you can say someone that is owned as property is a Servant if you wish, but the commonly accepted word to describe that situation is slave.
Now to your assertion about genesis. Firstly, common theology has the text traditionally being authored by Moses NOT God, so god reiterates nothing here. That out the way, accepted scholarship identifies the two creation stories as being from two distinct sources, the Priestly (P), which is the more contemporary source, and the Jahweist (J) with P being a retelling/expansion of J written approx. 3-4 centuries later. So you may want to continue your studies, perhaps after removing your bias, and stop appealing to post hoc rationalisation, without evidence to support. People may well have wrote accounts differently, entirely understandable when coming from oral traditions, but they wouldn’t forcefully incorporate both narratives into the same text, allegedly written by the same hand. And even if they did offer a summary then detailed account, THEY WOULD STILL MATCH, which they don’t.
Now, if I were to grant your nonsense about linguistics and dialects - that merely shows the supposed omniscient being who inspired the text to be an utter fool and that same omnipotent entity to be incompetent. Why does it take research and expertise to divine the truth of text? Why must we study and learn a dead language (by thousands of years) to discover the nuance that was meant, and then apologists such as yourself proclaim to know the truth yet it’s at odds with other self professed in-the-know and more importantly the experts in biblical studies, theology and linguistics?
Stop apologising for a horrendous series of books, that isn’t particularly well written, that contradicts itself (in whatever language you care for). And relevant to this thread, endorses lying and self delusion as virtuous concepts, as seemingly evidenced by you
There most certainly are academics who argue that Jesus of Nazareth may not have been an actual person.
There’s no evidence outside of religious texts.
The important question is, why did he lie? The answer is only known to him, unless he's said why. He said he took it back, but he didn't say why he lied.
I think it's because he's mad at God. When I was a child and I was mad at my mom I'd say she wasn't my mom. I didn't go so far as to say she didn't exist, I just wanted to hurt her like she hurt me. Once upon a time I heard Richard admit he was molested by a teacher. He acts like it wasn't a big deal, but of course it's a big deal. But don't offer him any sympathy, because he rebuffs it as if it's annoying to him. So I think that's it. He's angry at God.🥺
The simple answer is, that Lennox did lie because he is an apologist.
@@TheBereangirlwhat are youtalking about there are literally christain mythisists scholars who agree that jesus never even existed like robert price.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Keep up the good work
Thanks brother! The Truth matters.
@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Your comment at the end of the video was perfect. I believe it's very evident that you Take how and why you present the information very seriously. This is handling the word properly, this is rightly dividing. I have a great deal of respect for you my brother
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom next time let richard dawkins continue speaking before you cut the video off.
@@zeno7342did his following words somehow change the fact he lied?
Lord have mercy on that man’s soul. The fact that Jesus Christ exists is the most important thing ever. Anyone who would try to deny His existence is clearly at enmity with God.
I deny his existence.
@northernbrother1258 then you're at emnity with God?
Not even Christiopher Hitchens denied the existence of a historical Jesus. He called him an itinerant preacher.
The historicity of Jesus is unclear. They might have been a preacher, among many, who had that name or a name similar to it.
It is kinda hard to pin down the actual life of someone not under a lot of attention in ancient times. Sure, if you are a roman emperor people will write about what you had for breakfast. But some preacher in what was an unimportant little country at that time?
Nothing like Christian love putting fear into people
It’s been a while since I read it, but “The Dawkins Delusion,” absolutely destroys Dawkin’s credibility. The author points out that Dawkin’s arguments are even insulting to atheist philosophers who have given real, intellectually honest, thought and effort on the subject.
I can't take him seriously. It is sad the arguments he and others use.
Dawkins has lots of backtracking to do.
Whatch the whole clip, he cut it
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Many people believe this lie, and some point towards Dawkins as their evidence for this belief.
Unfortunately true.
The Jesus described in the Bible probably did not exist.
Do you believe Mohammed got his instructions from god?
Dawkins who? 😅
Exactly
"and some point towards Dawkins as their evidence for this belief." - really? Are "some" really pointing to him as some sort of authority on the matter? Why?
Richard Dawkins is the reason why I'm a Christian. Thank you Prof Dawkins!
