Jesus was a Legend (Lewis's Trilemma)

[@SirLangsalot]

Saying "Jesus was a legend" is both an amazing insult, and am amazing compliment. BTW, Bart Ehrman has been particularly verbose on this thing.

[@wbrenn8070]

These are all possibilities, but Lewis does actually talk about all of these options. I believe the creator of the video just wants to outline possible other reasons as to what Jesus could have been. However, I wouldn't take any of these positions outside of the trilemma because I think they're untenable. You could make something like "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord/Prophet/Guy from God, which I think would probably do away with the last objection in which Ehrman is cited. This new trilemma would still work in proving some sort of divine source of something about Jesus. That said, the mythicist view seems to be quite absurd. The only people that would accept the claim that "the Gospels were written 100 years after the time of Jesus" are absurd people and perhaps people like Carrier and Price, but I don't think they would take that position. Saying that the Gospels were written 100 years after the time of Jesus seems like a misleading statement though, for the scholarly consensus is that Mark is written 40 years after the death of Jesus. Most scholars accept that Paul comes around A.D. 50, only 20 years after the death of Jesus, giving an extremely high Christology. Obviously I can't make an extremely conclusive argument about the entirety of mythicism in one comment, but I think that some of the claims snuck into the mythicist position are either simply radical views that virtually no scholars hold to or just simply false (e.g. "the authors of these books faced no such punishment (death)"). On the exaggeration point, it's certainly something to think about, and I think it's probably the best way to get out of the Trilemma, but the defenses in the video certainly could've been stronger. That said, virtually zero scholars think that the way the Biblical canon was crafted was a PR stunt. This is because books such as the gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. all tell completely different stories of Jesus and virtually all of them are dated to the 2nd or 3rd centuries, not when the canonical gospels were written (aside from perhaps John, but that's a bit of a bigger discussion on dating). No Early Church Father accepted any of these absurd books, which seems odd if the books all came via the same crafting technique, we would've thought that something like the Apocalypse of Judas or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas would be accepted by some people, but they aren't. Some books and epistles that were very close to the narratives of the Gospels are included, but this fact doesn't lend support to the PR hypothesis. The Guru hypothesis seems to be kind of unhelpful in the way its defined (but I understand that the video is made to just lay down positions and give them a fair shake and thus the arguments are very general). In the matter, I think that one could respond that Jesus very obviously claims some sort of direct/indirect divinity or authority from God in the most genuine sources. Most Early Christians accepted that Jesus was some sort of divine being (Arians still accepted him as the greatest of all creation and thus worthy of worship), and so it seems likely that this is what Jesus actually taught. Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan is quite clear on this fact, though someone could object in saying that Pliny doesn't actually know what Christians do, it still seems **most probable** that Pliny knew what he was talking about.

[@petratical]

Lewis argument that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic or God stems from Jesus saying; "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. Here is an equal , or even greater statement by Jesus, that makes for this trilemma delemma or difficult choice to be made between three alternatives; "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:.." John 11:25. He is definitely either a Liar, a lunatic, or as Jesus told Philip, John 14:7,8,9 that he is God.

[@GTORT]

Was wondering why he was wearing a santa hat until I saw the upload date hahaha! Also quick side note, your website has been experiencing some errors with it's course taking.

[@ChildofGod98765]

Merry Christmas today is our Lord and saviors birthday! I will trust in Jesus even as I’m struggling, paying bills and putting food in my refrigerator. I will never lose my faith in Jesus he died for us. As a single mother things are difficult on me. My husband passed years ago I’m alone. I’m overwhelmed at times because both of my children are autistic and non verbal. I’m struggling trying to support them and myself because like so many others. I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. I wish I could go back to the hospital but the mandate is still in place for hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. I’m waitressing and I’m so thankful to be working again, but I’m not making nearly enough to make ends meet. I get harassed and called names for simply asking for prayers, but prayers are all we need. Even as I face homelessness seemingly every other month. I have faith God will provide. He HAS THIS FAR. WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Please pray for me and my children.

[@SirLangsalot]

The more and more you trust in "Jesus" the more and more you are insulting the almighty, and the more and more apologizing and punishment you will experience.

