Here's an interesting segment of debate between late Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox. Hitchens presents the case that the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus was tailored by the evangelists to fit in with the story of the Messiah. Hitchens also made the audacious statement that Jesus never claimed to be God! Watch how John Lennox calmly responds to his false assumptions!
@@thedude0000 The sudden interest back to the religious route is insanely dangerous. Meanwhile, ppl never spend a day carefully read their official "ultimate collection of truth", never follow studies on those books, and claim that it's all true. Simple reasoning debunk this alr: If Jesus answered clearly that he's G, he'd be stoned by blasphemy. Apologists keep saying "it's clearly implying that", sure, as if noone else besides modern ppl could think that. John is the only book has the clear statement of that vagueness "I am", and that book is full of sh. Ppl nowadays just stopped thinking, it's sad.
@@thedude0000 Isn't putting the text in the dogmatic context and reasoning it out of the logical narrative the better way to prove that it's false? Enlighten me if you have an alternative.
Alma in Hebrew means young woman ready for marriage, what many anti-Christians miss is that in order for a young woman to be married she needed to be a virgin per Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. A young woman giving birth happens all the time and makes no sense as a sign. A virgin giving birth on the other hand is a big sign. It makes no sense to interpret this verse as a young marriage age woman over virgin.
@@andycap1980 the point is, even if they do interpret it that way, the young woman ready for marriage would still need to be a virgin per Deuteronomy 22:13-21
What is a bat? Is it an animal or a club used to hit baseballs? Oh, so some words in every language throughout history have had multiple meanings? Isaiah 7 14 says the Lord will send a *SIGN* that a virgin will conceive. The word sign is right there. You and hitches should try reading the Bible. Oh wait, too late for him I guess. Because “young maidens” everywhere always have always been conceiving, it’s not a sign for a young woman to conceive Jews push the “young woman” translation because they know what the alternative translation means for them.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 blatantly lying is totally different from thinking for yourself and doubting. Having a critical thinking and doubting are actually virtues or qualities, nothing wrong with them. The problem comes when you encounter the truth about Jesus and still refuse Him for prideful reasons or other countless reasons. It's a choice.
@@samael5782except in Hebrew culture they were. That is why the LXX of which Matthew (and almost all the NT quotes from, including Jesus) quotes from uses that more specific word, virgin. To the Jews saying someone is a young woman, and not a virgin is like saying you are a virgin married man. It doesn’t follow. In our culture that has a very cheap view of human dignity and sex we argue about this. For the ANE Hebrews there was no need to. Sex was holy and an act of worship to be given in marriage only, otherwise that corporate shame on the community would result in both man and woman being stoned.
@@kylenewberry8598 You can't just exchange these words even when both are true at the same time. You are distorting scripture by doing this. In the Hebrew text the young woman is already pregnant, you can't just say she's a virgin afterwards, no one would buy that. The "virgin shall conceive" is a double mistranslation, turning a young woman into a virgin and turning an adjective into a verb in future tense. Sure, you can be a young woman AND a virgin, but it does not follow logically that a young woman has to be a virgin and therefore you can swap these two words to your liking or to fit a certain narrative. The actual prophecy isn't the birth but that the two kingdoms threatening King Ahaz would be destroyed before the boy knows right and wrong. It is Isaiah's assurance to King Ahaz that everything will be all right. Why do Christian ignore the rest of the text? Let's assume the mistranslation is actually correct, that entails that there were 2 virgin births in history, one in Isaiah's time and one 700 years later. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@@samael5782 hey man thanks for responding. Sorry been busy, not able to respond. In the text, I don't think she is pregnant. The reason being when you turn to Is. 8, it says the son is conceived. I personally like how the NET translates it. 4 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. So she is a young virgin, who will conceive as the promise to Ahaz. What I'm saying is that it's not swapping my words, it would be the expectation of the writer, and his contempories, that young woman = virgin. Furthermore, the Septuigant written in the 200's BC, was done by orthodox believing Jews, who would hold to the whole law. So when they went from Hebrew to Greek (which is far more detail oriented), they purposely chose 'virgin' over 'young woman', long before any Jesus was on the scene. In fact, this would become the primary OT text for much of the Hellenized Jewish world. So when Matthew quotes this, he is quoting something from the Greek that is written over a hundred years before Jesus was ever around, and showing the point. However, the birth is the sign about the kingdoms as you correctly point out. What I think you misunderstand is how the Bible itself speaks of prophecy. We call it mountaintop fulfillments. The prophet will see one grand action, but as in a mountain range, there are future fulfillments that cannot be seen, fathomed, or understood until retrospect. For example, if we were to use something else, we could look to the Davidic Covenant given in 2 Sam. 7. In that, David is promised a son to always be on the throne. Here is the text" 12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. 14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. 15 But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.’” 17 Nathan told David all these words that were revealed to him." So the initial promise is 1) David will have a son fulfill the throne, which is fulfilled in Solomon. 2) That it will be a dynasty that is permanent. Jews would later learn this was about the Messiah more than the line of David. Yet, there are multiple fulfillments that are unable to be fully seen at the time of the initial prophecy. Later prophets give more understanding 'the stump of Jesse' and such. But it's the same thing here, but it's not a one to one. In one, the virgin is a virgin that is married and conceives the sign child. She is the virgin who conceives. In the second it is an actual virgin empowered from on high birth. Both are 'virgin' births, but understood differently.
Well said. What people do not realize in this age which is a material or atomic age is that consciousness is fundamental. It is currently ‘the hard problem’ for philosophers. A person who is of this age cannot understand Consciousness (God); Christ Consciousness); Christ being one with God or universal consciousness; which has also been described as Cosmic Consciousness. Try to explain that to a materialist; they are not going to get it. Atheists have an understanding of the material world and that is all. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind (likely elemental and emerging with quantum events); and the macro and micro elements emerging with quantum events. That is life not the elements only; if that was the case nothing would get off the ground, literally.
Another point being one with God (through Christ consciousness) is not being God. In Christianity there is just one God. Sometimes Christians say of Jesus our god, it is an expression as any rational person knows that no one can be God but God.
That is true. He reveals himself only to oneself, but others cannot see. Also, an unbeliever, or those poor in faith, must be suitably 'softened', such as the crushing death of a irreplaceable, to begin the earnest searching for truth. Happy are those who are persistent and cry out to the true God, who made all things, to prove himself, and are rescued from despair. 1 Chronicles 28: 9 ... for Jehovah searches all hearts, and discerns every inclination of the thoughts. If you search for him, he will let himself be found by you, ...
@@Ghalaghor_McAllistor inspired LOL That would certainly be true if (which is true) something identical came before. But Jesus rose from the dead. Do you dispute the manuscripts
So the apostles just made it up and went along with their lie? that's makes sense for someone who gets power and wealth in return, not beheading, stoning and burning to death as means of execution. No man has ever died for that which he knew to be a lie.
Hi meta. Do you mean "willingly" died for what he knew to be a lie? What evidence have you supporting that assertion? I don't believe it's true. People have certainly died in preference to being publicly unmasked as phonies. We may not defend lies "unto the death", but we will certainly die for our reputations, even if founded on lies. Cheers, P.R.
You're looking at the Bible as history which is why you're so confused. It'd be like looking through a Harry Potter book to see if Hogwarts is a real place. I don't believe the apostles existed.
Even if we had undeniable proof that the apostles did die because of their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, that isn't evidence that he was. People can be deceived. That's why Religion exists in the first place.
@@lennonkelly-james2693 Hi lennon. If Christianity was actually a Roman secret operation designed to split the rebellious Jews against each other and weaken their military threat, then eventually killing off the disciples was in Rome's interests. Killing them covered Rome's tracks, making it much less obvious they were involved. (Who? Us? Nah mate, we butchered them, remember?). A big part of ancient religion was to unite the civilians under a war flag. (Ex 15:3) Cheers, P.R.
The true evidence of Christ Yeshua risen and alive is not found on any paper but within all those who have accepted Him to come into their lives through genuine repentance and love...Amen John 3:16 Hebrews 11:1
I am grateful for Hitchens being the way that he is. It gives great Christian Believers the opportunity to open up the gospels and to enjoy studying our precious Saviour more closely. Otherwise, we would just be nodding at one another agreeably. Exercise is good for the soul 🖖👀
@@gordonmitchell729 Real intellectual exercise is good. Mental gymnastics to justify a wild guess, and wilful ignorance of conflicting proven facts, is not so beneficial.
From what I've seen from Hitchens is that he speaks a lot of words but says almost nothing of any importance. I honestly don't see why he is considered this monumental figure within atheism
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.“
The places where Jesus clearly called himself God, the prophecies were absolutely about a coming messiah, and where the line about being a virgin specifically referred to a virgin. Feel free to actually watch the video next time
It should be noted the Septuagint (Greek translation of Jewish Scripture) was translated BEFORE the time of Jesus, and thus is free from the polemics surrounding whether Jesus was the Messiah. Jewish scholars translated "alma" in Isaih 7:14 as as the Greek "parthenos", which is the very word for virgin used in the New Testament authors when alluding to Isaiah 7:14--which is not suprising since as the video points out they were likely quoting the Septuagint. How modern Hebrew speakers 2000 years later use the word "alma" does not change how it was used at the time of Isaiah.
The original Septuagint was only the Pentateuch (5 books of Moses). The rest was not translated by these Jewish scholars. There were many translations from unknown authors later who were labeled LXX which got cobbled together. Alma never meant virgin in Hebrew. If Isaiah intended to emphasize on a virgin having a baby he would have used the word for virgin - but he didn't. This prophecy isn't about the birth but about political and military development during the time of King Ahaz.
@@samael5782 What do you mean by "those Jewish scholars"? I mean historians hold that the Pentateuch was translated the 3rd century BC and the rest of the Tanakh in the 2nd century BC. Though it pretty obvious the translators would be Jewish scholars. Perhaps you think they were Japanese fishermen?
@@reasonforge9997 With "those Jewish scholars" I mean the one you mentioned, who translated the original Septuagint containing the 5 books of Moses. Who translated the other books over the next 3 centuries is unknown, it varies in quality and style and there were more than 1 Septuagint. A native Hebrew speaker would never translate alma as virgin, especially when it makes no sense reading it in context. Hebrew is always read in context to make sense of words. In the Hebrew text the young woman is already pregnant (Hebrew adjective). It would make absolutely no sense to say that an already pregnant woman is a virgin, no one would buy that, especially not King Ahaz who was a very wicked king.
@@samael5782 Are you actually trying to maintain that those who translated Isaiah into Greek a couple centuries before Jesus was born were not even native speakers of Hebrew? Or did you not think through what you were saying?
@@reasonforge9997 Yep, Jews wouldn't be so stupid and mistranslate their own text. They would neither confuse alma for virgin, nor mistranslate an adjective for a verb and put it into future tense. This is the result of a non native speaker. "the Septuagint of Isaiah can be characterised as a rather free translation. Its text bears the personal stamp of the translator, who sometimes omitted words which he did not understand, or added words favoured by him. Moreover, the translator of Isaiah occasionally appears to have imbued his translation with his own ideas and thoughts, shaping the text to his own preferences" - Joseph Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (ATA XII,3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1934) "Like Ottley, Johann Fischer also maintains that the Isaiah translator was lacking in competence as regards the Hebrew language" ... "The translator has dealt freely with his text; he did not aim at an exact word by word translation, but rather attempted to express the meaning of his text. This free way of rendering, together with the translator’s supposed lack of knowledge of the Hebrew, Fischer assumes to account for the majority of LXX Isaiah’s variants." - The Old Greek Of Isaiah
People don't understand basic science. People don't understand basic human psychology and how easy it is to manipulate us by giving us hope of something we can never verify.
@@illzn06 The single best atheist remains Friedrich Nietzsche because he actually understood what he was rejecting and the consequences of a godless society. Hitchens was an entertainer, mowing down whole armies of straw men. People would be able to see that clearly but they don’t teach basic logic in schools. Kids should at least go through the various types of logical fallacies. Hitchens was famous for the ad hominem-straw man argument. Don’t be offended if you read this and are an atheist fan of Hitchens, but rather, consider it a friendly hint. If you want to properly dismantle something, you have to actually know what you’re dismantling.
@@illzn06 Bible, scripture therein and God are all easily verifiable. People just don't look for or analyze the evidence. God said it would be easy to see the He is, with just a little observance and introspection. Read, Jeremiah 29:13, Seek Me and you will find Me . . .
@@flydieselair Just because New York exists doesn't mean Spiderman exists. You cannot use the names of places as a proof of Jesus resurrecting or doing magic. What you call as evidence is just a testimony of someone else's testimony, which is why there's contradiction in those testimonies.
The mentioned texts do not mention Jesus explicitly claiming to be God, only to be the son of God. You might say the son of God must be a God himself, but that is just an assumption.
Jesus very clearly stated himself to be God in the Bible, repeatedly. The problem is that modern ears do not hear it the same way that Jewish ears at the time did. When Jesus said "before Abram was, I AM" they knew exactly what that meant, even if its not clear to us.