That literally doesn't make any sense.. for a group of people that believe in a holy book that tells you not to lie Christian sure lie a lot
@darkeen42 it's not a lie. Richard Dawkin's arguments in the God Delusion are so bad that when I searched for their counterarguments, I was introduced to Christian apologetics.
@@hereLiesThisTroper and you are convinced by them? Squats bad about the arguments. You people are never specific
@darkeen42 , their refutations to Dawkin's arguments? Yes.
@@hereLiesThisTroper yes and they ask fail. Can't be specific can you
He's not lying about anything....and he's certainly not admitting to lying....
Plus, go ask Richard Carrier for a list of his fellows who agree with this idea...
So a guy who wasn't divine was a virtually unknown laborer until 30, walked around a talked for 3 years before being killed having raised no army and acquiring no wealth and almost 2000 years later, the world's calendar is still based on his life and the culture of the whole world was impacted.
Almost seems like there was something different about him than any other human who ever lived.
Because a roman emperor made it law and it spread through his empire. Nothing more magical about Jesus than Muhammad spreading Islam through his conquest.
The western calendar is based on Jesus' birth again because of the Romans, but the Islamic calender is based on Muhammad, Indian, Chinese calenders are based on their religions etc.
After his death he got Paulus as his PR manager.
I AGREE 👍
Yup...Jesus was kind of different.😂😂😂🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
@@karstenschuhmann8334And all of the other followers that witnessed someone unlike anyone else, named Jesus.
If you lie about one thing you’ll lie about everything…….
Like all creationists…
You should go read the pinned comment, Mark.
@@philipmitchener28ya, it’s quite clear.
@@markl8679did you go through all these comments crying about things you have no idea about 😂you seriously need some help lil bro. I’d recommend Jesus
Using this logic, if one part of the Bible is true, it must all be true. That explains so much.
Oh dear, Dawkins is undone! At least he admitted it, but c'mon man, convert to Jesus Christ the King.
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out.
There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins.
And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book.
Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
Where did you get this information?...
if its your pastor you might want to examine the motives behind this...
There is a notion in the church that its ok to lie to people to get them to believe.... if they believe, they will get to heaven, and then they can learn real truth (so its ok to lie to them as long as they are saved)....
As for evidence:
All historical sources just repeat the scriptures... that's not evidence. (for example: passages in Josephus are disputed and likely added by Christians later)
There is nothing written about the early church.
The earliest we have is Paul... and he writes about Jesus as a revelation and foretold in the scriptures. Not an actual human on earth.
Everything else was invented a
generations later (the scriptures) as the "literal Jesus" sect wrestled for power with other sects. A real Jesus was way easier to sell to the people then some mystical teachings.
Jesus is total fiction.
Christianity started just like Mormonism (from revelations).
Have a look at this video... its about evidence.
th-cam.com/video/8zpV4hcTwYE/w-d-xo.html
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Making this short video is one of the greatest work done in this century😊. Thanks
"A fool says in his heart there is no God"
You believe in a book you are the fool here
@@Ryan-kn6xd since when did reading become stupid?
@@electricdreamsofsoul8195it is, when you start believing in supernatural things.
@@electricdreamsofsoul8195 When you start believing in a fictional fairytale
@@Ryan-kn6xd ahh so having a different opinion than you makes me stupid ok gotcha
I love the interviewer for calling him on it.
Well, Lennox is lying or at least misrepresenting what Dawkins wrote. And Dawkins is too much interested in the conversation to push this moot point.
it missed the point actually. Dawkins is a wishy washy lame debater, his voice, his mannerisms. He sits on the fence. But he is correct that “it isn’t an important question because it’s NOT the real question - IS IT?
Lennox is NOT actually being 100 per cent honest either. NOR is the video.
Ancient historians and the vast majority of modern historians do BELIEVE THAT
SOMEONE CALLED JESUS lived around the time stated. THEY ALSO believe that MOHAMMAD EXISTED TOO.
BUT they DON’T BELIEVE THAT JESUS DID ANY MIRACLES, or resurrected from the DEAD or SAVED ANY SINS OR ASCENDED TO HEAVEN OR MET WITH THE DEVIL.
Never mind was GOD or the SON of GOD
Any more than they Believe that MOHAMMAD WAS A PROPHET OF GOD OR FLEW ON A MAGIC HORSE.