[@HegelsOwl]

My condolences, ma'am. I'll put a good word in for you. Merry Christmas, because things will get better.

[@benjaminagnew5361]

@@SirLangsalot Judging by your belief in Merits as the measure of Divine Judgement I suppose you would not be a well read laddie. So either a Jew with no knowledge of Isaiah or Mohammadian with not much knowledge of anything. Tread lightly, He knows who bears the whip.

[@jherandsoleil6335]

What about the idea of Christianity and it’s psychological and psychosocial benefits and claim it’s the best way to live by compared to any other religion of worldview. Is Christianity unique in that regards? Or can other religions mimic the potential benefits of Christianity.

[@THEH4RLEMSH8KERS]

If you're watching this, then you're the legend

[@dragonrykr]

0:20 at this timestamp you say "but this is a false trilemma", while on screen it is written as "that this is a false trilemma". Which one is correct? Shows you how one replaced word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

[@Nicoder6884]

Hey, do you happen to have any plans to continue the Set Theory videos? I was really bummed out when I realized only months 1 and 2 were available...

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

They are on my list. I am taking a bit of a break in the new year to work on some big projects. The logic videos take a big lift so I am looking for a way to do them a bit more sustainably... maybe two videos a week? One on logic one on general philosophy? We will see...

[@2Hesiod]

The best argument that Jesus was not a historical person is made by Richard Carrier in his book.

[@arun.sekher]

What a legend! 😇

[@SirLangsalot]

In Australia they would say "what a f****n good c**t, that man was a leg".

[@TheCatchwrestler]

Merry Christmas

[@HegelsOwl]

Same to you!

[@MatthewMartinDean]

The 15-lemma. Very convincing that 1 of 15 things could be true.

[@michaeldavidgantt]

You are telling falsehoods. You said on this video that the Gospels were written a hundred years after Jesus lived by people who did not know him. The fact of the matter is that they were written by contemporaries of Jesus. Perhaps you are sincere and therefore are not intentionally misleading people. I hope so.

[@sifisombatha2245]

Relying on accurate information and scholarly consensus is crucial when discussing historical figures and texts. Early in this video, you claimed that the Gospels were written a century after Jesus' death. This statement does not align with the widely accepted academic understanding and merits correction. 1. Clarification of Facts: Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were composed between 65 AD and 100 AD. This timeframe places their writing within approximately 30 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, traditionally dated around 30-33 AD. This evidence contradicts the claim that the Gospels were written a century after Jesus' death. 2. Oral Tradition and Cultural Context: In the ancient world, oral tradition was a primary means of preserving and transmitting knowledge. The early Christian communities were deeply rooted in this oral culture, relying on spoken testimony to share Jesus' teachings and deeds. The delay in writing down these accounts can partly be attributed to the strength of this oral tradition, coupled with the early Christians' expectation of Jesus’ imminent return, which did not prioritize immediate written documentation. 3. Impact of Persecution: Early Christians faced significant persecution from Jewish authorities and Roman officials. This hostile environment made preserving and disseminating written texts both risky and challenging. The threat to personal safety likely contributed to the initial reliance on oral transmission, delaying the transition to written records. 4. Evaluating Sources: Assessing the reliability of claims about historical events involves examining the sources of these claims. It's beneficial to ask questions about the origin of the information and whether it is supported by historical evidence and scholarship. This critical evaluation helps maintain factual integrity in discussions about history. 5. Engagement with Scholarly Works: For those interested in a deeper understanding of the historical Jesus and the origins of the New Testament, engaging with the work of respected scholars such as Bart Ehrman, E.P. Sanders, and John P. Meier can be very informative. Their works, such as Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus, and Meier's A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, provide a range of perspectives based on rigorous analysis of historical data. 6. Promoting Respectful Dialogue: History and theology have diverse interpretations and complex data. Encouraging open, respectful dialogue about different viewpoints enriches our understanding and fosters a more inclusive discussion environment. By focusing on these principles, we can effectively address misconceptions and contribute to a more informed and respectful discourse about the historical figure of Jesus and the textual origins of the Gospels.

[@IOANNIS-l7r]

THE WORLD OR THE HELL ARE ALSO LEGEND!!!