Matthew 16:15) “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” This is the question of so many. From Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, and even many professed "Christians" have trouble putting a finger on the exact explanation. They say "He's the Son of God", yes that is true - "He is the Christ Messiah" that is true as well - "He is the Saviour" that is what He is, yes......but what else? There is one specific thing about Jesus that sets Him apart from all other religions and belief systems, and not understanding this 1 thing about Him can even cost you your eternal soul. Jesus is not an angel - Hebrews 2:16) “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Even the prophets spoke of the arrival, identity, location, and work of the Messiah - 💢Proverbs 30:4) "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" Isaiah 7:14 The Messiah Christ will be born of a virgin - Micah 5:2 the Messiah Christ will be born in Bethlehem - Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah Christ is called the Mighty God Everlasting Father - Isaiah 53 The Messiah Christ will be put to death for our sins and His days will be prolonged (resurrected). Jesus in the Gospels said in His name to cast out Devils. In the temptation in the wilderness Jesus rebuked Satan, and again when Satan tried to rebuke Christ through Peter Jesus said "Get thee behind me Satan" and then in the temptation in the wilderness He said in Matthew 4 “is it not written, tempt not the Lord your God” a personal claim, claiming the name of the Lord God. Furthermore, we also see Jesus forgiving sins of people (the cripple man, the woman caught in adultery, Mary who washed His feet with tears), Jesus accepting worship of individuals (the wise men at His birth, the mother of the sons of Zebedee, the blind man, lepers, Thomas, and the disciples after the resurrection), and in John 10:18 Jesus says He has power to lay down His life and raise Himself from the dead (personal power over life and death), and in John 10:27-28 Jesus says that He personally gives eternal life, and in John 4:26 Jesus claims to be the Christ Messiah prophesied of (Isaiah 9:6 called the Mighty God, Everlasting Father), and also in John 8 stating that He is the "I Am" multiple times (I Am in Greek is "ego eimi" meaning the Always Existing One) and the Pharisees tried to stone Him for blasphemy. An angel, prophet, or holy man couldn’t do that. Jesus flat out explained in John 8:24&58 that He is the "I am", He says this twice, and the Pharisees knew this and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. It's not blasphemous to call yourself an angel or a prophet or a holy man, it's blasphemous to call yourself God. Jesus says, if you don't believe that He is the I Am, you will die in your sins (verse 24) - thus, if you don't believe that Jesus is the Almighty in the flesh, you are not saved. It is belief on His name that saves you - Acts 10:43, Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 1:7&13…..etc. Matthew 28:9) "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." Additionally the Word of God says - Psalm 107:21-32 God calms the storm Matthew 8:23-27 Mark 4:36-41 Luke 8:22-25 Disciples in a boat stormy winds & waves Disciples are afraid They cry out to Jesus God calms the storm There was a "great calm” Jesus didn't ask God to calm the storm, but ordered it Himself, proving who He is. Psalms 23:1) "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." Lord is capitalized in this passage, and in the Hebrew this is stating that “Jehovah God” is the shepherd. Jesus Christ says in John that He is the door of the sheep and He is the Good Shepherd, stating that He specifically is the Shepherd of David’s Psalm - John 10:11) “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:14) “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” Thus Christ Jesus is saying that He is the Lord God of Israel, the mighty Shepherd. Ephesians 3:9) "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" John 1:1-3) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Hebrews 1:2) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Colossians 1:16) "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Christ Jesus is above all others - Philippians 2:10-11) "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Romans 14:11) "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Isaiah 45:22-23) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." The Word made Flesh- John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:14) "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." 1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Additional passages - 2 Corinthians 5:19) “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” John 8:24) “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” - - John 8:58) "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." - - ("I am" in the Greek is "ego eimi" meaning Always Existing, the everlasting to everlasting one) John 10:25-30) "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." -- (1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.) If Christ is not God, how can He grant eternal life to His followers? Isaiah 9:6) "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." - - Micah 5:2) “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” - - (Everlasting in Hebrew means Always Existing - similar to using Jehovah, I Am, or Yahweh - Jesus calls Himself the I Am in John 8) Acts 20:28) "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." - - (literally just said right there that God purchased the church with His own blood) Colossians 2:8-9) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." - - (the entire fullness, Jehovah God is in the body of Jesus. Thus why Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father, the Father in me and I in Him, and also to His disciples receive ye my Spirit and He breathed on them the Holy Spirit.)
Further Proof - Matthew 28:9) "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him." Jesus invites His disciples to come worship Him - He says "all hail" referring to Himself John 20:28-29) "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." 1 Timothy 3:16) “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 4:10) "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." 1 John 5:20) "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved! Jesus said - Mark 1:15) “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Ephesians 2:8-9) “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Are you talking about elsewhere in the debate but not in this clip because Christopher Hitchens was one of most arrogant God haters on this planet, he couldn't even look at John Lennox which he proved Christopher Hitchens was not just 100% wrong but he was lying on comparing what he said with the very words of God the bible. 😮
@@jamesmcallister9645 How could Hitchens possibly be a 'god hater'?, he didn't believe that any god/s exist! Hitchens was never arrogant, just intellectually elloquent and would never stand for biblical bullshit and mythology, or even more blather from Lennox. How do you know god said anything?,....you don't, and there is nothing outside your repugnant book that says there is a biblical god, unless of course you refer to Poseidon, Thor, Mars, Jupiter etc ad infinitum. You need to produce compelling evidence for any god/s that exist without spouting bible verses and preaching that is. If your god doesn't exist then christianity falls on its bare arse, and you need to defend material facts with reality and without magic and the supernarural.Come on, lets have some proof, see how amusing you can be.
*Our God indeed is a covenant keeping God. Has he said a thing and not perform it? I watch how things unfold in my life, from penury to $356,000 every three months and I can only praise him and trust him more. Hallelujah 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻*
After I raised up to 525k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸and also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of TH-cam videos about it but I still find it hard to understand.
Hi torrey. Did you consider that the Old Testament prophesies were also deliberately written so that future kings/lords/ people movers could hang their credentials upon them? Like "passing the baton on to the next generation". Kings needed to sway masses of people, the bible is the psychology to enable it. Cheers, P.R.
All those prophecies fulfilled were not orchestrated. Psalms foretold of “they pierce my hands and my feet”. I suppose orchestrated they or chesteates that too?
So how did the early Christians pre-plan and orchestrate Christs virgin birth, to two people in the line of King David, in Bethlehem, to hide in Egypt, that there would be a voice in desert making way for the Lord (John the Baptist), that he would be rejected by his people, they he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that Judas would die in the Potters field, that He would enter Jerusalem by colt, that He’d be turned over to the gentiles, that they would kill him by crucifixion (an execution method not yet invented at the time of Psalm 22, that the soldiers would divide his garments, that He would rise from the dead. Those are only a few of at least 300 prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. To orchestrate a man’s entire life to fulfill that many prophesies is statistically impossible. If God has drawn you to believe and given you ears to hear, you will see and understand the truth of who Christ is. Just pray God opens your eyes.
‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (John 8:56-59). “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring-that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14. God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit. Three in One.
His carefully cultivated upper middle class English accent would carry him a long way in the US - which is presumably why he emigrated there. That said he was extremely well-read, a superb polemicist and often very entertaining - he was just not (nor to be fair did he claim to be) infallible, as some of his disciples would have you believe.
People want to believe they don’t need a savior because they are basically good and only bad when shaped so by circumstance and social influence. Disciples of Jesus realize we all are born with a sinful and selfish nature and that to be anything more we must have our Creator living within us to change our hearts and minds and enable us to live and love unselfishly. The problem is that the world views Christian Religion as the same as being a disciple of Jesus when nothing could be further from the truth! Faith and life in Christ is found in the individual temple of the Holy Spirit. Not in Catholicism or Protestant church buildings or in the multitudes of cults formed by adding books and texts to the Bible based on “visions” and picking out certain scriptures. Ppl became followers of Jesus for hundreds of years before bibles were printed or formal churches were ever established! They met in homes or caves and were willing to die or give up everything in life for Him! Why? Was it because they confessed their sins to a man or sat on a church bench and listened to messages about Him, rubbed beads or burned candles or went to bible studies?! No! Many believers in this world today have no availability of bibles or church buildings at all, and yet, remain faithful through trials and tribulations. That’s because the Living Christ is living inside them. The bible is great. I’ve put a lot to memory. Church attendance can be beneficial but actually “where two or more are gathered He is in the midst”! And right now many are being led astray by watery, misleading messages, meaningless rituals or narcissistic ideologies of what it actually means to be a real Christian. The Bible should be read and studied by the individual, not just spoon fed to us by a preacher or teacher. The true Christian abides in constant communication with the Lord through specific times of prayer (prayer is not a mystical event - its just opening up and talking to God or sitting or kneeling in silence sometimes) but more than that, always, constantly, consistently considering Christ and allowing everything l see and hear to be filtered through His love and His Presence. His ways become my ways and His way of thinking becomes my way of thinking. I still fail sometimes. I still sin, repent, change and grow stronger spiritually. Christianity in its true form is a personal relationship so wonderful that if you are all alone somewhere with no church, no bible, no other believers, in bad circumstances or good ones, all is well in your soul because He is there! Religions kill people, restrain people by laws, rules, regulations and actions made up by other ppl. True believers and disciples of Jesus live well and do good deeds because of the love of God working within. We do things and behave in a godly manner because He enables us to. Therefore, we should desire to receive no credit for bearing the fruits of the Spirit, just simply produce them. Without faith, it is impossible to believe in Him, to truly know Him, but the bible says He has given to every person a measure of faith, a seed for everyone. And all those who will use that God- given seed can know their Creator and be content and peaceful. Many phenomenally intelligent ppl are followers of Christ so you don’t have to “check your brain at the door” and once He is living in you by your invitation, the answers to all your questions will present themselves incrementally, which is all we can handle because God Himself and His ways are infinitely mind-blowing! All He asks, is that you put your faith and trust in Him. He has done the work of making relationship with Him possible and able to perform what He desires to do in you until the day you leave this world, then the real wonders begin! This current world is just a place to say yes to Him and in eternity, nothing else will matter.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 you aren’t rephrasing anything l said. It is appointed to everyone to die and after that, the judgment. The question is, will u face the judgement aa a follower of Christ and enter heaven or will you go out alone and be lost forever. Thats your choice. I hope you make the right one.
@@jsmall10671 On that you are absolutely correct. The universe is part of creation and therefore cannot care. But there is One Who does care, the One Who created the universe and all beings, human, animal, and angelic, therefore you have the capacity to care bc you are created in His image but we must choose to care, since He gives us free will. You have apparently chosen to believe in rusty farts, so, enjoy!
People from the Bronze age. As though this means they are ignorant. I would like to know if Hitchens can cast Bronze? much less find copper or tin. Produce a wheel strong enough to do service on a cart. Cut and transport rock of large dimensions. Build a boat Have food through the winter, without modern storage methods. And then we must consider the time we are talking about is 1,200 years after the Bronze age The time of Jesus is called the _Iron age_
This was hardly a defeat for Hitchens. He was referencing several historical texts to back his easily verifiable claim that the Bible was ret-conned, while his opponent just quoted the Bible. The Vatican itself has already said as much on numerous occasions. It's the definition of circular logic. Moreover, if it was such an obvious victory, as you falsely claim it to be, then why did you have to interject? The clip should've been able to stand on its own merits. This was a fail.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Hitchens gets "destroyed." Hitchens presents his arguments based on facts. Lennox presents his arguments based on speculation and opinion. It is very apparent who destroyed who.
@@N0nPluzUltra It's difficult to take these words seriously when they come from someone that thinks our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible God called Yahweh 🤭
@@trumpbellend6717 Except atheists believe in speaking, "evolved" primates, which magically transformed from mud soup over billions of years. And all that started from an imaginary process called "abiogenesis". I admire your faith, but I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. Also do I not believe in magic without a magician, the same way I do not believe in basketball games without basketball players. But that's what atheists are left with. Thx for your comment and GOD bless you!
@@N0nPluzUltra Lol first thing, atheism itself is not a world view, we agree on one issue and one issue alone. That insufficient evidence has been provided to justify belief in a god, that's it. We have different positions with regard to most else, politics, race, sexual equality, evolution, morality almost everything. So I find it strange you feel can judge atheism with a sweeping all encompassing generalization. Of course *"I"* that is to say me personaly have a WORLD VIEW, atheism however does not as I said it has views on one single isolated issue. There are many people who have a non belief in pink unicorns, yet no one would ask them what the Apinkunicornist worldview was with respect to the Ukraine situation dear 😂🤣🤣
@@N0nPluzUltra // "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" // Can I point out that you think "faith" is a good thing don't you ? 😜 you believe "faith to be a reliable method of ascertaining truth. Yet you want to conflate it with atheism and imply that its bad hmm 🤔🤔🤔 You see what you are really doing is engagingly in the "tu quoque fallacy " ( or hypocrisy fallacy ) which typically deflects criticism away from yourself or your position by accusing others of the same problem or something comparable It's almost as you understand just how absurd it is to believe anything by faith, so you think if you can somehow saddle atheism with the same pathetic reasoning, it would make yours seem less pathetic ( it doesnt ) Your "faith" is no more reliable or valid than the faith used by followers of Zeus, Thor, Allah, Buddah, Mithrah, Dionysius or any one of a thousand other man made "Gods". Obviously if "faith" can be used to believe in God *X* and also used to believe in God *Y* then faith is NOT a reliable pathway to truth. _"where there is evidence no one speaks of "faith" - we do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round_ _We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence"_ - *Bertrand Russell*
@@Warriorking.1963 So you think you are being clever with that idiotic remark. So I ask again - show me the part where he is being destroyed? You god mongers have a real talent for avoiding a straight answer to a question that debunks your religious hysteria.
@@Warriorking.1963 Well if there was supposed to be sarcasm in that statement it certainly wasn't apparent. Furthermore, I'm not interested in a battle of wits an unarmed man (it's not very sportsmanlike) so I'll just hand you your hat at this point - you are dismissed!
It is worth noting that there are many prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus that the gospel writers didn’t pick up on, but that we, with the benefit of hindsight, can see for ourselves.
Hi Greg. I'm a scientific Theist who's carefully read the bible. Isaiah prophesied there would be no violence or deceit in the messiah. (Is 53:9). However Jesus made a scourge WITH HIS OWN HANDS and used it to drive animals out of the temple and terrify the money-changers (John 2:15). Making a whip is an act of violence, as is using it. The "no deceit" claim was not met by Jesus either, because when asked why he spoke in parables, he replied "in order that some people may not ---understand and be healed and saved." (Matt 13:13), (Mk 4:10-12). Speaking in a way that deliberately withholds truth is deception. According to Jesus "the Devil is the father of all lies" (John 8:44). I'd be interested to read your responses to these points. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 If someone makes a gun, a bat, or a hangs man noose is that violence? I would say no, but those objects could be used to inflict bodily harm to someone. The text states that Jesus made a whip and drove all from the temple court and scattered the coins of the money changers. The text doesn't say that Jesus used the whip to strike any animal or person so being scared of something or someone doesn't mean that they used violence towards you. The use of parables by Jesus was not in my opinion not deceitful. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Mark 13:14-15 and verse 15 tells us why they wouldn't understand, because they had calloused hearts.
@@philliprobinson7724 Regarding Isaiah 53, the Hebrew word translated 'violence' in the KJB may also simply mean 'wrong.' But even if we insist on 'violence' as the English translation, is there any evidence that he acted in such a way so as to inflict violence on anyone? It is worth noting that he ‘MADE a whip of ropes’, suggesting his emotions were not out of control as in when one loses their temper. Additionally, the verb used to describe his action directed against the money changers is ekballo in Greek which has the idea of driving out, sending or chasing out. There is nothing here that suggests violence in the sense the word would be understood by people living in the first century or necessarily today for that matter. Additionally, I’m not sure that his speaking in parables was tantamount to ‘speaking in such a way so as to withhold information’ and that that necessarily ‘is deception’ as you assert. Jesus’ method was simply to speak in such a way (at least on this occasion), that drew out those who really wanted to know the meaning of his teachings as opposed to simply following him for a free meal so to speak. Speaking in parables exposed the motives of those who were following him. I don’t see any necessity to interpret this as deception.