So it’s NOT a stepping stone.
A cult existed about a person called Iesous - for sure.
That was interlaced with the existing pagan festivals and used to unite under one “GOD” and the church compiled from 100’s of possible books about this cult a Cannon of official books and called it The Bible.
NOW ASK THE SAME HISTORIANS
IF THEY THINK ABRHAM ISAAC JACOB NOAH AND MOSES EXISTED.
You’ll get a very different answer to WHETHER JESUS existed.
One stepping stone that doesn’t include ANY of the written accounts in the GOSPELS but confirms people started a Messianic cult - step sideways -
10 STEPS BACKWARDS becaue the legitimacy of the Israelites historical accounts (excluding any miracles) is hardly believed by ANY historian in the world.
Doesn’t mean it’s not true. But it’s believed to be highly inaccurate - even without the God bits.
GOOD TRY THOUGH
Lennox is a bioethicist and christian apologist, he's not just an interviewer.
@@martinsolomon5500 You just drug that out so much for absolutely no reason when the dude in the video literally said that everything you just talked about was NOT the point of this video lol and then you lie and say Lennox is lying smh. To then proceed to go and ramble on about everything the topic of this video ISN'T about. smh. Geez dude. You must follow Dawkins. You're trying to make it about something else lol. The topic Lennox brought up concerning Dawkins lying in his book IS the topic. Dawkins then says he lies yet you're so blinded by hatred in God that you overlook Dawkins admittedly lying and proceed to start rambling about another debate topic to deflect from the topic in this video...... do better bro. Don't cost anything to pay attention.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
HE makes an assertion because he feels its not important. When called on it, he makes another that there must be some historical expert, and possibly two that would support him. That's blind faith that he is right based on no actual evidence. Its hard to take him seriously when he bases something on his feelings and then assumes that someone will back up his opinion. If you believe something that is one thing, but to go out of your way to trying to disprove something and then have zero support of the people you say will back you up points to just how much of a fool he is.
is foolish and also evil to lie like that
Jesus fucking Christ, you're making a lot out of this xD "Maybe I alluded to the possibillity of" ..."and I take that back". WHERE IS THE LIE? "I've checked with the ancient historians!" Have you, really?
@@OnkelStein don't use the F word when you mention Christ 👊🏻🥊
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out.
There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins.
And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book.
Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
@@OnkelStein
It’s like when a national newspaper puts a lie on the front page for everyone to see and then a month later retracts the story in small writing on page 10. The damage is done already, how many people who read that book will see this interview? Good job on posting this.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
The academy is full of people who bend the truth for their ends.
Yes Lenox is bending the truth.
Same with Christians
Meanwhile the church is full of rational sober individuals who seek nothing but the truth! ?? ok mate LOL
@@willcampbell8829 Thanks Will. The church is full of people who know they need God, with some who, unfortunately, think they deserve to be there. And subjectivism has caused a lot of bad thinking and practice to be too prevalent. I’m doing what I can to help. Have a good day.
@@jeffandsherriefranzwa8970 Take care
Your moustache is a work of art
I tried reading "The God Delusion" once. Got 100 pages or so in and realized Dawkins' problem isn't with God, but with Christians who misrepresent God.
That's always been an issue with the church. Even Jesus gave a parable saying this would happen with the wheat and tares.
@@ninjason57 Exactly. What I noticed in his book is that Dawkins gave several examples of people doing some really messed up stuff in the name of Christianity, and somehow viewed those actions as properly practicing the Bible's teachings. Tbh, I think Dawkins is more anti-Christian than atheist.
@@germanwulf40 nobody ever killed anyone in the name of nothing I personally think some people are just not strong or intelligent enough to function without God
While God calls us to "be holy for I am holy" it takes longer than a day. Some it can take a long while. And others, well, have NO idea what it means to be Christian, don't read their Bibles, don't go to church, and I even met a "Christian" that didn't believe in Jesus, THE Christ. I have NO idea how to come to call herself Christian.
I don't have a problem with Christianity I have a problem with those who use Christianity to serve their own ends
Thank you for highlighting Dawkins' integrity, I totally agree that explicitly taking something back is a sign of honesty and humility
In this conversation, he said he took it back. My problem is that it’s still written in his book and people who read the book are gonna think that’s his belief.
