Dr John Lennox: A Christmas Gift for Doubters
Okay, I know Christmas was a few weeks ago, but I only just got around to posting. This video was posted on "Chrtian CADRE" and "Dangerous Ideas", like it was supposed to convince people of the virgin birth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eUKqrVSrSc
ETA: The video has been removed due to copyright infringement (those naughty Christians!), but there is a transcript here:
http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/a-christmas-message-from-john-lennox/
Later ETA: Looks like the transcript has also been taken down. I am guessing it got ripped to shreds so many times...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eUKqrVSrSc
ETA: The video has been removed due to copyright infringement (those naughty Christians!), but there is a transcript here:
http://www.johnlennox.org/jresources/a-christmas-message-from-john-lennox/
Later ETA: Looks like the transcript has also been taken down. I am guessing it got ripped to shreds so many times...
In fact, the reverse is true. This video is a gift for those arguing against Christianity, because it shows that when it comes to their faith, Christians will turn off their critical thinking (and it is probably not just Christians).
Seriously? How can a university professor be so naive? If one of his students starts an essay saying what they wrote was true, would he just assume it was so? Of course not!
How does he know Luke did not make it all up? He does not say. How can we know Luke investigated every claim to ensure it is true? He does not say. He takes it on faith.
It is EASY to prove Christianity is true if you start from the assumption the Bible is true.
But that will not convince anyone who is not already a Christian!
It does not make sense!
Bear in mind that to be the Messiah, i.e., the new King of the Jews, Jesus had to be a direct-line descendant of David - and the angel even says of Jesus "his father David"! If the angel was telling her that her son would be the Messiah, she would have even more reason to expect Joseph, who was of the house of David, to be the father.
Lennox looks at alternative explanations... but only considers if it was made up around the time of the birth, either by Joseph or Mary. He presents his false dichotomy: "It's either/or ladies and gentlemen. Either there was immorality OR this is the biggest thing that has ever happened in the history of the world" (his emphasis).
The far more likely explanation is that the virgin birth was made decades later, after both were dead. The virgin birth came from pagan myths, and was notably absent from Mark.
Why does he not consider that possibility?
Because it might be right, and his faith has blinkered his critical thinking.
He claims it is disturbing (for secularists anyway) to find there is more out there than this world. He then references the Narnia stories, which are very popular... because they suggest there is more out there than this world! Science fiction and fantasy are popular genres because people would love for there to be more out there. But hey, he has an agenda to push, and it is obvious he is preaching to the Christians, not atheists, so who will tell him he is wrong?
He makes the point that there were people in that world who were very intelligent. Okay, but there were also people who were stupid and gullible. That is not to say they were more stupid and gullible than people today, look at Mormonism, Scientology and the election of Trump. Hey, look at how Lennox blindly accepts the Gospel of Luke, and he is highly intelligent. That is how people are right across time. The simple fact is that people at that time believed all sorts of miracle claims. Look at "glycon" in Wiki to see what nonsense they accepted as true.
I agree with him about miracles with regards to science. We cannot rule out miracles on the basis that they go against the laws of nature - that is what a miracle IS.
However, as Lennox so well proves, people will believe the most flimsy of evidence when it comes to claims that support their most cherished beliefs, and thus it is all-to-easy to envisage erroneous claims of a virgin birth or empty tomb to become established as fact in the early Christian community.
Dr John Lennox
From Wiki:John Carson Lennox (born 7 November 1943) is a Northern Irish mathematician specialising in group theory, philosopher of science and Christian apologist. He is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics[2] at the University of Oxford and a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He is also Pastoral Advisor of Green Templeton College, Oxford, a Fellow of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Associate Fellow of the Saïd Business School.This is a very intelligent, very well-educated man. Far more so than the average person. And yet, his critical thinking just turns off when considering his religion.
Baseless Assumptions
Lennox assumes the Bible and Bible traditions are true. He laments that the authority of scripture is being eroded, and takes as fact that Luke was the author of the gospel that bears his name. He says that as Luke starts saying it will give certainty, then it must be fact.Seriously? How can a university professor be so naive? If one of his students starts an essay saying what they wrote was true, would he just assume it was so? Of course not!
How does he know Luke did not make it all up? He does not say. How can we know Luke investigated every claim to ensure it is true? He does not say. He takes it on faith.
It is EASY to prove Christianity is true if you start from the assumption the Bible is true.
But that will not convince anyone who is not already a Christian!
Lennox on the Virgin Birth
The thrust of the lecture is the truth of the virgin birth. He discusses this text:Luke 1:26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed[b] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”[c] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”Lennox says of Mary: "She had a real moral question. How could she possibly have a child?" Well, the usual way at that time was to marry your betrothed, and then have sex with him. Was Mary too dim to figure that out? Note that there was no suggestion from the angel at this point in the narrative that no sex would be involved or that it would happen before she was married, and the angel is talking about conceiving in the future. Her role in society was to bear children; why the surprise when the angel says she will do just that?
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
It does not make sense!
Bear in mind that to be the Messiah, i.e., the new King of the Jews, Jesus had to be a direct-line descendant of David - and the angel even says of Jesus "his father David"! If the angel was telling her that her son would be the Messiah, she would have even more reason to expect Joseph, who was of the house of David, to be the father.
Lennox looks at alternative explanations... but only considers if it was made up around the time of the birth, either by Joseph or Mary. He presents his false dichotomy: "It's either/or ladies and gentlemen. Either there was immorality OR this is the biggest thing that has ever happened in the history of the world" (his emphasis).
The far more likely explanation is that the virgin birth was made decades later, after both were dead. The virgin birth came from pagan myths, and was notably absent from Mark.
Why does he not consider that possibility?
Because it might be right, and his faith has blinkered his critical thinking.
Also...
He claims Luke was a scientist. Luke was not. He was a physician. You would have thought a philosopher of science would know the difference. Was Luke familiar with the works of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? He might have been, but nothing in the texts indicate that as far as I know, so in what sense can Lennox claim Luke was a scientist? This was a time where curing people meant driving out demons; to claim that a physician was a scientist is laughable.He claims it is disturbing (for secularists anyway) to find there is more out there than this world. He then references the Narnia stories, which are very popular... because they suggest there is more out there than this world! Science fiction and fantasy are popular genres because people would love for there to be more out there. But hey, he has an agenda to push, and it is obvious he is preaching to the Christians, not atheists, so who will tell him he is wrong?
He makes the point that there were people in that world who were very intelligent. Okay, but there were also people who were stupid and gullible. That is not to say they were more stupid and gullible than people today, look at Mormonism, Scientology and the election of Trump. Hey, look at how Lennox blindly accepts the Gospel of Luke, and he is highly intelligent. That is how people are right across time. The simple fact is that people at that time believed all sorts of miracle claims. Look at "glycon" in Wiki to see what nonsense they accepted as true.
I agree with him about miracles with regards to science. We cannot rule out miracles on the basis that they go against the laws of nature - that is what a miracle IS.
However, as Lennox so well proves, people will believe the most flimsy of evidence when it comes to claims that support their most cherished beliefs, and thus it is all-to-easy to envisage erroneous claims of a virgin birth or empty tomb to become established as fact in the early Christian community.
Comments
Post a Comment