Educated sensible human beings? We are so unwise, schooled by earthly education systems and we think we are intelligent. We haven’t even touched the surface.
It's refreshing to listen to Mr. Lennox. He is so knowledgeable and remains so calm in his responses. We could certainly use more men like him. Thank you, Mr. Lennox
My own life 70 years of it will be talked about by family and acquaintances - - I can be certain of different recollections amongst them - - just imagine what was said and how reported from mouth to mouth 1000s of years ago
Except that the eyewitnesses wrote down what they saw and heard, and we have found papyri from very close to the time they were written down that show that the full bibles we have today have practically no difference(only a few things that dont change the meaning of the text) Its not like a game of telephone at all.
@@knutolavbjrgaas1069 the earliest fragment of the NT is the P52 Papyrus I believe. This is dated to around 125-175AD. So you're getting close to 100 years after the death of Jesus. This is a fragment of John which was written around 90-100AD. So that's at best about 55+ years after Jesus died. Assuming any eyewitness were about 20 years old when they saw Jesus perform any miracles they'd be about 75 when John was written. This was extremely rare for the time so the chances of there being any actual eyewitnesses still alive was very slim.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
@@AtamMardes hahaha bro , you're too simple minded How can you know it's only fiction and myths ? Can you prove that ? From thousands years, before you were even born, these religions existed already You can't even trace when religion started..
@@juniore.bazaldua4682 We cannot prove the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus are not real either............... There have been over 2500 religions, with all their gods, since man has existed and you would not expect us to believe that the gods of 2499 religions are real........but your one god, just yours, is real.
@@winnie796well, truth is inherently discriminatory. 1+1=2 and only 2, not any of the infinite other numbers. So if one God is true, it would necessitate every other be false. They can’t all be true, especially considering the contradictory nature of various religions.
@@dansilberstein326 There is ZERO evidence that ANY god exists, let alone be the one true one. Of course the truth is discriminatory because it does not recognise falsehoods. That is why it is called the truth. Truth is based on evidence, not feelings or "beliefs". Also, what infinite numbers can replace 2 as the answer to 1+1?
Lennox doesn’t know anything. He has faith and that’s fine but he doesn’t know 100% if there is a god. He cannot provide any evidence for god. Why does any fool believe something that can’t be proven. What an awful way to live your life! You’re welcome to it 😂
@@miketatreau2347 A lot of what Lennox says here is wrong. Jesus' claims of his own divinity as well as his fulfilling of prophecies are later renegotiations with the text. Reinterpretations, based on reinterpretations within translations. For a specific example about one of the bible-segments shown in this video, I'd recommend Dan McClellan's "Did Jesus claim to be God in John 8:58?". He is a great, well respected bible scholar that explains things quite nicely.
I'm trying to work out how anyone could regard this as anything other than Lennox being utterly humiliated. As I can't recall the event being seen any other way.
Are you trying? Or are you just saying the words? I assume the latter. Admitting you are poor at logic is one thing. Demonstrating your unwillingness to think in different modes of thought is something else.
@@joesouthborn2960 Which really stands as your projection. How is rejecting a way of thought I was indoctrinated into as a child... An 'unwillingness to think in different modes of thought'... Since logically it's exactly the opposite.
@@DJTheTrainmanWalker ... it sounds like the trauma has prevented you accessing the mode of thinking. Since you have brought it up, would you care to elaborate what you went through here? Or have you sought help (professional or otherwise) to free you of the burden of such difficult memories? You deserve better than begrudging the wrongs of the past.
@@joesouthborn2960 Not evidently Rather the reverse I found something a lot better. Its called truth. Why would I want to be freed of difficult memories? Why would you imagine them a burden? If we don't begrudge the wrongs of the past why would we strive to be better? You seem to offer a very barrren and unfulfilling existence.
Hitchens did not get 'destroyed' by John Lennox. Lennox is just like all Christians. He keeps on his blinkers and doesn't listen to anyone who refuses to believe in the big book of fairy stories...the Bible I think it's called.
Fl 2:5,6 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. Jesus never considered the idea to be God!
@@alwinengelbrecht3012 „For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.“ Malachi 4:1 I don’t remember stubble to burn for eternity. It is consumed quickly. It ceases to to exist and it will never exist again for all eternity.
@@jamesmcallister9645 if I understand correctly you think that God takes delight in torturing people forever? And you wonder why so many people don’t like God?
Hitchens was an absolute god- period! all other arguing over a fake belief are in denial, 276 current religions and only 1 can be right so most of you are wrong. forget faith and just love your fellow earth companions no reasonable god will ever punish you for living a happy peaceful life.
@TheoSkeptomai are you saying you can explain explicitly what's happened in my life, why it happened, and what will happen to me and billions of Christians before and after me? After all you're doubting God is real, right?
Although I am a theist and believe the testimony of Jesus Christ, I have to agree with Hitchens. If one reads the Bible without the bias of any religion dogma, you do not get the impression that Jesus claimed to be literally the same being as his father God. When Jesus asked Peter, who does he say he is, Peter answered thou Art Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said blessed art thou Peter for man did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven. Certainly God did not lie to Peter. If that isn’t straightforward enough for you, I don’t know what is. Many claim that this is tantamount to denying the divinity of Jesus. How does being the only begotten son of God make you not divine?
@@jsmall10671 When the source himself confirms he is the Son of God, as opposed to God (his Father), I would assume he says it because it is factually true. I’m not well read enough on Ehrman to know his take offhand.
@@dalspartan The one fact does not prove the other. Just because God begot his Son long before the heavens and Earth (and Abraham) existed does not prove that they were the same being.
@@joshuareaves2684 Uncle Ben, Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility". My quote holds equal relevance to yours, but I don't need to believe in an invisible authoritarian in the sky or wear a symbol of Roman capital punishment around my neck or adorned on my wall at home in order to understand and apply ethics to my life.
@@joebloe3146I was once like you. I grew up in a good Catholic family but left my faith when I moved on to university. I felt exactly the same as you.... you don't need religion to have ethics and be a good person. I learned over the course of my life that it's a lot more than just ethics & rules for life. I'm willing to discuss if your interested.... needless to say I experienced some extraordinary things and witnessed some stuff which by the grace of God helped me to steer back on course.
Could you prove your claim of the bible being nonsense? No, you can't, as it is historically accurate. So, then, how would you try to prove, if a text would be nonsense without the text and without looking, if the text is consistent in itself?! Otherwise it would be you, who obviously may be speaking nonsense?
Hitchens also misuses the word Messiah. It doesn’t mean son of God it means anointed one. Ergo to the Jews Messiah means “King of the Jews.” The word “Christ” isn’t Jesus’s last name it’s a modern pronunciation of the Greek word for Messiah, translated from Ancient Hebrew. Therefore when someone says “Jesus Christ” they’re not saying Jesus son of God they’re saying “Jesus who is the Messiah (King of the Jews)”. You’d think Hitchens would have gotten that bit correct.
Paul never mentioned anything about a virgin birth. It is unnecessary to suggest a physical bonding between God the Father and Mary. Ihave met Catholics who maintain that Mary died virgin, even though she gave birth to other children following the birth of Jesus. Very odd.
Yes, the Roman Catholic theology on Mary is very odd. But I don't even understand what you are trying to argue here about Paul. He didn't mention anything about quantum physics or the function of Mitochondria, does that make them false?
1] No one got destroyed 2] Jesus affirms their accusation, but does not say the words 3] Jesus' divinity [God in Human form] was based on a vote at the council of Nicaea, and the scriptures have been interpreted by this vote ever since 4] at 4:00 Lennox states that Jesus fulfilled established prophecy, which is easy to do when it is corrected after the fact, decades after the supposed events. None of the New Testament books are eye-witness accounts Language is important. Ask any lawyer. This is why the religious [nor the non-believers] should not debate. If you can prove God, faith is not required. Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.
If you ask me a yes or no question, and I say 'Thou hast said', that means yes because it means the answer is in the question, which is positive and not negative.
When you get your theology from Dan Brown LOL. Here's what the Council of Nicea was about: The Arian heresy, whether the Father alone was eternal, and that the Son was created or begotten by the Father, and thus had a defined point of origin and was subordinate to the Father. Arius at no point questioned the divinity of Christ, and the council at no point voted on whether or not Jesus was divine. I mean, the people at the Council of Nicea kept minutes and wrote extensively about what the council was about, its not hard to find and read about. I do not understand why people keep inventing crap about that council.
Question is how did the gospel writers know all that they have written? Were they witness to events? How do you define salvation and give evidence of Jesus saves....
Matthew and John are both eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus, Mark and Luke are both close associate's of the Apostles mentioned in the book of Acts. The book of Luke is the historical one, where Luke, a doctor, decides to make historical researches to explain the Gospel to his fine. Good question about salvation, using my poor understanding, I'd say, salvation is "being saved from the inevitable death", as we're all sinners and that sins lead to death, Jesus brings salvation at the cross so that whoever believes shall not perish (in hell) but have eternal life (with God). You don't have direct evidence of Jesus being able to save, it's about faith. Faith in the promises of God. The evidence you should seek is : does God exist ? if yes which one is the true God ? if this God is true, what did He say ? If He said that, I should believe (or not if I don't want to, that's up to you as you're responsible for your own choice)
@@sg.captain-kun6409 u mean to say these apostles were there when Jesus was born? No wonder they differ. Faith doesn't win election nor a race, it's capability. Yes, ur last para was ok, it's one's choice. I don't accept this with out evidence.
@@bigmac4417 they knew Jesus' mom so that's why they know about his birth They differ because they write using a different point of view and purpose, it's like looking at an image frow two sides, it's the same image but seen with different perspective, not hard to understand that Would you even accept it if there were evidence ? I mean, I suppose you don't reject all the history from the ancient time right ? Did u check the truthfulness of all the history ?
What strikes me is having a passionate atheist saying that the gospel is basically made up to fit a prophecy, but strictly speaking, the "prophecy" would be equally invalid to an atheist, equally made up to serve any other purpose. If they're both nonsense, why consider any of those to invalidate the other?
@@jsmall10671 We can pretend this is any sort of an argument, if that makes you feel safe and comfortable. Perhaps you may want to behave like a rational human being instead, so we can have a real conversation.
So you deny a completely historically accurate text about the life of Jesus - the most well-known historical figure of all time (most historians acknowledge that he existed). Not only do you not believe in the divinity of Jesus, you deny basic historical facts. This is completely ironic because you think Christians are ignorant when you obviously haven't done any homework. Furthermore, dismissive labels like 'folktales' don't change the fact that these texts have transformed civilizations, inspired justice movements, and shaped moral frameworks for billions. The real question is, why do these 'stories' persist in their power and influence after 2,000 years?
@@gerardjames8123 Because he believes in the "grown-up" equivalent of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the rest of a child's fantasy world, that's WHY.
FAITH AND LOVE ARE EVERYTHING !.............BUT I ASK, AND HE GIVES, AND I LAUGH WITH HIM AND I KNOW I AM BLESSED. GOD IS GREAT, BUT FOR ME JUST AS A FATHER WHO GIVES EVERYTHIG WHEN I ASK !!
@@gerardjames8123 Definition of faith: "a strong belief in something even though there is no evidence to support that belief." Which, coincidently, is the same definition for delusion.
Since Hitchens has died since this debate, there are no unbelievers after death. There are no atheists in foxholes. It isn't about losing or winning, but truth.
I have watched many of Hitchen's debates in their entirety and he made a career out of misquoting the Bible as he did here. I think almost all debates come down to this: We look for points that back the side we believe. You and I could watch this debate in its entirety and you would probably think Hitchens won and I would probably think that Lennox won.
@@robotx6259 Lennox, and everyone who truly studies the Bible, knows that much of what Hitchens was saying here can be proven to be untrue according to the scriptures. It is one thing when Hitchens philosophized about God, Jesus and the Bible but to tell us what the Bible says or doesn't say can be disproven. I thought he was smarter than that.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 if Hitchens didn’t change his career of trying to deceive humans with Il his lame arguments before he died, then yeah, he’s being punished.
So, the enemies of the Jews and Jesus Christ, the Romans, also must have worked together to fulfill the prophecies about how Jesus would be cruelly treated, the timing of his death, the way he would die, what they would do to him whilst he was dead? A very cooperative bunch these Romans must have been 🙄
I can only hope that Hitchens in his last breath called out to Jesus. Otherwise, he has found out the truth and the most painful, terrible and unending way possible
Hitchens doesn't understand that his place in hell is WORSE than for others destined for hell because he is PREACHING blasphemy and trying to recruit people AWAY from God
LOL, and you don't understand that he doesn't accept hell exists. Are you worried about the hel of the Norse religion? Do you understand that you're going to the worst part of it? Do you care? Yeah, that's how Hitch feels about your hell.
@@Syrin23You are upset but still didn't acknowledge the point, Hitchens isn't bothered about your ideas about Hell just as you don't care about non Christian Hells. The point is salient.
@@TurinTuramber And so is my point. Read every single word of my original post. Show me ANY point in it where I said it mattered what Hitchens believes. I literally said he doesn't understand, much like you don't. Meanwhile, you were and still are a condescending prick, preaching for the sake of preaching due to poor reading comprehension.
Lol The audience polled at end of debate found for Lennox, the second time they debated and same result. The cognitive dissonance of you wretches make us pray for you ever more
Lennox was not trying to destroy Hitchins, he was just speaking the truth calmly; whereas Hitchins' sole goal was to try to destroy Lennox. Hitchins took the worship of nothing/atheism to an extreme level. He worshipped nothing, devoutly. A convert in the arrogance of youth and was still a student politician in much later death.
@@vertugallery7099 Lennox was doing what he does. Other commentators claimed Lennox was 'destroying' Hitchens. As a well-mannered, highly intelligent man, Lennox wouldn't make such a claim. My friend Lennox only spoke what he ''believed'' to be the truth. Take notice of the word 'believed'. Atheists do not 'worship' anything or anybody'.We feel no need to 'worship' anything,certainly not something for which there is not a jot of evidence that would stand the test of even a courtroom. As Hulme said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is none. Unless you have something new. All of it is myth and legend. Every religion is a Con to keep the citizenry under control. The Bible was written four hundred years after the supposed events in Jerusalem. It was a political document that was amended many times to suit the needs of the failing Roman Empire. It was also translated many times,each time losing something and gaining the biases of the translator. We merely say there is no evidence to prove the existence of any God. If you consider this extreme, that's your choice. What would un-extreme atheism look like? Hitchens was never a politician. He commented on current affairs, including politics, often making politicians look foolish for their hypocrisies. He had a matchless intellect within his generation and was able to put his views across with brilliance through his humanity and wit. This does not diminish Lennox, who is also brilliant in his field. Like many men from northern Ireland, he is a victim of his extremely religious upbringing in that country's traditions. Cheers
Evil does not exist if there is no god. There would no good either. If there is no god, then the clear implication is, there is nothing beyond the material. When you have figured out the chemical composition that leads homo erectus concluding things to be either good/evil then go collect your Nobel Award.