And later, when in front of a friendly forum, he would recant his retraction.
“People who read it in a book will think it’s true.” Yeah thats kinda the core of the problem.
I have a friend who has read his book and as a result is atheist, I doubt she has seen this interview.
There is no evidence for a wandering preacher named Joshua, but it is a very munden claim.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 You are factually incorrect. Even Dawkins disagreed with you when he was put on the spot publicly and admitted that most historians accept the evidence as sufficient to establish that the person we call Jesus of Nazareth lived and died as described in the Gospels.
Thank you for running this channel content. Just came across it. I'm a Roman Catholic covert from Protestantism and an engineer. I was brought to the Catholic Church through the logical explanation of Christianity and its ties to the history of ancient Judaism. These academic and philosophy videos are tremendously helpful to be able to articulate the faith and existence of our loving God. God bless your work
I too am a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism and an engineer, and came about the exact same way, God bless, and Deo Gratis
The only thing worse than an outright lie is a half truth, because most people will swallow a half truth
That was a perfect example of an out right lie from Dawkins covered up by claiming that he only meant a tiny percentage of pseudo historians and Jesus myth conspiracy theorists believe this. As if a scientist of Dawkins statute didn’t know that Jesus was an historical character?
Furthermore, a half truth is actually worse than an outright lie as it’s more difficult to detect especially when it’s hidden behind the cloak of rhetoric and the rational high ground. Now Christopher Hitchens was a master of outright factual errors, rhetorical flair and half truths.
Half Truth , White Lie , Lie to Cover the Other Lie is Still a LIE ! Number 8 "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness " !
Half truth? Go watch the full clip. He cut him off before he could finish what he was saying. He wasn’t admitting anything. He was setting up a scenario for an argument. That’s shady. This guy is going straight to fake hell.
@@JCJMC21 Bro stop that’s embarrassing 😂 just listen to the clip he didn’t deny that it was written in he’s book and after that he Literally said "I take that back Jesus existed" I don’t think you can make up a context that would show he didn’t lie.
Come on man take the L and move on just because he lie doesn’t prove God
Don’t be mad
@eathorne12Claim…🥱
I love Professor Lennox's attitude when he's challenging someone. Respectful Terrier.
Yes, a terrier with zero brains.
'I checked with ancient historians and that's not so'.
What is not so? Which historian has said the Jesus that Lennox is referring to - Jesus, the son of God doing miracles, resurrecting after dying - existed?
Lennox lied
You mean the bit where he straight up lies to try to gotcha Dawkins on an incredibly insignificant point?
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
You can't have intellectual integrity without morals.
You can't have morals without Yah.
Demonstrate that.
They can’t demonstrate anything. They demand so much from the other side but can’t offer it from their side.
@@scottgodlewski306People who don't believe in God think murder is wrong until they lose someone they love to a child r@pist who is also a murderer and necrophiliac. Then they yell "DEATH SENTENCE!" to the court because capital punishment satisfies their thirst for vengeance (disguised as justice) as if they did the killing themselves.
Try asking one. See how they'll reply.
@@scottgodlewski306Essentially, ask an atheist,
"If your child gets r@ped, murdered, and r@ped in that order, and you saw everything, and you have a chance to kill the suspect that very instant, would your murder be justified?
If they say yes, then murder isn't wrong but subjective. Then that means morality is subjective, meaning we might as well have no conscience if we "feel" we can be justified to do something bad.
Not with God though. True believers would repay evil with goodness, because that's what God told us to do, because that would end cycles of hatred.
@@indigofenrir7236 Ooh boy. Morality is subjective. Always. There’s no instance where it’s not. Even if God declares what is moral. Then his morals are subjective because they’re subject to him. We can objectively defy those commandments but the commandments themselves are subjective. This may seem a bit fuzzy at first but think about it for more than a few seconds.
This was part of the aggressive New Atheism which was not about objective discussion but silencing the opposing view by reducing their position to stupidity. Lying is justified in this pursuit.
It is not Dawkins who is lying.
@@user-br3sz3oo3x Have you seen the full video of this point. It sounds a lot different if you don't cut off some rather important words at the end.
