1:19 lol I about fell in the floor. He is a molinist apologist not a biblical apologist. You obviously haven't researched Dr. James White. He addresses these such issues that William lane Craig refuses to answer.
This reminds me of one of C S Lewis's books called "The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe". The part where the professor is talking with Peter and Susan because they think their younger sister Lucy had gone mad because she discovered a magic world in a wardrobe. "Well you know she doesn't tell lies and she's not mad, so she must be telling the truth."
The point of the trilemna argument was specifically to blow up the notion that Jesus was a mere moral teacher by pointing to the claim of divinity. Its force isn’t in proving Christ’s divinity, it’s in disproving a conception of Jesus as a nice guy hippie.
The trilemna only really works if we take all the words of the bible as true and accurate, and by that point if you already accept the bible as true and accurate you dont really need this whole argument cause you already accept jesus is lord cause thats what the text says. Thats at least why I find it a fairly weak argument.
@@Rurikethats if youre still not considering all the facts at hand. If all you have is the text and cs. Lewis' reasoning. You still won't believe unless of course the God in question helps you into the life boat that is Jesus Christ the Lord.
@@Rurike You don't need to believe that the Bible is true to believe it is accurate. Even atheist historians agree to the veracity of the Bible as a historical record of Jesus' teachings, though they don't accept the supernatural claims.
@@zachhecita That's quite far fetched. We do not have any records of Jesus' teaching outside of the Bible. And historians know the gospels have been composed and altered over time to fit a certain narrative (and to serve church politics). I'd go as far anyone who says the NT is a "historical record" is talking plain BS.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in Greek, Latin, and various other ancient languages and most Biblical translations go back to those original manuscripts. Are you claiming that all of those ancient manuscripts were altered to “fit a certain narrative”?
Lewis was an atheist. Lewis came to his faith reluctantly and only through rigorous examination. He’s not one for overlooking details. Lewis was brilliant.
@@cnault3244 he had philosophical reasons for believing and shares those reasons in his writings. It’s difficult to use empirical methods to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time.
@@jedijudoka Since it has not been shown that there is a realm outside of space/time, there is no reason to think/believe there is a realm outside of space/time. Instead of saying "It’s difficult to use empirical methods to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time." you could just as well say "It’s difficult to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time if you won't let me use speciil pleading"
We can certainly misuse the trilemma, but Lewis did not. It's right there in the text: He was talking to and about people who read the gospels, believe them, but say, "Jesus was just a great moral teacher." He was not talking to people who believe the gospels are myths. If he was talking to those people, he would have martialed the arguments you quote from the other address.
Lewis should have realized that not only his intended audience would read his work, because as a result of this exclusion, for as long as Lewis is remembered, he will be remembered for failing to include this obvious fourth option. "Legend" even starts with an L. If only he had mentioned that option and made some sort of defense against it, he would not go down in history as if he had not even thought of it, or as if he wanted his audience to not think about it.
@@Ansatz66 What you're saying is "Lewis should have realized that the people who come after him don't read carefully, so he should have preempted their complaint ..." It's hard to predict how lazy and stupid future generations will become.
@@Ansatz66 So, he should have been a clairvoyant and predict that future generations have the reading comprehension ability of roadkill? Your job is not misunderstand what is written, not the author.
Fair enough, context matters. It is a shame that people who parrot his trilema are largely unaware of the assumptions required for it. Not necessarily Lewis's fault.
@@Ansatz66 I hope you do the same with any and every piece of writing you put out. Moreover, you are very silly if you forget one of the most important lessons when beginning to write: Consider your audience. You don’t write a Nuclear Power Plant handbook for a lay person who has no concept of what the control systems are. You write them so that an engineer knows how to operate the plant. Would it be nice to be digestible to a lay person? Sure. But at the same time, the reader should be able to understand when they are in the target audience and when they are not.
This is exactly right. And tragic really. It's clear that evangelical experience doesn't prep their adherents well for debate. When they see other concepts, sometimes their faith falls apart. We really should train our believers better. They used to compel education before baptism. Check out Bullies and Saints, by John Dickson.
So disappointing. It is especially sad when someone leaves the faith and, on top of it, decides not to go quietly. What could possibly be the motivation to try to convince others to come with you? Justification for their own decision to live for themselves? I’m just so sad for them.