Hitchins' ability to talk was enormous. But he overplayed his popularity towards the end with repeated appeals to the audience to clap him, and, rather ironically, damned them if they didn't.
Lennox did not only not destroy Hitchens, he didnt even answer to his claims. Its fascinating that one can come to a different conclusion here... Hitchens said that the gospels are conveniently written to fit the prophecy and Lennox said its part of his proof for god that they do fit.
Hitchens claimed something absurd. He claimed that it looks suspicious for someone to note "hey look at how he fulfilled the scriptures, that's evidence he must be the promised one" There's nothing at all suspicious about that. It might be wrong, but its not suspicious to point to events and claim they have significance.
@@christophertaylor9100 i think his point was that its really easy to fulfill a prophecy thats known to everyone over decades. if everybody expects a virgin birth as stated by moses, the last thing you will do is having a witness for your birth that could tell. they call that self fulfilling prophecy. hence what i wrote; "gospels being conveniently written to fit said prophecy."
I recommend Alex O'Connor (one of the most famous and intelligent atheists) criticizing Hitchens's sophistry. The borderline religious devotion to Saint Christopher Hitchens that Reddit atheists have is really weird. He was brilliant with a microphone and hilarious with quick quips, but deep thinker and talented debater? Not so much...
hitchens points to the obvious clear problem of christianity, if christianity exists then why do jews still exist? jews are the arbiters of the truth of their religion and they were the proper arbiters to judge jesus yet do not recognize him as their messiah, these weren't some peasants or common folk, they were well aware of their own religion and its prophecies, if they never recognized jesus then the best bet is that he was not a messiah. if you go to church you go to the priest about how to get a better understanding about god not someone else in the congregation, if the priest says it's not god then you would listen to the priest. they are the authority on it.
How is it so inconceivable that a new movement arising from the old is rejected by members of the old movement? The only question is whether or not the new movement is true.
@@christophertaylor9100 well is islam true just because it came after christianity? is mormonism true? protestantism? just because the old reject the new doesn't mean it's more or less true, it's just a new movement with its own new goals. drawing arbitrary assumptions in the sand that one is more true than the others is the work of a person who wants to believe it.
@@bobxbaker Where did I argue that what is new is true? I simply answered your question why Christianity exists along side Judaism, the actual question you asked.
@@christophertaylor9100 it was a rhetorical question that i answered by agreeing with hitchens position in the first place. that's why i assumed you disagreed with hitchens position to which i responded to that.
The dude doesn't know anything about the Bible lol...even the Septuagint authors translated the word to Virgin instead of Young Maiden. Lennox is on a different plane of existence than stupid Hitchens
Read the prophecies of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the prophecy of Alexander the Great and his kingdom being divided into four made centuries before he existed. Read about the prophecy of Cyrus, by name. Isaiah 53 that Jesus had read through while still walking on Earth. Read Daniel 12:4 or 2nd Timothy Chapter 3 which describe life as it is now. Respectfully, Mr. Hitchens died without God. Be open to the possibility of Jesus being God. He is the only way. Good luck and God Bless.
Considering how often the bible was copied by hand over the centuries (pre-printing press), and the blatant editing or selective inclusion (or deletion) of the gospels, you can’t really use it as a reference text. This is grasping at straws.
When you renaunce your pride , and seek God with all your heart God can reveal himself to you in a way you will know 100% hes real , and you dont need any other person to convince you
Because a noble prize comes from people and it really means nothing. I rather please God and remain unknown than to please people. Plus, the real prize comes after we leave our earthly body. There no excuse for those who choose to deny Christ, Zero excuse. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
@user-lb1ye1pv4q The BB was never observed, never duplicated or proven. You need more faith in your BB fairy tale that violates all your so called principles of science
@crazyprayingmantis5596 The scientific community that pats themselves on the back only give the Nobel to the best scientific liars who came up with the best theories that can't be proven
1) The term "Son of Man" is the same as being the Son of God? According to whom? 2) The Term "Son of God" is a title in ancient Hebrew, King David was called the Son of God, and the entire nation of Israel is referred to as the Son of God in the Old Testament 3) The Gospel of John was written 70 to 90 years after Jesus, and not by eyewitnesses to Jesus
@@nathanielalderson9111 The Prophet Daniel doesn't say that 🤣🤣🤣 That's Daniel 7, verses 13-14?? *ALTHOUGHT* Because in ancient Hebrew the Term "Son of God" is just a title for the *Representative* of God on Earth, and the term "Son of Man" means to a person descendent of Adam, the son of Adam, (Adam means Man) *then Yes,* that is correct, but that was not Jesus either because *Jesus did not fulfill that Prophecy in Daniel 7*
1. Son of Man in this context refers to Daniel's prophecy of "one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of Heaven!" in Daniel 7:13-14. This is the same title Jesus referred to Himself with, letting people know He's the one prophesied about. 2. "Son of God" has different meanings in different contexts. For instance, Luke 36 mentions people being the sons of God like the angels upon the resurrection. When Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, what is meant is that He is the only begotten Son of God, as mentioned in John 3:16 3. Regarding the Gospels and their dating, the earliest mention of them (at least before they were probably written down) was made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-11, dated around the early 50s AD, roughly 20 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Their early dating is further strengthened by St Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, in which he attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke. St Ignatius, who lived around the time some of the apostles were alive upwards of 50 AD. Hope this helps clarify your objections and may the good Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Peace
@@asandemkhize6856 1) Well, I responded to some of that already perhaps you didn't read it, and Jesus referring to himself as "The Son of Man", does not change my point, and *Jesus did not fulfill the Prophecy in Daniel* 2) The Gospel of John was written 70 to 90 years after Jesus, not by eyewitnesses to Jesus or any of his disciples, *just because it's named after the disciple John does not mean that it was John who wrote it,* and most likely it wasn't 3) The Term Gospel means "Good News", the written Gospels, and more specifically; the Synoptic Gospels were written 40-plus years after Jesus, and Paul does not make any reference to any of these Conclusion,... *So, Yes...* Paul was preaching the Gospel (The Good News) before 70AD,... *Paul was Not preaching* what is written in *the Synoptic Gospels* during his lifetime before 70AD* and we know that because Paul never make reference to the Synoptic Gospels or quotes from them,... There is a difference 4) Ignacious attributes The Gospel of Luke to Luke (who wrote for Paul) but, not before 70AD, and there are no records of date for Ignacious doing this before 70AD, Ignacious may have been alive before 50AD does not mean that he knew of the Synoptic Gospels before 70AD, and there is no evidence to confirm that *According to multiple historians and Tradition* Ignacious wrote his epistle to the Ephesians between 100AD to 110AD, and Not before that Hope you learn something, bye
@@XDRONIN 3) the drafts and bits and pieces of all 4 Gospels were written earlier, perhaps as near as 5 years after Jesus crucifixion. They were completed no later than 50AD. Don't know where you're getting 70-90 after Jesus but it's not accurate information. Bart Erhman perhaps?
Here's an interesting segment of debate between late Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox. Hitchens presents the case that the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus was tailored by the evangelists to fit in with the story of the Messiah. Hitchens also made the audacious statement that Jesus never claimed to be God! Watch how John Lennox calmly responds to his false assumptions!
Yet more theistic trickery from Lennox, he wasn't the messiah, he was a very n aughty boy. God claims, superstition, supernatural and magic...
_Hitchens also made the audacious statement that Jesus never claimed to be God_
It's not audacious....it's literally backed by biblical scholarship.
@@thedude0000 The sudden interest back to the religious route is insanely dangerous. Meanwhile, ppl never spend a day carefully read their official "ultimate collection of truth", never follow studies on those books, and claim that it's all true. Simple reasoning debunk this alr: If Jesus answered clearly that he's G, he'd be stoned by blasphemy. Apologists keep saying "it's clearly implying that", sure, as if noone else besides modern ppl could think that. John is the only book has the clear statement of that vagueness "I am", and that book is full of sh.
Ppl nowadays just stopped thinking, it's sad.
@@thomeilearn You are literally reinterpreting the text based on dogma. Talk about not thinking...
@@thedude0000 Isn't putting the text in the dogmatic context and reasoning it out of the logical narrative the better way to prove that it's false? Enlighten me if you have an alternative.
There's a clear difference between a person full of pride and a person full of knowledge.
D'accord!
And between a person fullvof contempt and a person full of love!
And a person full of bs
A m e n ❤
@Bungaloo 😂
i doubt there is any such clear difference !
Alma in Hebrew means young woman ready for marriage, what many anti-Christians miss is that in order for a young woman to be married she needed to be a virgin per Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
A young woman giving birth happens all the time and makes no sense as a sign. A virgin giving birth on the other hand is a big sign. It makes no sense to interpret this verse as a young marriage age woman over virgin.
@@andycap1980 the point is, even if they do interpret it that way, the young woman ready for marriage would still need to be a virgin per Deuteronomy 22:13-21
What is a bat? Is it an animal or a club used to hit baseballs?
Oh, so some words in every language throughout history have had multiple meanings?
Isaiah 7 14 says the Lord will send a *SIGN* that a virgin will conceive. The word sign is right there. You and hitches should try reading the Bible. Oh wait, too late for him I guess.
Because “young maidens” everywhere always have always been conceiving, it’s not a sign for a young woman to conceive
Jews push the “young woman” translation because they know what the alternative translation means for them.
Good point
@@RaffiSosikian You're assuming that every single woman who wasn't a virgin would be stoned.
Hitchens knows the truth now.
Yeah, sure. Is he being tortured in Hell, for daring to think for himself and for doubting your omniscience!?
@@job4391 He can't bcoz he is dead.
@@knightspygaming1287 Life after death is long been proven scientifically. "Dr. Moody - Life after Death"
@@donthesitatebegin9283 blatantly lying is totally different from thinking for yourself and doubting. Having a critical thinking and doubting are actually virtues or qualities, nothing wrong with them. The problem comes when you encounter the truth about Jesus and still refuse Him for prideful reasons or other countless reasons. It's a choice.
@@alexandru3788 Would you mention proofs, i can't watch entire 1 hour podcast.
Mary being "marriageable" in those times do very much mean "virgin" because it was an obvious preposition for such event.
Yes, otherwise the young woman would be a dead woman.
This does not mean that you can use these words interchangeably, they are not synonyms, especially when the young woman is already pregnant.
@@samael5782except in Hebrew culture they were. That is why the LXX of which Matthew (and almost all the NT quotes from, including Jesus) quotes from uses that more specific word, virgin. To the Jews saying someone is a young woman, and not a virgin is like saying you are a virgin married man. It doesn’t follow.
In our culture that has a very cheap view of human dignity and sex we argue about this. For the ANE Hebrews there was no need to. Sex was holy and an act of worship to be given in marriage only, otherwise that corporate shame on the community would result in both man and woman being stoned.
@@kylenewberry8598 You can't just exchange these words even when both are true at the same time. You are distorting scripture by doing this. In the Hebrew text the young woman is already pregnant, you can't just say she's a virgin afterwards, no one would buy that. The "virgin shall conceive" is a double mistranslation, turning a young woman into a virgin and turning an adjective into a verb in future tense.
Sure, you can be a young woman AND a virgin, but it does not follow logically that a young woman has to be a virgin and therefore you can swap these two words to your liking or to fit a certain narrative.
The actual prophecy isn't the birth but that the two kingdoms threatening King Ahaz would be destroyed before the boy knows right and wrong. It is Isaiah's assurance to King Ahaz that everything will be all right. Why do Christian ignore the rest of the text? Let's assume the mistranslation is actually correct, that entails that there were 2 virgin births in history, one in Isaiah's time and one 700 years later. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@@samael5782 hey man thanks for responding. Sorry been busy, not able to respond.
In the text, I don't think she is pregnant. The reason being when you turn to Is. 8, it says the son is conceived. I personally like how the NET translates it. 4 For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
So she is a young virgin, who will conceive as the promise to Ahaz. What I'm saying is that it's not swapping my words, it would be the expectation of the writer, and his contempories, that young woman = virgin. Furthermore, the Septuigant written in the 200's BC, was done by orthodox believing Jews, who would hold to the whole law. So when they went from Hebrew to Greek (which is far more detail oriented), they purposely chose 'virgin' over 'young woman', long before any Jesus was on the scene. In fact, this would become the primary OT text for much of the Hellenized Jewish world. So when Matthew quotes this, he is quoting something from the Greek that is written over a hundred years before Jesus was ever around, and showing the point.
However, the birth is the sign about the kingdoms as you correctly point out. What I think you misunderstand is how the Bible itself speaks of prophecy. We call it mountaintop fulfillments. The prophet will see one grand action, but as in a mountain range, there are future fulfillments that cannot be seen, fathomed, or understood until retrospect.
For example, if we were to use something else, we could look to the Davidic Covenant given in 2 Sam. 7. In that, David is promised a son to always be on the throne. Here is the text" 12 When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. 14 I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. 15 But my loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will stand before me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent.’” 17 Nathan told David all these words that were revealed to him."
So the initial promise is 1) David will have a son fulfill the throne, which is fulfilled in Solomon. 2) That it will be a dynasty that is permanent. Jews would later learn this was about the Messiah more than the line of David. Yet, there are multiple fulfillments that are unable to be fully seen at the time of the initial prophecy. Later prophets give more understanding 'the stump of Jesse' and such.
But it's the same thing here, but it's not a one to one. In one, the virgin is a virgin that is married and conceives the sign child. She is the virgin who conceives. In the second it is an actual virgin empowered from on high birth. Both are 'virgin' births, but understood differently.
'I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come unto the father, but by me'
- Jesus Christ
"What is truth?" - Pilate.
"Erm ... erm ..." - Jesus.
"I wash my hands of this charlatan" - Pilate.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 this is the most disingenuous comment I’ve read😂
How do you know Jesus said that?