Almost like lying.... sigh.
@@user-Adsum I have been reading Dawkins's book. Dawkins's position was that despite some discussions of Bible scholars Dawkins himself accepted the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua.
You are correct. He lost intellectual credibility when he encouraged his acolytes to mock Christians at every opportunity. He did not encourage them to engage in thoughtful debate.
@@elibennett6168 The only agressive side I can see here are the Christians. Lenox acted aggressive by lying and wrongfully accusing Dawkin of lying. And the Uploader comitted the lie of omission.
Finally! I have this DVD and have been talking about this for years!
Sam Harris also all but acknowledged that he lied about Christianity.
It's a DVD?
Can you share?
So can you prove jesus or god existed? Instead of wasting your time talking about Sam Harris or any other people, you should be proving your imaginary friends existed. It’s called the burden of proof. Talking about other people will never help you prove your imaginary friends exist.
@FourDeuce01 you are a lazy thinker.
Are you serious? You have trained experts that go through the historical evidence but you expect laymen to do all the heavy lifting?
The objective thing to do is to assess all that the experts have to say, not reject them because you don't like their conclusions.
Richard Carrier and Robert Price are two academics who argue the case for Jesus not existing. Dawkins was right. There are one or two. He didn't need to take that back.
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
I hear God's voice every day
Jesus my shepherd he in whom I trust
Me too nearly daily :)
But he never existed. He is a figment of collective imaginations. Your side doubts climate change exists despite the claims of all climate scientists. You somehow think anyone should then trust all ancient historians.
Too bad god doesn’t tell you to learn some logic.🤤
@FourDeuce01 There's going to be a war. It's a dangerous time.
And it's always important that we care for each other. I wish you well.
@@FourDeuce01He does. :)
Poor Dawkins gathered up his balls and admitted he was wrong. One important step to inviting Jesus into your life
Yes, at least he admitted it, but unfortunately the damage is done, he’s a best selling author and thousands of people have read his books and been led astray. How many of them are going to see this interview?😢🙏🏽
Why is no one acknowledging Dr Lennox’s careful use of the word “ancient”? It is true to say that ANCIENT historians were in agreement, but modern historians are not.
Roman historians (which are the only ancient historians to be familiar with Christianity) were all in agreement that Romulus existed, but almost all modern historians reject this.
Very important distinction, surprised Prof Dawkins didn’t argue so.
Even an Atheist can't stay consistent with their own methodology of unbelief.
He’s been consistent for decades
this is why you can’t always rely on what someone says about God even if they’re considered well educated on the subject- do your own research like John! Amen! ❤
I'm curious, if you're not relying on someone else's testimony, what exactly are you using to research - the bible is entirely "what someone says about god", even down to what books are cannon or not...
And have you read the entire bible? There's a whole host of absurdities and buffoonery from a supposedly all knowing, all powerful and all benevolent being. (I mean, your brother's baby goo doesn't magically make the offspring yours if you're dead!)
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
He should take his book off the shelf.
Why? Are we removing the bible for the blatant lies and falsehoods it contains? I believe a bat is not a bird and Adam lived to 900 after eating the fruit that would see him die that day...
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
Intellectual integrity? There’s none better than Richard Dawkins. Fact.
If you listen to other interviews with Dawkins you also find out he knows very little of what the Bible actually says yet criticizes it consistently - he has no cred.
That is the reason he pointed to the discussion of Bible scholars. People that read the untranslated texts.
Dawkins mainly discusses how Evolution has formed our minds.
If he could recite every word in the Bible you would still be opposed to his view so what's your real point??
No one who gets caught in a lie should ever be taken seriously as a scientist ever again.
So you say, that no apologist should be taken seriously. I agree.
Only, science is about evidence and independently verified data, the subjective honesty of one person is irrelevant to the scientific process. The biggest liar can't outsmart scientific peer review.
Why is everyone insisting it's a lie? It could be a mistake, it could be that he just wanted to grant that Jesus was an historical figure for the sake of argument but that's no evidence he was divine.
I find this whole emotional storm in the comments section to be very telling to be honest.