One of the first books I read after becoming a Christian was a book by the popular textual critic, and best selling author, Bart Ehrman. I've never read something so pedantic, so pompously petty, in my entire life - and I say this as someone who enjoys reading classical and modern philosophy. Even within his own book, Bart Ehrman confessed to the strong evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, and his apparent subsequent resurrection. The evidence for the earliest Christians certainly believing that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond reproach. I specifically remember him flailing about for possible alternatives, including an appeal to the widely discredited "mushroom cult" theory. After reading that, I read Mere Christianity, and it was like a breath of fresh air. Lewis' logical and wise analysis of the profound teaching woven consistently throughout Scripture felt like a return to sanity. And many things that Lewis said struck a deep chord with me, as I recognized the nature of having a personal relationship with God in my own life. He is brilliant thinker, and a terrific writer, who has brought rational assurance to many Christians. Thank you God for C.S. Lewis.
Hey nice comment. This seems to the crux of you statement. 'The evidence for the earliest Christians certainly believing that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond reproach'. Can i interest you in a video looking at possible answers? If so please click here: ua-cam.com/video/-TjXExCBM_U/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Paulogia Hope this rabbit hole helps. cheers G
I used to wonder if Lewis was actually objectively a great scholar or just a Christian fan favorite and thus considered great. After some research I can confirm objectively that he was not only a great scholar, there's a compelling case to call him the greatest scholar of the 20th century
While he's good, I'd think Cardinal Newman might be more up there in terms of "scholarly". Chesterton's not bad but his is more "common sense that ain't common anymore".
@@bengreen171 I’d recommend taking a look into exactly how much research he did for the Oxford History of the English Language 16th century. (I’ve never heard of any scholar attempt anything of similar magnitude) He also earned a triple first at Oxford, and knew a handful of languages. He also was famous for his perfect recall of nearly everything he read. (Also his Oxford professor considered him to be the most widely read person he’d ever known.)
It's always good to hear more support for the cannon of the Bible. Corrie Ten Boom said that one of the reasons why she believed the gospels to be true is that the authors do not possible themselves in good lights. They wrote the gospels and gained nothing from it- not even pride. In fact they died for it.
As for the rest, if they did indeed use as martyrs, it only proves that they sincerely believed, not that they were in a position to know that they’re claims were true.
In any case, it's humorous to watch a UA-camr like Rhett to try and condescend an intellectual giant such as Lewis. That certainly doesn't make Rhett's objections wrong, but the context of both men's background is certainly interesting to consider.
@@cnault3244 There's tons of evidence. I don't think you actually know the nature of evidence. Evidence must be interpreted. The argument has never, is never, and will never be about evidence. It's the worldviews that make sense of the evidence the best. And secular worldviews fail on every account. Besides, your call for evidence is trivial either way because it's self defeating. "...that'd really SHOW him" (caps for emphasis). I could show you fire from heaven, but the act of seeing, observing is built on presuppositions that can't be proven. Can you prove to me that the senses, more specifically the eyes here, really see reality as it is? If not, then admittedly your epistemology rests on assumptions in the absence of evidence. Your problem is not with evidence; it's the fact you may actually be accountable to something than your own god complex.
@@DookyButter "There's tons of evidence." I hear that claim regularly, but te people making the claim NEVER present any of the evidence. Here's your opportunity. Present some of the evidence. "The argument has never, is never, and will never be about evidence" Actually, it IS about the evidence. The believers claim there is evidence but they never present any of it. Your post is a shining example of that.
@@cnault3244 The world around is you evidence. The fact there is something rather than nothing is evidence of something higher. Of course, you can reject this, but the onus is then on you to show how anything can come from nothing. An honest atheist knows this shortcoming, and this is why people like Lawrence Krauss have put forth laughable attempts to justify that very claim. The evidence of morality. For example, you want evidence so that you can get to the truth of the matter. But your demand of evidence for the pursuit of truth is a presupposition you take on faith. In the pursuit of truth, you implicitly recognize that truth is *better* than falsehood. Or would you reject that idea? The logical reduction to pure act, which Thomas Aquinas proved. All potentiality must be backed by a source of actuality. The only thing that fits the criteria of something as pure act would be a god. The fact you trust your senses. You're asking for evidence but only on the presupposition (which you can't prove) that your senses perceive reality as it really is. But as a secularists, you make that claim arbitrarily. You have no reason to believe that senses are reliable. If you do, I'd like to hear what evidence you have to suppose they are. And lastly, the inherent value of humanity. If humans are just random collections of matter, then you should ascribe as much importance to a dung beetle as you do to your own mother. But something in me, call it a hunch, tells me you don't actually think that way. If you are not satisfied with this evidence, please tell me the standard you would like. Once were done, however, I would like you to present evidence that there is no god.