Well said. What people do not realize in this age which is a material or atomic age is that consciousness is fundamental. It is currently ‘the hard problem’ for philosophers. A person who is of this age cannot understand Consciousness (God); Christ Consciousness); Christ being one with God or universal consciousness; which has also been described as Cosmic Consciousness. Try to explain that to a materialist; they are not going to get it. Atheists have an understanding of the material world and that is all. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind (likely elemental and emerging with quantum events); and the macro and micro elements emerging with quantum events. That is life not the elements only; if that was the case nothing would get off the ground, literally.
Another point being one with God (through Christ consciousness) is not being God. In Christianity there is just one God. Sometimes Christians say of Jesus our god, it is an expression as any rational person knows that no one can be God but God.
Miracles or no miracles, either way, there is no convincing an unbeliever; only God can do so.
That is true. He reveals himself only to oneself, but others cannot see. Also, an unbeliever, or those poor in faith, must be suitably 'softened', such as the crushing death of a irreplaceable, to begin the earnest searching for truth. Happy are those who are persistent and cry out to the true God, who made all things, to prove himself, and are rescued from despair.
1 Chronicles 28: 9 ... for Jehovah searches all hearts,
and discerns every inclination of the thoughts.
If you search for him, he will let himself be found by you, ...
God would have to exist first in order to convince anyone. Do you have any evidence that your god exists?
@@Ghalaghor_McAllistorhave you ever studied anything?
@@Charles.Wright Yes, that's the reason why I know there are many older religions than yours. Some of them even inspired the bible.
@@Ghalaghor_McAllistor inspired LOL
That would certainly be true if (which is true) something identical came before. But Jesus rose from the dead. Do you dispute the manuscripts
So the apostles just made it up and went along with their lie? that's makes sense for someone who gets power and wealth in return, not beheading, stoning and burning to death as means of execution. No man has ever died for that which he knew to be a lie.
Hi meta. Do you mean "willingly" died for what he knew to be a lie? What evidence have you supporting that assertion? I don't believe it's true. People have certainly died in preference to being publicly unmasked as phonies. We may not defend lies "unto the death", but we will certainly die for our reputations, even if founded on lies. Cheers, P.R.
19 Muslims died on 9/11 for a lie. And likely knew it. You don't know what the apostles did or said. The bible is NOT a history book
You're looking at the Bible as history which is why you're so confused. It'd be like looking through a Harry Potter book to see if Hogwarts is a real place. I don't believe the apostles existed.
Even if we had undeniable proof that the apostles did die because of their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, that isn't evidence that he was. People can be deceived. That's why Religion exists in the first place.
@@lennonkelly-james2693 Hi lennon. If Christianity was actually a Roman secret operation designed to split the rebellious Jews against each other and weaken their military threat, then eventually killing off the disciples was in Rome's interests. Killing them covered Rome's tracks, making it much less obvious they were involved.
(Who? Us? Nah mate, we butchered them, remember?).
A big part of ancient religion was to unite the civilians under a war flag. (Ex 15:3) Cheers, P.R.
The true evidence of Christ Yeshua risen and alive is not found on any paper but within all those who have accepted Him to come into their lives through genuine repentance and love...Amen John 3:16 Hebrews 11:1
IMO the clearest proof of Yeshua is a transformed life. Apostle Saul being a perfect example.
That's not evidence. It's a combination of wishful thinking and conformation bias
not evidence. Loads of people are muslims as well, does that mean the Quran is true?
I love that statement, "God encoding Himself into humanity." So right on!🙂
@@deniserobertson7146 So he encoded himself into Hitler…
@@gweilospur5877 that’s stupid
@@dalspartan Why? Wasn’t Hitler human? Didn’t your god make everybody?
I am grateful for Hitchens being the way that he is. It gives great Christian Believers the opportunity to open up the gospels and to enjoy studying our precious Saviour more closely. Otherwise, we would just be nodding at one another agreeably. Exercise is good for the soul 🖖👀
@@gordonmitchell729 Real intellectual exercise is good. Mental gymnastics to justify a wild guess, and wilful ignorance of conflicting proven facts, is not so beneficial.
If he makes you firmer in your irrationality, there's no help for you
From what I've seen from Hitchens is that he speaks a lot of words but says almost nothing of any importance. I honestly don't see why he is considered this monumental figure within atheism
You described Lennox.
He's weak when it comes to Christianity in particular but very strong and learned in other areas.
That's called comprehension shortcoming
Can someone put up a timestamp for when Hitchens gets "destroyed".
No-one can because Lennox is talking shite as usual. The arguments from the channel owner is a good example of circular reasoning.
It's all clickbait that leaves viewers asking the same thing you just did. That's all the majority of these videos end up being.
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.“
Hitchens gets destroyed? So when are you going to show that video?
He certainly does not.
@@howarddavies8937 and never did Howard
The places where Jesus clearly called himself God, the prophecies were absolutely about a coming messiah, and where the line about being a virgin specifically referred to a virgin. Feel free to actually watch the video next time
It should be noted the Septuagint (Greek translation of Jewish Scripture) was translated BEFORE the time of Jesus, and thus is free from the polemics surrounding whether Jesus was the Messiah. Jewish scholars translated "alma" in Isaih 7:14 as as the Greek "parthenos", which is the very word for virgin used in the New Testament authors when alluding to Isaiah 7:14--which is not suprising since as the video points out they were likely quoting the Septuagint. How modern Hebrew speakers 2000 years later use the word "alma" does not change how it was used at the time of Isaiah.
The original Septuagint was only the Pentateuch (5 books of Moses). The rest was not translated by these Jewish scholars. There were many translations from unknown authors later who were labeled LXX which got cobbled together. Alma never meant virgin in Hebrew. If Isaiah intended to emphasize on a virgin having a baby he would have used the word for virgin - but he didn't. This prophecy isn't about the birth but about political and military development during the time of King Ahaz.
@@samael5782 What do you mean by "those Jewish scholars"? I mean historians hold that the Pentateuch was translated the 3rd century BC and the rest of the Tanakh in the 2nd century BC. Though it pretty obvious the translators would be Jewish scholars. Perhaps you think they were Japanese fishermen?
@@reasonforge9997 With "those Jewish scholars" I mean the one you mentioned, who translated the original Septuagint containing the 5 books of Moses. Who translated the other books over the next 3 centuries is unknown, it varies in quality and style and there were more than 1 Septuagint. A native Hebrew speaker would never translate alma as virgin, especially when it makes no sense reading it in context. Hebrew is always read in context to make sense of words. In the Hebrew text the young woman is already pregnant (Hebrew adjective). It would make absolutely no sense to say that an already pregnant woman is a virgin, no one would buy that, especially not King Ahaz who was a very wicked king.
@@samael5782 Are you actually trying to maintain that those who translated Isaiah into Greek a couple centuries before Jesus was born were not even native speakers of Hebrew? Or did you not think through what you were saying?
@@reasonforge9997 Yep, Jews wouldn't be so stupid and mistranslate their own text. They would neither confuse alma for virgin, nor mistranslate an adjective for a verb and put it into future tense. This is the result of a non native speaker.
"the Septuagint of Isaiah can be characterised as a rather free translation. Its text bears the personal stamp of the translator, who sometimes omitted words which he did not understand, or added words favoured by him. Moreover, the translator of Isaiah occasionally appears to have imbued his translation with his own ideas and thoughts, shaping the text to his own preferences" - Joseph Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (ATA XII,3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1934)
"Like Ottley, Johann Fischer also maintains that the Isaiah translator was lacking in competence as regards the Hebrew language" ...
"The translator has dealt freely with his text; he did not aim at an exact word by word translation, but rather attempted to express the meaning of his text. This free way of rendering, together with the translator’s supposed lack of knowledge of the Hebrew, Fischer assumes to account for the majority of LXX Isaiah’s variants." - The Old Greek Of Isaiah
People don’t understand basic Christianity
People don't understand basic science.
People don't understand basic human psychology and how easy it is to manipulate us by giving us hope of something we can never verify.
@@illzn06 The single best atheist remains Friedrich Nietzsche because he actually understood what he was rejecting and the consequences of a godless society. Hitchens was an entertainer, mowing down whole armies of straw men. People would be able to see that clearly but they don’t teach basic logic in schools. Kids should at least go through the various types of logical fallacies. Hitchens was famous for the ad hominem-straw man argument. Don’t be offended if you read this and are an atheist fan of Hitchens, but rather, consider it a friendly hint. If you want to properly dismantle something, you have to actually know what you’re dismantling.
@@illzn06 Bible, scripture therein and God are all easily verifiable. People just don't look for or analyze the evidence.
God said it would be easy to see the He is, with just a little observance and introspection.
Read, Jeremiah 29:13, Seek Me and you will find Me . . .
@@flydieselair I'm curious, what about all the humans that came before the bible and never had the opportunity to read it. What happens to them?
@@flydieselair Just because New York exists doesn't mean Spiderman exists.
You cannot use the names of places as a proof of Jesus resurrecting or doing magic.
What you call as evidence is just a testimony of someone else's testimony, which is why there's contradiction in those testimonies.
The mentioned texts do not mention Jesus explicitly claiming to be God, only to be the son of God. You might say the son of God must be a God himself, but that is just an assumption.
Jesus very clearly stated himself to be God in the Bible, repeatedly. The problem is that modern ears do not hear it the same way that Jewish ears at the time did. When Jesus said "before Abram was, I AM" they knew exactly what that meant, even if its not clear to us.
Matthew 16:15) “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?”
This is the question of so many. From Atheists, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, and even many professed "Christians" have trouble putting a finger on the exact explanation. They say "He's the Son of God", yes that is true - "He is the Christ Messiah" that is true as well - "He is the Saviour" that is what He is, yes......but what else?
There is one specific thing about Jesus that sets Him apart from all other religions and belief systems, and not understanding this 1 thing about Him can even cost you your eternal soul.
Jesus is not an angel - Hebrews 2:16) “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”
Even the prophets spoke of the arrival, identity, location, and work of the Messiah -
💢Proverbs 30:4) "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
Isaiah 7:14 The Messiah Christ will be born of a virgin - Micah 5:2 the Messiah Christ will be born in Bethlehem - Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah Christ is called the Mighty God Everlasting Father - Isaiah 53 The Messiah Christ will be put to death for our sins and His days will be prolonged (resurrected).
Jesus in the Gospels said in His name to cast out Devils. In the temptation in the wilderness Jesus rebuked Satan, and again when Satan tried to rebuke Christ through Peter Jesus said "Get thee behind me Satan" and then in the temptation in the wilderness He said in Matthew 4 “is it not written, tempt not the Lord your God” a personal claim, claiming the name of the Lord God.
Furthermore, we also see Jesus forgiving sins of people (the cripple man, the woman caught in adultery, Mary who washed His feet with tears), Jesus accepting worship of individuals (the wise men at His birth, the mother of the sons of Zebedee, the blind man, lepers, Thomas, and the disciples after the resurrection), and in John 10:18 Jesus says He has power to lay down His life and raise Himself from the dead (personal power over life and death), and in John 10:27-28 Jesus says that He personally gives eternal life, and in John 4:26 Jesus claims to be the Christ Messiah prophesied of (Isaiah 9:6 called the Mighty God, Everlasting Father), and also in John 8 stating that He is the "I Am" multiple times (I Am in Greek is "ego eimi" meaning the Always Existing One) and the Pharisees tried to stone Him for blasphemy. An angel, prophet, or holy man couldn’t do that.
Jesus flat out explained in John 8:24&58 that He is the "I am", He says this twice, and the Pharisees knew this and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. It's not blasphemous to call yourself an angel or a prophet or a holy man, it's blasphemous to call yourself God. Jesus says, if you don't believe that He is the I Am, you will die in your sins (verse 24) - thus, if you don't believe that Jesus is the Almighty in the flesh, you are not saved. It is belief on His name that saves you - Acts 10:43, Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 1:7&13…..etc.
Matthew 28:9) "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."
Additionally the Word of God says -
Psalm 107:21-32 God calms the storm
Matthew 8:23-27
Mark 4:36-41
Luke 8:22-25
Disciples in a boat
stormy winds & waves
Disciples are afraid
They cry out to Jesus
God calms the storm
There was a "great calm”
Jesus didn't ask God to calm the storm, but ordered it Himself, proving who He is.
Psalms 23:1) "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."
Lord is capitalized in this passage, and in the Hebrew this is stating that “Jehovah God” is the shepherd.
Jesus Christ says in John that He is the door of the sheep and He is the Good Shepherd, stating that He specifically is the Shepherd of David’s Psalm -
John 10:11) “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”
John 10:14) “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
Thus Christ Jesus is saying that He is the Lord God of Israel, the mighty Shepherd.
Ephesians 3:9) "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"
John 1:1-3) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Hebrews 1:2) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
Hebrews 11:3) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Colossians 1:16) "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Christ Jesus is above all others -
Philippians 2:10-11) "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Romans 14:11) "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Isaiah 45:22-23) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."
The Word made Flesh-
John 1:1-2) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:14) "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Additional passages -
2 Corinthians 5:19) “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
John 8:24) “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” - - John 8:58) "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." - - ("I am" in the Greek is "ego eimi" meaning Always Existing, the everlasting to everlasting one)
John 10:25-30) "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." -- (1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.)
If Christ is not God, how can He grant eternal life to His followers?
Isaiah 9:6) "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." - - Micah 5:2) “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” - - (Everlasting in Hebrew means Always Existing - similar to using Jehovah, I Am, or Yahweh - Jesus calls Himself the I Am in John 8)
Acts 20:28) "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." - - (literally just said right there that God purchased the church with His own blood)
Colossians 2:8-9) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." - - (the entire fullness, Jehovah God is in the body of Jesus. Thus why Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father, the Father in me and I in Him, and also to His disciples receive ye my Spirit and He breathed on them the Holy Spirit.)
Further Proof -
Matthew 28:9) "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him."
Jesus invites His disciples to come worship Him - He says "all hail" referring to Himself
John 20:28-29) "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
1 Timothy 3:16) “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
1 Timothy 4:10) "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
1 John 5:20) "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!
Jesus said - Mark 1:15) “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Ephesians 2:8-9) “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
People can believe anything once they have decided to believe it. There is no point in using logic against beliefs that were never founded in logic.
John Lennox is respected by Hitchens, can see it in this debate. Brilliant minds!!
mutual respect is present.