@@notcrediblesolipsism3851 Agreed! To say there have been historians who have cast doubt on the 'existence' of Jesus is clearly not a lie. For Dawkins to concede that 'Jesus' existed does not mean the Jesus of the Bible existed....The supernaturalists in the comments are getting excited over nothing.
@@willcampbell8829 ironically for those preaching about charity they've taken the least charitable interpretation
He doesn’t think it’s an important question. Ok.
Busted!!!
There were a lot of wandering preachers in the Roman empire. Jesua was a common name in Israel. The existence of a wandering preacher at that time that was called Jesua is pretty mondain.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 Yes, that’s true. However, Jesus’ name wasn’t his reason for it not being important.
@@kellyanne7225 You have not demonstrated that there is anything remarkable about this Joshua.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 I don’t have to. I wasn’t aware this was my job.
If you’re wondering about Jesus, you have hundreds of resources both Christian and secular of His existence in history. There is no disputing His existence.
To know about Him, you need to go to non secular sites as they will lie about him as Richard has always done.
Lee Stroebel
James Wallace -Cold Case Detective who explains it from that perspective
Those are just two but they’re former atheists who poked the holes and found the truth.
His whole point is religion lies, while himself says its no big deal that he lied. If he's willing to and stretch truth to his convenience on something he deems not very important, what will he do for things he thinks are of the utmost importance?
It's a bit weird to think it's not important whether or not Jesus existed.
@adamclark1972uk agreed, he's just trying to deflect because he knows how silly that idea is
(Most) People that don’t have a moral authority don’t care about telling the truth.
Lennox obviously does not care about the truth, all apologists do not.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 Is that the truth? I mean you can't say ALL, I understand if you same most or some, but you can not say all. I mean you can say what you want its your mouth/brain. I meant it in this context. That there could be a % that don't tell the truth, but its not all.
@@thelthrythquezada8397 If you claim to be sure about something to be true despite you cannot demonstrate to be true, you are lying.
Well, and that is the job description for apologists.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 Perhaps I misread or misunderstood you. I understood you to say that ALL OF THEM (apologist) lie. Are you talking about not being able to prove Jesus, Biblical stuff etc? I just want to make sure I am understanding you 100%. I love the comment section but sometimes we can misunderstand ppl here. I prefer to have one on ones, buuuut what are we going to do, you know?
@@thelthrythquezada8397 Beliving in something is not a lie. But claiming to be sure about something you cannot demonstrate is indeed a lie.
You may indeed find an appologist that never claims to know there is a god. But I doubt it.
In the later eighties I had a bench of books with authors, who wrote that Jesus never existed and the Gospel would describe several different persons and their teaching in the figure of Jesus. Dawkins came later. It took me years to find Josephus and Tacitus to verify for me that Jesus is historical, and the truth, the way and the life.
Is this a defense of Dawkins' claim?
Absolutely not. @@scottgodlewski306 I think he read the same kind of literature as I did and believed them without proof. So he reproduced a lie. That influenced people. Very sad. That he admitted this failure shows, that the truth is working on him. Maybe this is not the end of the story.
@@CRN2412 Are there historians and scholars who are mythicists?
Hahahahhahahaha
Oh dear. Josephus' supposed account of Jesus is an obvious fake even acknowledged by historians.
Tacitus' accounts are 100 years after the supposed events based on oral reports of people who were not there!
WOW!!!! That is HUGE! That’s a MASSIVE lie and the way he tries to sweep it aside.
RD just refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit his narrative.
Jesus is King! 🎉✝️🙏
Jesus can go fuck himself!
King? Why is he king? Hes suposidly the son of god acording to a book that has no evidnce apart from the books saying he is wih cant prove anything. Why can you belive one part of the bible but ignore the other part were it talks about owning slaves, women being infirior and so on. Those are all out of date by quite a while. Women gays and people of colour are not lesser beings we are all the same species. If you beilve any of them to be lesser than you are deluded (not implying you do). The phrase Jesus is king is stupid. If my veiws are wrong and the christian god is the answer to the universe than i am not worried as christians say he is "all loving" so will likely forgive me. There is no reason however that it is your god and not another it is better in my view to belive in none than the wrong one.