[@ostinpineda8693]

Jesus make rain

[@2Hesiod]

Thomas Jefferson said he "found no redeeming feature in Christianity," so he doesn't seem to think he was a historical person.

[@SemiPerfectDark]

I think the talking serpent at the very beginning throws the whole account into question

[@waytospergtherebro]

Legendarily gay.

[@SmellYaLatter]

Since when?

[@matthieulavagna]

You should really stick to philosophy... The arguments you're offering show a clear ignorance of NT scholarship. No serious scholar denies that Jesus existed.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Yes there are, most prominently Richard Carrier Also, the video discusses the idea that Jesus existed, but that claims about him were exaggerated. Most scholars agree that people cannot walk on water.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

@@InventiveHarvest That's presupposing that there exists no supernatural beings thus leading to an argument from ignorance.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@onlyechadtherebellious2467 One does not have to presuppose anything about divine beings to look at the behaviour of academic scholars. You are making the fallacy of not being able to read

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

@@InventiveHarvest You made the assumption that because something seems nomologically impossible, therefore, nothing in existence could do it which assumes there isn't something divine thus supernatural but of course what did I expect from a nonbeliever. Even if there is no humans to be seen walking on water, it is at least metaphysically contingent. And yeah, it is possible that Jesus was just a normal man But WAIT! If Jesus was god the MGB itself then shouldn't it be instant proof of the bible? After all, Jesus exists Necessarily. Right?

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

As for the OP, the man is not attacking the historicity of Jesus all he's doing is explaining aspects of the Trilemma

[@benjaminagnew5361]

The Historicity of Jesus as a real person, although the following quote is too heavily overused, has more credence than all the memoirs of Julius Caesar's conquests. And than most sources of for events we deem undeniable. And yes, a good reading of scriptural sources sees, he did claim to be divine. Hence the lead on to the Trilemma. This can be seen in the identification by of Jesus with the "Logos" equality with YHWH in talking with the scribes. Hence their manic reaction, among others references. It reminds me of KZbinrs like Comic skeptic, with next to no understanding of the thing they critique. Painful to watch given the false suppositions. Lewis's Trilemma, more of a loose attack on those who called themselves cultural Christians, was a simple exercise. You have attacked it with all the gusto of bewildered neo-schlostic and I'm not amused. You should know that you should not let your bias supplant critical thinking. It's made me rethink the neutral point of view of philosophy I thought I subscribed for... Oh and on the points of Myth. I'm sure you must now look at Tolkien's, then Lewis's, argumentation of legends and Myths as the shadow of the actual nature of things. Infact the true Myth was Tolkien's argumentation to a then atheist Tolkien. Maybe look at that.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Jesus on the mountain top Preaching to John and James The Son of Beauty and Love And Jesus was his name He's got it Yeah Baby He's got it I'm your Jesus I'm your fire Your Messiah

[@HegelsOwl]

Woops: You make the classic mistake most people make on this subject--not exlaining a valid question (an anomaly) of any intrinsic interest to Science. Fun as a logical exercise, perhaps, but otherwise is "as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in MacBeth's bleak world.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

Carneades set out to show that Lewis’s trilemma - Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or lord - is a false trilemma by pointing out that there are other possibilities outside Lewis’s three choices. Since Carneades succeeded in demonstrating there are other possibilities, no mistake was made (classic or otherwise.)

[@HegelsOwl]

@autonomouscollective2599 Carneades refuted merely terms Chucky or Timmy stated. Chucky raised no valid question, so the "refutation" added nothing to Science (Learning). There was no mistake if Carneades' intent was to entertain us.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

@@HegelsOwl Chucky? Timmy? What have you been smoking and can I have some?

[@HegelsOwl]

@autonomouscollective2599 In the early "Resurrection Debates," Bart Ehrman usually opened by pointing out that the question to explain, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" is a theologically biased question, of no interest to Science at all. Erhman thought there was no anomaly on this subject with a valid question for Science. There actually is one: the centuries-long suicide cult (or "martyr" cult, if you prefer), called "Early Christianity." To date, only John Dominic Crossan has ever noticed this, and explains it. Thus, only Crossan actually has a valid argument on this subject.