Hitchens was any thing but ignorant, he's just pouring water on 'miracles',....the virgin birth fallacy...eg
Are you talking about elsewhere in the debate but not in this clip because Christopher Hitchens was one of most arrogant God haters on this planet, he couldn't even look at John Lennox which he proved Christopher Hitchens was not just 100% wrong but he was lying on comparing what he said with the very words of God the bible. 😮
@@jamesmcallister9645 How could Hitchens possibly be a 'god hater'?, he didn't believe that any god/s exist! Hitchens was never arrogant, just intellectually elloquent and would never stand for biblical bullshit and mythology, or even more blather from Lennox. How do you know god said anything?,....you don't, and there is nothing outside your repugnant book that says there is a biblical god, unless of course you refer to Poseidon, Thor, Mars, Jupiter etc ad infinitum. You need to produce compelling evidence for any god/s that exist without spouting bible verses and preaching that is. If your god doesn't exist then christianity falls on its bare arse, and you need to defend material facts with reality and without magic and the supernarural.Come on, lets have some proof, see how amusing you can be.
@@timothywilliams4089 Well said mate.
*Our God indeed is a covenant keeping God. Has he said a thing and not perform it? I watch how things unfold in my life, from penury to $356,000 every three months and I can only praise him and trust him more. Hallelujah 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻*
Hello how do you make such monthly??
I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down🤦🏼of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God🙏.
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Ms Susan Jane Christy
She's a licensed broker here in the states🇺🇸 finance advisor.
After I raised up to 525k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸and also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of TH-cam videos about it but I still find it hard to understand.
The gospels were obviously written to coincide with the Old Testament prophecies. No one disputes that except fundamentalists.
Hi torrey. Did you consider that the Old Testament prophesies were also deliberately written so that future kings/lords/ people movers could hang their credentials upon them? Like "passing the baton on to the next generation". Kings needed to sway masses of people, the bible is the psychology to enable it. Cheers, P.R.
All those prophecies fulfilled were not orchestrated. Psalms foretold of “they pierce my hands and my feet”. I suppose orchestrated they or chesteates that too?
@@jaywinters2483 No prophecies were fulfilled. It’s your dogmatic interpretation of events.
So how did the early Christians pre-plan and orchestrate Christs virgin birth, to two people in the line of King David, in Bethlehem, to hide in Egypt, that there would be a voice in desert making way for the Lord (John the Baptist), that he would be rejected by his people, they he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that Judas would die in the Potters field, that He would enter Jerusalem by colt, that He’d be turned over to the gentiles, that they would kill him by crucifixion (an execution method not yet invented at the time of Psalm 22, that the soldiers would divide his garments, that He would rise from the dead. Those are only a few of at least 300 prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. To orchestrate a man’s entire life to fulfill that many prophesies is statistically impossible. If God has drawn you to believe and given you ears to hear, you will see and understand the truth of who Christ is. Just pray God opens your eyes.
@@scase1023 Simple. None of that is reality. None of that is historical. It's a story. You need to reign in it bro and get back to reality.
Almighty God has clarified all this, with his last revelation for human kind. The matter of Jesus is like the matter of Adam(peace be upon them).
Yes, in the Bible.
I don't care if you believe in Jesus, just don't try to convince me with lies
‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (John 8:56-59).
“I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring-that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14.
God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit. Three in One.
Should be I was.
Not 'I am' it's 'I have been'. in the Greek. Jesus is Gods Son That's all He ever said. The Trinity is devious fabrication.
@@howarddavies8937 THE ONE who WAS THE ONE who IS, and THE ONE THAT WILL BE.
Got one more for you: HE IS RISEN.
@@budthebuskerNo wrong there.He is eternally God the son,trinity.
1+1+0=2 Not 1.
There are many people who admire Mr. Hitchens. He was an imposing figure, but he was simply eloquently ignorant.
Exactly! The gospel is foolishness unto those who do not believe.
@@Goldman-m4oyes that is a main reason we don't believe.
@@seansanders2150it is because of pride.
@@JV-jq4dt no, it's because it doesn't make sense.
His carefully cultivated upper middle class English accent would carry him a long way in the US - which is presumably why he emigrated there. That said he was extremely well-read, a superb polemicist and often very entertaining - he was just not (nor to be fair did he claim to be) infallible, as some of his disciples would have you believe.
People want to believe they don’t need a savior because they are basically good and only bad when shaped so by circumstance and social influence. Disciples of Jesus realize we all are born with a sinful and selfish nature and that to be anything more we must have our Creator living within us to change our hearts and minds and enable us to live and love unselfishly.
The problem is that the world views Christian Religion as the same as being a disciple of Jesus when nothing could be further from the truth! Faith and life in Christ is found in the individual temple of the Holy Spirit. Not in Catholicism or Protestant church buildings or in the multitudes of cults formed by adding books and texts to the Bible based on “visions” and picking out certain scriptures.
Ppl became followers of Jesus for hundreds of years before bibles were printed or formal churches were ever established! They met in homes or caves and were willing to die or give up everything in life for Him! Why? Was it because they confessed their sins to a man or sat on a church bench and listened to messages about Him, rubbed beads or burned candles or went to bible studies?! No! Many believers in this world today have no availability of bibles or church buildings at all, and yet, remain faithful through trials and tribulations. That’s because the Living Christ is living inside them.
The bible is great. I’ve put a lot to memory. Church attendance can be beneficial but actually “where two or more are gathered He is in the midst”! And right now many are being led astray by watery, misleading messages, meaningless rituals or narcissistic ideologies of what it actually means to be a real Christian. The Bible should be read and studied by the individual, not just spoon fed to us by a preacher or teacher.
The true Christian abides in constant communication with the Lord through specific times of prayer (prayer is not a mystical event - its just opening up and talking to God or sitting or kneeling in silence sometimes) but more than that, always, constantly, consistently considering Christ and allowing everything l see and hear to be filtered through His love and His Presence. His ways become my ways and His way of thinking becomes my way of thinking. I still fail sometimes. I still sin, repent, change and grow stronger spiritually.
Christianity in its true form is a personal relationship so wonderful that if you are all alone somewhere with no church, no bible, no other believers, in bad circumstances or good ones, all is well in your soul because He is there!
Religions kill people, restrain people by laws, rules, regulations and actions made up by other ppl. True believers and disciples of Jesus live well and do good deeds because of the love of God working within. We do things and behave in a godly manner because He enables us to. Therefore, we should desire to receive no credit for bearing the fruits of the Spirit, just simply produce them.
Without faith, it is impossible to believe in Him, to truly know Him, but the bible says He has given to every person a measure of faith, a seed for everyone. And all those who will use that God- given seed can know their Creator and be content and peaceful.
Many phenomenally intelligent ppl are followers of Christ so you don’t have to “check your brain at the door” and once He is living in you by your invitation, the answers to all your questions will present themselves incrementally, which is all we can handle because God Himself and His ways are infinitely mind-blowing!
All He asks, is that you put your faith and trust in Him. He has done the work of making relationship with Him possible and able to perform what He desires to do in you until the day you leave this world, then the real wonders begin!
This current world is just a place to say yes to Him and in eternity, nothing else will matter.
HALLELUJAH!!!! How Wonderful!!!
How Marvellous!!
AMEN & AMEN!!! ☝🏽👑✝️🧎🏼♀️❤️🔥🙌🏽🕊️🆓💞🆕🫶🏽🥰
Allow me to rephrase that for you: "Please Jesus, don't let me die. I'm too special to die. Spare me the inevitable fate of every living organism".
@@donthesitatebegin9283 you aren’t rephrasing anything l said. It is appointed to everyone to die and after that, the judgment. The question is, will u face the judgement aa a follower of Christ and enter heaven or will you go out alone and be lost forever. Thats your choice. I hope you make the right one.
Or, just maybe, we don't accept that the universe gives a rusty fart about whether human beings are 'good' or 'bad' when they die?
@@jsmall10671 On that you are absolutely correct. The universe is part of creation and therefore cannot care. But there is One Who does care, the One Who created the universe and all beings, human, animal, and angelic, therefore you have the capacity to care bc you are created in His image but we must choose to care, since He gives us free will. You have apparently chosen to believe in rusty farts, so, enjoy!
People from the Bronze age.
As though this means they are ignorant.
I would like to know if Hitchens can cast Bronze? much less find copper or tin.
Produce a wheel strong enough to do service on a cart.
Cut and transport rock of large dimensions.
Build a boat
Have food through the winter, without modern storage methods.
And then we must consider the time we are talking about is 1,200 years after the Bronze age
The time of Jesus is called the _Iron age_
This was hardly a defeat for Hitchens. He was referencing several historical texts to back his easily verifiable claim that the Bible was ret-conned, while his opponent just quoted the Bible. The Vatican itself has already said as much on numerous occasions. It's the definition of circular logic. Moreover, if it was such an obvious victory, as you falsely claim it to be, then why did you have to interject? The clip should've been able to stand on its own merits. This was a fail.
Well said.
LOL please list these texts not listed anywhere in the video
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Hitchens gets "destroyed." Hitchens presents his arguments based on facts. Lennox presents his arguments based on speculation and opinion. It is very apparent who destroyed who.
It doesn't need a Christian to destroy an atheist. Just let the atheist speak. That's what I normally do.
@@N0nPluzUltra
It's difficult to take these words seriously when they come from someone that thinks our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible God called Yahweh 🤭
@@trumpbellend6717 Except atheists believe in speaking, "evolved" primates, which magically transformed from mud soup over billions of years. And all that started from an imaginary process called "abiogenesis".
I admire your faith, but I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. Also do I not believe in magic without a magician, the same way I do not believe in basketball games without basketball players.
But that's what atheists are left with.
Thx for your comment and GOD bless you!
@@N0nPluzUltra
Lol first thing, atheism itself is not a world view, we agree on one issue and one issue alone. That insufficient evidence has been provided to justify belief in a god, that's it. We have different positions with regard to most else, politics, race, sexual equality, evolution, morality almost everything. So I find it strange you feel can judge atheism with a sweeping all encompassing generalization.
Of course *"I"* that is to say me personaly have a WORLD VIEW, atheism however does not as I said it has views on one single isolated issue. There are many people who have a non belief in pink unicorns, yet no one would ask them what the Apinkunicornist worldview was with respect to the Ukraine situation dear 😂🤣🤣
@@N0nPluzUltra
// "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" //
Can I point out that you think "faith" is a good thing don't you ? 😜 you believe "faith to be a reliable method of ascertaining truth. Yet you want to conflate it with atheism and imply that its bad hmm 🤔🤔🤔
You see what you are really doing is engagingly in the "tu quoque fallacy " ( or hypocrisy fallacy ) which typically deflects criticism away from yourself or your position by accusing others of the same problem or something comparable It's almost as you understand just how absurd it is to believe anything by faith, so you think if you can somehow saddle atheism with the same pathetic reasoning, it would make yours seem less pathetic ( it doesnt )
Your "faith" is no more reliable or valid than the faith used by followers of Zeus, Thor, Allah, Buddah, Mithrah, Dionysius or any one of a thousand other man made "Gods". Obviously if "faith" can be used to believe in God *X* and also used to believe in God *Y* then faith is NOT a reliable pathway to truth.
_"where there is evidence no one speaks of "faith" - we do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round_ _We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence"_
- *Bertrand Russell*
Watched it three times. Was the part where Hitchens gets destroyed edited out? 🤔
He called them superstitious and Lennox debunked that.
Maybe you should unmute the sound?
@@Warriorking.1963 So you think you are being clever with that idiotic remark. So I ask again - show me the part where he is being destroyed? You god mongers have a real talent for avoiding a straight answer to a question that debunks your religious hysteria.
@@3122-t6h Typical atheist, triggered by a joke.
However, joking set to one side, try unmuting the sound.
@@Warriorking.1963 Well if there was supposed to be sarcasm in that statement it certainly wasn't apparent. Furthermore, I'm not interested in a battle of wits an unarmed man (it's not very sportsmanlike) so I'll just hand you your hat at this point - you are dismissed!
It is worth noting that there are many prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus that the gospel writers didn’t pick up on, but that we, with the benefit of hindsight, can see for ourselves.
And there were many that he didn't fulfill
@@jsmall10671 You would have to be specific I think.
Hi Greg. I'm a scientific Theist who's carefully read the bible. Isaiah prophesied there would be no violence or deceit in the messiah. (Is 53:9). However Jesus made a scourge WITH HIS OWN HANDS and used it to drive animals out of the temple and terrify the money-changers (John 2:15). Making a whip is an act of violence, as is using it.
The "no deceit" claim was not met by Jesus either, because when asked why he spoke in parables, he replied "in order that some people may not ---understand and be healed and saved." (Matt 13:13), (Mk 4:10-12). Speaking in a way that deliberately withholds truth is deception. According to Jesus "the Devil is the father of all lies" (John 8:44). I'd be interested to read your responses to these points. Cheers, P.R.
@@philliprobinson7724 If someone makes a gun, a bat, or a hangs man noose is that violence? I would say no, but those objects could be used to inflict bodily harm to someone. The text states that Jesus made a whip and drove all from the temple court and scattered the coins of the money changers. The text doesn't say that Jesus used the whip to strike any animal or person so being scared of something or someone doesn't mean that they used violence towards you. The use of parables by Jesus was not in my opinion not deceitful. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in Mark 13:14-15 and verse 15 tells us why they wouldn't understand, because they had calloused hearts.
@@philliprobinson7724 Regarding Isaiah 53, the Hebrew word translated 'violence' in the KJB may also simply mean 'wrong.' But even if we insist on 'violence' as the English translation, is there any evidence that he acted in such a way so as to inflict violence on anyone? It is worth noting that he ‘MADE a whip of ropes’, suggesting his emotions were not out of control as in when one loses their temper. Additionally, the verb used to describe his action directed against the money changers is ekballo in Greek which has the idea of driving out, sending or chasing out. There is nothing here that suggests violence in the sense the word would be understood by people living in the first century or necessarily today for that matter.
Additionally, I’m not sure that his speaking in parables was tantamount to ‘speaking in such a way so as to withhold information’ and that that necessarily ‘is deception’ as you assert. Jesus’ method was simply to speak in such a way (at least on this occasion), that drew out those who really wanted to know the meaning of his teachings as opposed to simply following him for a free meal so to speak. Speaking in parables exposed the motives of those who were following him. I don’t see any necessity to interpret this as deception.
Educated sensible human beings? We are so unwise, schooled by earthly education systems and we think we are intelligent. We haven’t even touched the surface.
Oh my goodness pass the baskets. God needs cash
It's refreshing to listen to Mr. Lennox. He is so knowledgeable and remains so calm in his responses. We could certainly use more men like him. Thank you, Mr. Lennox
Frank Turek, and Jordan Peterson have both made references to Lennox!