@@Ethan_lofthouse there’s so much to unpack in the claims your making, but all I will say is go and read the Bible for yourself, it’s very good for the soul and the Word of God, it does say Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, so be careful in what you say, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and if truly I hope and pray that God will bring you to a genuine faith and life of repentance in Christ Jesus, (John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him “ I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no man comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus already forgives you but once you die your time is up, you have your whole life to accept that forgiveness and to love Jesus instead of hating Him when all you have known is wrong teachings of who He is.
@@ThroughJesusYT I apologise for not chcking to see you claim was true i porberbly should of done that. I have no reason to belive in god the onky way i could is if i was to be presebted with evidnce of his existance outside of religious texts. If he wants people to belive in him i dont understand why he doesnt give us evidnce to for him out of the manny gods i think the chistian one is as real a zues or cratos. I respect you for being able to have faith in ones existance but i cannot make myself belive.
@@Ethan_lofthouse you’re welcome, I am learning how to better love others as well, but I do say all creation testifies there is a God, for anything to exist( be created) there has to be a creator that exists outside of the creation itself, since God has always been eternal therefore He exists outside of the time and space created before your very eyes, that is the evidence, look at everything you can and ask yourself this question “ who created this?” The phone you’re holding, the clothes you wear, the food and drink you have, and the house you live in? This all had to be made, and just like your house has a builder even though you may not have been there when it was built, the universe has a Creator, who existed before all. Therefore God. In this we have evidence of creation, science and common sense shows us that anything that is made had been made from a creator, nothing can be created from nothing(no one). Hopefully this is the moment God pulls you to the knowledge of sin and sacrifice for sin, and you understand what Jesus really did on that cross.
It's called filtering, in fact Dawkins is particularly known for this and within his own scientific field he is known as a pop scientist, and therefore to be taken with a pinch of salt. With all the filtering he does, he ends up been more anti science than scientific. He's an influencer.
So is Jesus
An influencer
@@akhilesh2939no he is the influence
@@akhilesh2939of the positive variety of course
@@therealdealoneill hehe why the positive?
Hasn't he given bone cancer to children?
@@akhilesh2939When did he give them bone cancer how and why?
Why children? Why cancer? Why bone?
Thank you for the excellent video 😊
The Lord’s love + grace be with you
Hope you are all well and resting in Jesus saving love + grace 😊
Blessings friends 😊
Historians that dispute jesus’s existence. Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, George Albert Wells, Where is the lie exactly???
Did you not listen to it?
There is much more evidence of Jesus’ existence than the speculation of him not existing by these historian hacks you reference. Do more honest research rather than believing biased atheists.
Yes, Lennox says ANCIENT historian. Dawkins should have said CONTEMPORARY historians. But Hawkins is correct, doesn't matter if he existed or not. Its the divinity and all the "rules" that matter.
@@Mitch-MDit mattered enough for him to take back his statement.
@@Mitch-MD Lennox probably meant historians specialising in ancient history, not historians that lived in ancient times.
Jesus Christ is our Lord. And he is really real.
Claiming certainty about something you cannot demonstrate means you are lying.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 whatever 🙄 😒 😑 😪 😴 😐 🙄.
@@zachdaniels8484if that isnt the response of the gullible I dont know what is.
@@zachdaniels8484 he as much real as Allah or indra
This is SO DISTURBING! HOW ON EARTH COULD ANY SCIENTIST DARE TO LIE ON A FACT LIKE THAT!!! To publicly "take back" something that he or she wrote is incredible... Dawkins is ethically bound to take that back ON A WRITTEN BOOK! SHAME ON HIM!
How did he lie?
Sure, Lennox was lying or at least misrepresenting what Dawkins wrote.
He also said nothing can convince him that God exists. To him its a personal not intellectual
Emotional
Ricard Carrier argues that Jesus could be entirely mythical.
The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed. The question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, and today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed. Wikipedia
@@artgalleryandcraftsbydeb9135Richard Carrier is a counter-example to John Lennox's claim. I wrote he argued, not whether he is right or wrong.
Dawkins's argument seems to be that the historicity or not is an unimportant question.
@@artgalleryandcraftsbydeb9135Wikipedia's 'Christ myth theory':
"Scholars such as Robert M. Price and G. A. Wells argue that evidence of the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that nothing about him is certain"
Though further down:
"Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity [...]"