You are focusing smug and self righteous with calm!
Focusing? @@3122-t6h
@@piijay14that is not a good thing for lennox...
@@matswessling6600 What do ya mean?
My own life 70 years of it will be talked about by family and acquaintances - - I can be certain of different recollections amongst them - - just imagine what was said and how reported from mouth to mouth 1000s of years ago
Except that the eyewitnesses wrote down what they saw and heard, and we have found papyri from very close to the time they were written down that show that the full bibles we have today have practically no difference(only a few things that dont change the meaning of the text)
Its not like a game of telephone at all.
@@knutolavbjrgaas1069 the earliest fragment of the NT is the P52 Papyrus I believe. This is dated to around 125-175AD. So you're getting close to 100 years after the death of Jesus. This is a fragment of John which was written around 90-100AD. So that's at best about 55+ years after Jesus died. Assuming any eyewitness were about 20 years old when they saw Jesus perform any miracles they'd be about 75 when John was written. This was extremely rare for the time so the chances of there being any actual eyewitnesses still alive was very slim.
God is always sending a better apologist than the agent of the dark side.
@@ikawpipa Which god? There are thousands of them and each has different things that require apology.
I don’t see any destruction going on.
discussing the nuances of a fairy tale.... why would hitchens even waste his time on such fantasy?
Miss Christopher Hitchens’s brutal truth. Bronze Age superstition.
Show the total debate.
go watch the whole thing "Is God great?" debate.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
@@AtamMardes The question now is : "who is fooled and who is not ?", try giving me proof that one side is fool and the other is not
@@sg.captain-kun6409
If you believe the fictions and myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth then you're fooled.
@@AtamMardes hahaha bro , you're too simple minded
How can you know it's only fiction and myths ? Can you prove that ?
From thousands years, before you were even born, these religions existed already
You can't even trace when religion started..
When someone believes that science is the only valid way to look at reality, then that person becomes religious, and reduces science to a religion.
the irony of using a tool made possible by science to then mock it
Truth: No one's favorite brand of a god has ever been proven to exist.
Truth: you still can’t disprove him
@@juniore.bazaldua4682 there’s nothing to disprove
@@juniore.bazaldua4682 We cannot prove the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus are not real either............... There have been over 2500 religions, with all their gods, since man has existed and you would not expect us to believe that the gods of 2499 religions are real........but your one god, just yours, is real.
@@winnie796well, truth is inherently discriminatory. 1+1=2 and only 2, not any of the infinite other numbers. So if one God is true, it would necessitate every other be false. They can’t all be true, especially considering the contradictory nature of various religions.
@@dansilberstein326 There is ZERO evidence that ANY god exists, let alone be the one true one.
Of course the truth is discriminatory because it does not recognise falsehoods. That is why it is called the truth. Truth is based on evidence, not feelings or "beliefs".
Also, what infinite numbers can replace 2 as the answer to 1+1?
Lennox doesn’t know anything. He has faith and that’s fine but he doesn’t know 100% if there is a god. He cannot provide any evidence for god. Why does any fool believe something that can’t be proven. What an awful way to live your life! You’re welcome to it 😂
Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe, baby, you don't know ...
Oh really? Hitchen gets owned? That's funny 😂😂😂😂😂 yer hallucinating man.....
Lingo
And you're obviously not smart enough to understand Lennox's response.
@@miketatreau2347 A lot of what Lennox says here is wrong. Jesus' claims of his own divinity as well as his fulfilling of prophecies are later renegotiations with the text. Reinterpretations, based on reinterpretations within translations.
For a specific example about one of the bible-segments shown in this video, I'd recommend Dan McClellan's "Did Jesus claim to be God in John 8:58?". He is a great, well respected bible scholar that explains things quite nicely.
Where did they get the names ,Peter ,John ,etc
I bet till this day Hitchens doesn't know the answer that the chicken came before the egg !
Theres a reason this is 5 minutes long, Hitchens mops the floor with Lennox and his whimsical theology.
I'm trying to work out how anyone could regard this as anything other than Lennox being utterly humiliated. As I can't recall the event being seen any other way.
Those who long for "heaven" will find a way to twist anything.
Are you trying?
Or are you just saying the words?
I assume the latter.
Admitting you are poor at logic is one thing.
Demonstrating your unwillingness to think in different modes of thought is something else.
@@joesouthborn2960 Which really stands as your projection.
How is rejecting a way of thought I was indoctrinated into as a child... An 'unwillingness to think in different modes of thought'... Since logically it's exactly the opposite.
@@DJTheTrainmanWalker ... it sounds like the trauma has prevented you accessing the mode of thinking.
Since you have brought it up, would you care to elaborate what you went through here?
Or have you sought help (professional or otherwise) to free you of the burden of such difficult memories?
You deserve better than begrudging the wrongs of the past.
@@joesouthborn2960 Not evidently Rather the reverse I found something a lot better. Its called truth.
Why would I want to be freed of difficult memories? Why would you imagine them a burden?
If we don't begrudge the wrongs of the past why would we strive to be better?
You seem to offer a very barrren and unfulfilling existence.
Hitchens did not get 'destroyed' by John Lennox. Lennox is just like all Christians. He keeps on his blinkers and doesn't listen to anyone who refuses to believe in the big book of fairy stories...the Bible I think it's called.
A bit like hitchens then .
@@michaelmarshall9132 No. Hitchens knows what's written in the Bible, considers it, then dismisses it as the nonsense it is.
@@paulhagen5645 I read a book once about Astro physics , considered it then dismissed it for the nonsense it was .
@@michaelmarshall9132 Why don't you just say it? Your a Christian!
@@michaelmarshall9132 So your a Christian then?
Fl 2:5,6 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. Jesus never considered the idea to be God!
RIP Hitchens!!!
I dont know how much he is resting.
In a "holding place" currently till he is cast into the lake of fire for eternity.
@@alwinengelbrecht3012 „For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.“
Malachi 4:1
I don’t remember stubble to burn for eternity. It is consumed quickly. It ceases to to exist and it will never exist again for all eternity.
@@Kalle0490Nothing is impossible with God. 😮
@@jamesmcallister9645 if I understand correctly you think that God takes delight in torturing people forever? And you wonder why so many people don’t like God?
Lennox didn’t have a leg to stand on.
I thought he did a fine job of correcting Hitchens.
@@ianalan4367In truth, he just said what you want to hear.
Hitchens was an absolute god- period! all other arguing over a fake belief are in denial, 276 current religions and only 1 can be right so most of you are wrong. forget faith and just love your fellow earth companions no reasonable god will ever punish you for living a happy peaceful life.
Hitchins got destroyed!!1!
Nice story bro....
If God doesn't exist, then debunk Gen 3:15 coming true to the very literate sense ..
Are you asserting this 'God' is a reality?
@TheoSkeptomai are you saying you can explain explicitly what's happened in my life, why it happened, and what will happen to me and billions of Christians before and after me? After all you're doubting God is real, right?
@mikerotch2572 Do you always dodge straightforward questions by asking irrelevant ones of your own?
@TheoSkeptomai ok. Your question was subjective, but I'll answer. Yes. God is reality. If He isn't, then answer my question.
@@TheoSkeptomai ??
Although I am a theist and believe the testimony of Jesus Christ, I have to agree with Hitchens. If one reads the Bible without the bias of any religion dogma, you do not get the impression that Jesus claimed to be literally the same being as his father God. When Jesus asked Peter, who does he say he is, Peter answered thou Art Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said blessed art thou Peter for man did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven. Certainly God did not lie to Peter. If that isn’t straightforward enough for you, I don’t know what is.
Many claim that this is tantamount to denying the divinity of Jesus. How does being the only begotten son of God make you not divine?
Ehrman explains pretty well why Jesus never claimed to be god.
@@jsmall10671 When the source himself confirms he is the Son of God, as opposed to God (his Father), I would assume he says it because it is factually true. I’m not well read enough on Ehrman to know his take offhand.
@@OtterFlys Why argue about the intentions of characters in a made- up story?
Every Jew at the time understood completely that Jesus was claiming to be God in the flesh when He said “before Abraham was I AM”
@@dalspartan The one fact does not prove the other. Just because God begot his Son long before the heavens and Earth (and Abraham) existed does not prove that they were the same being.
Hitchens was hardly destroyed. The opposite is true. Lennox has added very little to the theistic debate.
Matthew 12:8: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day"
@@joshuareaves2684 Uncle Ben, Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility".
My quote holds equal relevance to yours, but I don't need to believe in an invisible authoritarian in the sky or wear a symbol of Roman capital punishment around my neck or adorned on my wall at home in order to understand and apply ethics to my life.
Hitchens destroyed himself. Strawmen galore. False equivalences. Ignoring evidence.
Shrug
He kind of destroyed himself saying that Jesus never claimed to be God.
@@joebloe3146I was once like you. I grew up in a good Catholic family but left my faith when I moved on to university. I felt exactly the same as you.... you don't need religion to have ethics and be a good person. I learned over the course of my life that it's a lot more than just ethics & rules for life. I'm willing to discuss if your interested.... needless to say I experienced some extraordinary things and witnessed some stuff which by the grace of God helped me to steer back on course.
Lennox proofs are bible verses. Proving nonsense with nonsense.
Could you prove your claim of the bible being nonsense? No, you can't, as it is historically accurate. So, then, how would you try to prove, if a text would be nonsense without the text and without looking, if the text is consistent in itself?! Otherwise it would be you, who obviously may be speaking nonsense?
@@kletterfreak814 i can not proof somebody elses fantasy.
@@ta3p-theannex3project84 what makes reductionist materialism less fantasy than theism???
@@kletterfreak814 you cant disprove or prove a fantasy.
@@ugochanneltv5600 science.
Hitchens also misuses the word Messiah. It doesn’t mean son of God it means anointed one. Ergo to the Jews Messiah means “King of the Jews.” The word “Christ” isn’t Jesus’s last name it’s a modern pronunciation of the Greek word for Messiah, translated from Ancient Hebrew. Therefore when someone says “Jesus Christ” they’re not saying Jesus son of God they’re saying “Jesus who is the Messiah (King of the Jews)”. You’d think Hitchens would have gotten that bit correct.
Never.
Paul never mentioned anything about a virgin birth. It is unnecessary to suggest a physical bonding between God the Father and Mary. Ihave met Catholics who maintain that Mary died virgin, even though she gave birth to other children following the birth of Jesus. Very odd.
Yes, the Roman Catholic theology on Mary is very odd. But I don't even understand what you are trying to argue here about Paul. He didn't mention anything about quantum physics or the function of Mitochondria, does that make them false?
1] No one got destroyed
2] Jesus affirms their accusation, but does not say the words
3] Jesus' divinity [God in Human form] was based on a vote at the council of Nicaea, and the scriptures have been interpreted by this vote ever since
4] at 4:00 Lennox states that Jesus fulfilled established prophecy, which is easy to do when it is corrected after the fact, decades after the supposed events. None of the New Testament books are eye-witness accounts
Language is important. Ask any lawyer.
This is why the religious [nor the non-believers] should not debate. If you can prove God, faith is not required. Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.
If you ask me a yes or no question, and I say 'Thou hast said', that means yes because it means the answer is in the question, which is positive and not negative.
When you get your theology from Dan Brown LOL. Here's what the Council of Nicea was about: The Arian heresy, whether the Father alone was eternal, and that the Son was created or begotten by the Father, and thus had a defined point of origin and was subordinate to the Father. Arius at no point questioned the divinity of Christ, and the council at no point voted on whether or not Jesus was divine.
I mean, the people at the Council of Nicea kept minutes and wrote extensively about what the council was about, its not hard to find and read about. I do not understand why people keep inventing crap about that council.
Question is how did the gospel writers know all that they have written? Were they witness to events? How do you define salvation and give evidence of Jesus saves....
Matthew and John are both eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus, Mark and Luke are both close associate's of the Apostles mentioned in the book of Acts. The book of Luke is the historical one, where Luke, a doctor, decides to make historical researches to explain the Gospel to his fine.
Good question about salvation, using my poor understanding, I'd say, salvation is "being saved from the inevitable death", as we're all sinners and that sins lead to death, Jesus brings salvation at the cross so that whoever believes shall not perish (in hell) but have eternal life (with God).
You don't have direct evidence of Jesus being able to save, it's about faith. Faith in the promises of God. The evidence you should seek is : does God exist ? if yes which one is the true God ? if this God is true, what did He say ? If He said that, I should believe (or not if I don't want to, that's up to you as you're responsible for your own choice)
@@sg.captain-kun6409 u mean to say these apostles were there when Jesus was born? No wonder they differ. Faith doesn't win election nor a race, it's capability. Yes, ur last para was ok, it's one's choice. I don't accept this with out evidence.
@@bigmac4417 they knew Jesus' mom so that's why they know about his birth
They differ because they write using a different point of view and purpose, it's like looking at an image frow two sides, it's the same image but seen with different perspective, not hard to understand that
Would you even accept it if there were evidence ? I mean, I suppose you don't reject all the history from the ancient time right ? Did u check the truthfulness of all the history ?
What strikes me is having a passionate atheist saying that the gospel is basically made up to fit a prophecy, but strictly speaking, the "prophecy" would be equally invalid to an atheist, equally made up to serve any other purpose. If they're both nonsense, why consider any of those to invalidate the other?
One can show that Superman has specific powers according to the texts without actually believing he's real.
@@jsmall10671 We can pretend this is any sort of an argument, if that makes you feel safe and comfortable. Perhaps you may want to behave like a rational human being instead, so we can have a real conversation.
2000 year old jewish folk tales prove nothing. Hitching always came out on top in😮 these ridiculous debates.
So you deny a completely historically accurate text about the life of Jesus - the most well-known historical figure of all time (most historians acknowledge that he existed). Not only do you not believe in the divinity of Jesus, you deny basic historical facts. This is completely ironic because you think Christians are ignorant when you obviously haven't done any homework.
Furthermore, dismissive labels like 'folktales' don't change the fact that these texts have transformed civilizations, inspired justice movements, and shaped moral frameworks for billions. The real question is, why do these 'stories' persist in their power and influence after 2,000 years?
John Lenox argues with ‘texts’ from the bible. This falls down straight away. Toddler mentality ..
WHY ??
@@gerardjames8123 Because he believes in the "grown-up" equivalent of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the rest of a child's fantasy world, that's WHY.
@@gerardjames8123 because it’s not factual and it’s not evidence. That’s not ammunition.
FAITH AND LOVE ARE EVERYTHING !.............BUT I ASK, AND HE GIVES, AND I LAUGH WITH HIM AND I KNOW I AM BLESSED. GOD IS GREAT, BUT FOR ME JUST AS A FATHER WHO GIVES EVERYTHIG WHEN I ASK !!
@@gerardjames8123 Definition of faith: "a strong belief in something even though there is no evidence to support that belief." Which, coincidently, is the same definition for delusion.
“Destroyed”?? Hardly. Lennox was a good debater, but he never got near Hitchens. No one did.
It sounds to me like Hitchens destroys Lennox again.
Listen again.
Hitchens never looked into archeology l bet !
Nicely edited to make Lennox look like he won the debate.
even with this edit he did not win.
Since Hitchens has died since this debate, there are no unbelievers after death. There are no atheists in foxholes. It isn't about losing or winning, but truth.
lol. they had a fair exchange, i would say.
I have watched many of Hitchen's debates in their entirety and he made a career out of misquoting the Bible as he did here. I think almost all debates come down to this: We look for points that back the side we believe. You and I could watch this debate in its entirety and you would probably think Hitchens won and I would probably think that Lennox won.
@@robotx6259 Lennox, and everyone who truly studies the Bible, knows that much of what Hitchens was saying here can be proven to be untrue according to the scriptures. It is one thing when Hitchens philosophized about God, Jesus and the Bible but to tell us what the Bible says or doesn't say can be disproven. I thought he was smarter than that.
"If your wife is pregnant and you know it's not yours, it must be the holy spirit?" - Christopher Hitchens
The debate that I saw between these two, Lennox was clinging on to dear life
Jesus is Lord. Hitchens found this out when he died…..
@@danielvargas9100 Did the magical Sky-Daddy punish the naughty man for daring to doubt your omniscience?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 if Hitchens didn’t change his career of trying to deceive humans with Il his lame arguments before he died, then yeah, he’s being punished.
@@danielvargas9100 Hilarious!
Were you tumescent when you wrote that magical-thinking sadistic revenge-fantasy!?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 the order of nature/creation shows God’s workmanship. The nation of Israel shows which God is the true God. Happy Tuesday 😎
So, the enemies of the Jews and Jesus Christ, the Romans, also must have worked together to fulfill the prophecies about how Jesus would be cruelly treated, the timing of his death, the way he would die, what they would do to him whilst he was dead? A very cooperative bunch these Romans must have been 🙄
I can only hope that Hitchens in his last breath called out to Jesus.
Otherwise, he has found out the truth and the most painful, terrible and unending way possible
Magical-thinking and sadistic revenge-fantasies. Your torturing Sky-God must be proud of you.
Hitchens doesn't understand that his place in hell is WORSE than for others destined for hell because he is PREACHING blasphemy and trying to recruit people AWAY from God
LOL, and you don't understand that he doesn't accept hell exists. Are you worried about the hel of the Norse religion? Do you understand that you're going to the worst part of it? Do you care? Yeah, that's how Hitch feels about your hell.
@@jsmall10671 Yes, I do know so you could have saved yourself from being a condescending prick, but I suspect it is too ingrained.
@@Syrin23You are upset but still didn't acknowledge the point, Hitchens isn't bothered about your ideas about Hell just as you don't care about non Christian Hells. The point is salient.
@@TurinTuramber And so is my point. Read every single word of my original post. Show me ANY point in it where I said it mattered what Hitchens believes. I literally said he doesn't understand, much like you don't. Meanwhile, you were and still are a condescending prick, preaching for the sake of preaching due to poor reading comprehension.
I listen to the whole of this debate, and for anybody to claim Lennox ''destroyed' Hitchens would be an absurd inversion of events.
Lol
The audience polled at end of debate found for Lennox, the second time they debated and same result. The cognitive dissonance of you wretches make us pray for you ever more
Lennox was not trying to destroy Hitchins, he was just speaking the truth calmly; whereas Hitchins' sole goal was to try to destroy Lennox. Hitchins took the worship of nothing/atheism to an extreme level. He worshipped nothing, devoutly. A convert in the arrogance of youth and was still a student politician in much later death.
@@vertugallery7099 Lennox was doing what he does. Other commentators claimed Lennox was 'destroying' Hitchens. As a well-mannered, highly intelligent man, Lennox wouldn't make such a claim.
My friend Lennox only spoke what he ''believed'' to be the truth.
Take notice of the word 'believed'.
Atheists do not 'worship' anything or anybody'.We feel no need to 'worship' anything,certainly not something for which there is not a jot of evidence that would stand the test of even a courtroom.
As Hulme said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is none. Unless you have something new.
All of it is myth and legend. Every religion is a Con to keep the citizenry under control.
The Bible was written four hundred years after the supposed events in Jerusalem. It was a political document that was amended many times to suit the needs of the failing Roman Empire. It was also translated many times,each time losing something and gaining the biases of the translator.
We merely say there is no evidence to prove the existence of any God. If you consider this extreme, that's your choice. What would un-extreme atheism look like?
Hitchens was never a politician. He commented on current affairs, including politics, often making politicians look foolish for their hypocrisies. He had a matchless intellect within his generation and was able to put his views across with brilliance through his humanity and wit.
This does not diminish Lennox, who is also brilliant in his field. Like many men from northern Ireland, he is a victim of his extremely religious upbringing in that country's traditions.
Cheers
Human sacrifice is evil. PERIOD
You don’t make the rules you little human….
Evil does not exist if there is no god.
There would no good either.
If there is no god, then the clear implication is, there is nothing beyond the material.
When you have figured out the chemical composition that leads homo erectus concluding things to be either good/evil then go collect your Nobel Award.
So how about those who have fought wars so you can live in peace with internet now to write your comments?
Why?
"Human sacrifice is evil. PERIOD" On what possible objective standard are you basing that? Especially if you are an atheist.
Uh, no he didnt
Hitchins' ability to talk was enormous. But he overplayed his popularity towards the end with repeated appeals to the audience to clap him, and, rather ironically, damned them if they didn't.
Lennox did not only not destroy Hitchens, he didnt even answer to his claims. Its fascinating that one can come to a different conclusion here...
Hitchens said that the gospels are conveniently written to fit the prophecy and Lennox said its part of his proof for god that they do fit.
The reverence that the theists have for Lennox is astounding. It's just the same ol' bunk in a more elegant bow.
Hitchens claimed something absurd. He claimed that it looks suspicious for someone to note "hey look at how he fulfilled the scriptures, that's evidence he must be the promised one" There's nothing at all suspicious about that. It might be wrong, but its not suspicious to point to events and claim they have significance.
@@christophertaylor9100
i think his point was that its really easy to fulfill a prophecy thats known to everyone over decades. if everybody expects a virgin birth as stated by moses, the last thing you will do is having a witness for your birth that could tell. they call that self fulfilling prophecy. hence what i wrote; "gospels being conveniently written to fit said prophecy."
No. Lennox ignores the facts to make a cheap point yet again. Nothing "destroyed" here.
Hitchens has never been destroyed, especially by the like of lennox.
What do you mean by "the like of Lennox"?
I recommend Alex O'Connor (one of the most famous and intelligent atheists) criticizing Hitchens's sophistry. The borderline religious devotion to Saint Christopher Hitchens that Reddit atheists have is really weird. He was brilliant with a microphone and hilarious with quick quips, but deep thinker and talented debater? Not so much...
His soul is currently being destroyed in hell at the moment, unfortunately. Perhaps he repented at the end. I hope so.
@@brianhogan6458 Were you tumescent when you wrote that sadistic revenge-fantasy?
HansZarkovPhD - I agree Lennox didn’t destroy him. Lennox merely corrected him.
The truth is very important. We are allowed to find it,not just by faith but by evidence ,debate and experience.
Not destroyed. Lennox exposed his stupidity instead
When he said ... no that's not true?
hitchens points to the obvious clear problem of christianity, if christianity exists then why do jews still exist? jews are the arbiters of the truth of their religion and they were the proper arbiters to judge jesus yet do not recognize him as their messiah, these weren't some peasants or common folk, they were well aware of their own religion and its prophecies, if they never recognized jesus then the best bet is that he was not a messiah.
if you go to church you go to the priest about how to get a better understanding about god not someone else in the congregation, if the priest says it's not god then you would listen to the priest.
they are the authority on it.
How is it so inconceivable that a new movement arising from the old is rejected by members of the old movement? The only question is whether or not the new movement is true.
@@christophertaylor9100 well is islam true just because it came after christianity? is mormonism true? protestantism? just because the old reject the new doesn't mean it's more or less true, it's just a new movement with its own new goals.
drawing arbitrary assumptions in the sand that one is more true than the others is the work of a person who wants to believe it.
@@bobxbaker Where did I argue that what is new is true? I simply answered your question why Christianity exists along side Judaism, the actual question you asked.
@@christophertaylor9100 it was a rhetorical question that i answered by agreeing with hitchens position in the first place. that's why i assumed you disagreed with hitchens position to which i responded to that.
Hitchens was totally correct. Worthless words on so called sacred paper are useless. And quoting ad lib from those words is even less credible.
You are so stupid. 😂
The dude doesn't know anything about the Bible lol...even the Septuagint authors translated the word to Virgin instead of Young Maiden. Lennox is on a different plane of existence than stupid Hitchens
Read the prophecies of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the prophecy of Alexander the Great and his kingdom being divided into four made centuries before he existed. Read about the prophecy of Cyrus, by name. Isaiah 53 that Jesus had read through while still walking on Earth. Read Daniel 12:4 or 2nd Timothy Chapter 3 which describe life as it is now.
Respectfully, Mr. Hitchens died without God. Be open to the possibility of Jesus being God. He is the only way.
Good luck and God Bless.
@@CountCulture27 thanks for your wishes but I'll find my own way home.
Believe what you want to believe and do what you like. Nobody cares what you think. Certainly not me a Christian.
Come on…. he got totally Hitch slapped. Lennox is a bellend
Science or no science there are no convincing a believer
Considering how often the bible was copied by hand over the centuries (pre-printing press), and the blatant editing or selective inclusion (or deletion) of the gospels, you can’t really use it as a reference text. This is grasping at straws.
Both old and new testament copies have been found in recent times and they haven't changed so there's an end to your nonsense talk.😮
@@jamesmcallister9645 Prove it. Site your source
The Oxford Professor is singularly unconvincing!
When you renaunce your pride , and seek God with all your heart God can reveal himself to you in a way you will know 100% hes real , and you dont need any other person to convince you
If Lennox has all this evidence of God, what's stopping him from collecting his Nobel prize?
Because a noble prize comes from people and it really means nothing. I rather please God and remain unknown than to please people. Plus, the real prize comes after we leave our earthly body. There no excuse for those who choose to deny Christ, Zero excuse. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Obama got Noble prize for peace so what
@user-lb1ye1pv4q credible evidence like the “ big bang ” 😂😂😂😂
@user-lb1ye1pv4q The BB was never observed, never duplicated or proven.
You need more faith in your BB fairy tale that violates all your so called principles of science
@crazyprayingmantis5596 The scientific community that pats themselves on the back only give the Nobel to the best scientific liars who came up with the best theories that can't be proven
It is so easy to bullshit yourself into a celebrity today .Back then it was easier . 🤦🏻♂️
Class. Real class...
Jesus was a Messenger Prophet of God. Believing that he was a god or the son of god is PAGANISM.
Hitch won. Sorry, folks.
What Lennox says to Hitch is totally wrong
1) The term "Son of Man" is the same as being the Son of God? According to whom?
2) The Term "Son of God" is a title in ancient Hebrew, King David was called the Son of God, and the entire nation of Israel is referred to as the Son of God in the Old Testament
3) The Gospel of John was written 70 to 90 years after Jesus, and not by eyewitnesses to Jesus
Prophet Daniel
@@nathanielalderson9111
The Prophet Daniel doesn't say that 🤣🤣🤣 That's Daniel 7, verses 13-14??
*ALTHOUGHT* Because in ancient Hebrew the Term "Son of God" is just a title for the *Representative* of God on Earth, and the term "Son of Man" means to a person descendent of Adam, the son of Adam, (Adam means Man) *then Yes,* that is correct, but that was not Jesus either because *Jesus did not fulfill that Prophecy in Daniel 7*
1. Son of Man in this context refers to Daniel's prophecy of "one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of Heaven!" in Daniel 7:13-14. This is the same title Jesus referred to Himself with, letting people know He's the one prophesied about.
2. "Son of God" has different meanings in different contexts. For instance, Luke 36 mentions people being the sons of God like the angels upon the resurrection. When Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, what is meant is that He is the only begotten Son of God, as mentioned in John 3:16
3. Regarding the Gospels and their dating, the earliest mention of them (at least before they were probably written down) was made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-11, dated around the early 50s AD, roughly 20 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Their early dating is further strengthened by St Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, in which he attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke. St Ignatius, who lived around the time some of the apostles were alive upwards of 50 AD.
Hope this helps clarify your objections and may the good Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Peace
@@asandemkhize6856
1) Well, I responded to some of that already perhaps you didn't read it, and Jesus referring to himself as "The Son of Man", does not change my point, and *Jesus did not fulfill the Prophecy in Daniel*
2) The Gospel of John was written 70 to 90 years after Jesus, not by eyewitnesses to Jesus or any of his disciples, *just because it's named after the disciple John does not mean that it was John who wrote it,* and most likely it wasn't
3) The Term Gospel means "Good News", the written Gospels, and more specifically; the Synoptic Gospels were written 40-plus years after Jesus, and Paul does not make any reference to any of these
Conclusion,...
*So, Yes...* Paul was preaching the Gospel (The Good News) before 70AD,... *Paul was Not preaching* what is written in *the Synoptic Gospels* during his lifetime before 70AD* and we know that because Paul never make reference to the Synoptic Gospels or quotes from them,... There is a difference
4) Ignacious attributes The Gospel of Luke to Luke (who wrote for Paul) but, not before 70AD, and there are no records of date for Ignacious doing this before 70AD, Ignacious may have been alive before 50AD does not mean that he knew of the Synoptic Gospels before 70AD, and there is no evidence to confirm that
*According to multiple historians and Tradition* Ignacious wrote his epistle to the Ephesians between 100AD to 110AD, and Not before that
Hope you learn something, bye
@@XDRONIN 3) the drafts and bits and pieces of all 4 Gospels were written earlier, perhaps as near as 5 years after Jesus crucifixion. They were completed no later than 50AD. Don't know where you're getting 70-90 after Jesus but it's not accurate information. Bart Erhman perhaps?
Oh and your clickbait title was absurd.
Show the whole interview. Hitchens made him look stupid
no, he himself made himself look stupid. ;-)