The devil is the author of lies... Don't be fooled
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out.
There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins.
And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book.
Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
Thank god he got caught lying all the day long
Ironically Dawkins didn't actually lie. He wasn't even wrong. It's Lennox who is lying in this clip. Dawkins never wrote what Lennox accused him of writing.
This is the quote from the God Delusion:
"The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal... Jesus probably existed, but it is quite conceivable that he did not. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never existed at all..."
He freely admits that Jesus probably existed and that the belief that he didn't, while supportable, is not widely held.
We love what you’re doing brother we love your videos. God bless you always and your family.
So if it’s not important, WHY LIE
Talk about the essence of BLIND IDEOLOGY!!!!
UNFREEKNBULEEVABL
To him he is 100% certain Jesus is not a God. So it does not matter to him if Jesus existed or not. It is inconsequential to his points.
@@robertmorrison107 Nice try but the man is talking about Christianity so I think Jesus is important good grief
@@bigtxsdude My point still stands. If you are sure NO gods exist, then it wouldn't matter. That point still stands. I suppose your point would be Jesus is essential for the Christian and you are right but he isn't calling BS on just your religion. He is calling BS on all of them.
@@robertmorrison107 Sorry it matters because he is a non-Christian denier and since Jesus is the main focus actually the only really focus to Christianity it matters
@@robertmorrison107 Just do some research on Bart Ehrman he talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Christianity
Well if you can't be trusted with the little things🤷
It’s not a little thing. Judeo Christian morals are the bedrock of our laws and society. This is why the fabric of America is shredding.
Dawkins did not admit anything and he did not have anything to admit. He is just too nice to call the other guy out.
There are indeed scholars who think the Jesus story is purely fictional. So that was no lie from Dawkins.
And others think the existence of a wandering preacher named Joshua is likely. This is seen as the most likely version in Dawkins's book.
Dawkins is, therefore, fully consistent in the book and this "interview".
That's quite the stretch to make. There is a difference between a lie and not knowing.
Dawkins is right that there are historians who don't think Jesus was real. Could it be at that moment he conceded the point so the conversation could move forward rather than bogging it down with debatable facts?
I had doubts until i began to study the sanctuary built during the time of Moses.
The first item i learned of is the correlation of the laver with the spear wound into Jesus's side.
From there i learned that each furniture piece was a wound on Jesus's body.
Then i learned even more. Like how the curtain hung from the crossbeam by iron nails. How the bread inside the sanctuary was pressed down on four spikes.
How the golden lamp has decoritive buds and blossoms but no fruit, that is until you read of the staff of Aaron. The branch that was cut off a tree, died, then came to life, budded, blossomed, and produced almonds.
What shape is the flame again? No wonder they call it the fruit of the spirit.
King Solomon makes the connection that love is a vehement flame.
The knowledge of God is irrefutable for me. The kicker is that the churches have it wrong, and the bible got it right. The spear pierced Jesus side. Meaning it went all the way through and out the other side. Water came out one side, and blood the other.
In the sanctuary, the laver is halfway between the sanctuary tent opening, and the altar of sacrifice. The lavar was on the south side opposite the place of blood letting on the north side. Mercy is symbolized by water and washing away the blood. The northside, the place of blood letting symbolized guilty by blood.
I question everything the churches teach, if it is not found in the sanctuary, or spoken of by Jesus.
Wow!
Thank you for sharing this.
Wow! Thanks for sharing. This is good to know
From what I learned the candlesticks is more about the church (Rv 1), the altar of incense is about prayer (Psalms)
moses never existed, that's historical fact, jesus existed, we atheists will agree on that for the most part, was he related to god, nope, gods are mythology. this guy is the liar, he's the one twisting dawkins words to suit.
He didn't say he had lied, he said that for the purposes of this question of the conversation he could have taken back so as to make the other's position as strong as he wants it and he still wouldn't lose.
Did he succeed?
It looked to me like he was going to carry on with that sentence and you cut him off.
Yes, this is a short...he shortened the 2 hr long clip...
And I've seen the entire debate, he quickly moves on past this point coz all of a sudden it doesn't matter that he existed...while the entire weight of Jesus' impact is the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts
100%. Talks about intellectual integrity and slices up a clip to suit his agenda.