Thank you for your work on this. I sat under an "Orthodox Christian" religion professor at a state university that began to question the deity of Christ. I brought up the Lewis trilemma in class. The professor encouraged me to share in class. Which he then pointed out that was true if the Scriptures were reliable. Then I didn't have a response. Now I do. I didn't know about the work Lewis did with the church leadership.
Love CS Lewis. I read Mere Christianity about 40 years ago. It shows Jesus is alive and was here on earth doing His work 2000 years ago. You did some good documentation work here, great video.
That's kinda wrong. Jesus, according to John, was the Word who spoke the universe into existence. The person who wrestled Jacob. The person who Isaiah 53 prophecized about. The person whose death concided with the penultimate 70th week of Daniel, the promised person who will crush the serpents head in genesis. And the mere translations of the first 10 patriarchs names as the promised redeemer.
Rhett and Link's deconstruction was sad in how emotional it was. For link especially it boiled down to "love is love" and like his homosexual friends. While it's not true of all deconstructions, in their case, it seems obvious that it was a comprise with the world as they gained success and worldly friends, and justifications came later.
That was my take, as well. I went through something similar for a decade before rediscovering my faith. I had to stop looking down on it before I allowed myself to examine it fairly.
Most people's deconstruction isn't as philosophically rigorous as one could hope, but it doesn't really matter. They got to the point where their morals (and their expanded worldview after going through a lot of life changes) continued to butt up against what they believed about their god. It was sad, because when someone realizes that they don't believe anymore, they're forced to give up much more than they initially realized. I know because I've been through this as well, though the reasons that caused me to lose all belief in the supernatural are different from their reasons.
I wish I had followed it more. I remember their video coming out. I used to watch GMM almost religiously in high school, and I can't really remember what it was about or if it was even explicitly Christian. I remember being surprised to learn they were Christian at all. when the video came out, I got it in my feed. but by then I hadn't watched any of their content in 3 or 4 years and I just haven't gone back to investigate again
Amen. The LORD God Jesus Christ was sent into the world by Our Heavenly Father to die on the cross for our sins and Rise for our eternal life in Him; it is He who is True and Risen indeed.
Rhet spent many years trying to reconcile his religious upbringing (South) with the humanistic, even nihilist, culture of southern California. And the culture won. Won in part with the ploy of using one's concepts brotherly love and compassion against him-- that a person's behavior and the person are one and the same and to reject unhealthy behaviors is to deny one's person hood. It is labeled "judgemental". Further, if we say a certain lifestyle is unhealthy, even dangerous, are hateful bigots and not the light of Christ . The problem with Rhett and others like him is the conversion (or deconstruction) often has a large component of emotional reasoning rather than intellectual and so we get arguments like these, that on the face might seem cogent, but are simplistic and well. . . wrong.
I can't speak for Rhett, but I'd caution against the term "emotional reasoning." The idea that we have a purely logical and a purely emotional side to me reeks of dualism. Both have to work in tandem and balance each other out. After all, we usually only bother to learn about something in the first place because of some underlying emotional reason. That's just my two cents.
@@dpwellman Oh it was a cave alright. He hadn't thought it out well enough at the time to realize that condemning people like Ken Ham as charlatans who "believed" only so long as it gave them money or influence was laughable considering that he and Link deconstructed right as they were on the verge of breaking into Hollywood, at the precise moment when it would have (and did) give their careers the maximum amount of forward momentum.
@@shaminshaman6254 Not right at, but after spending having more time in sunny CA, certainly. Rhett's vid on the subject (two years ago) was quite similar to many others describing their own decisions-- very much the same with certain keywords and issues that indicated social pressure as the primary driver. Anecdotally, my fiance had an opposite experience moving from LA to middle, TN. . . "Where did all the flags come from?" she'd ask. Or when we went to a sports bar to watch a game and everyone stopped talking and some stood up for the Natl Anthem. "What's everyone doing?"
I love the idea that the power that could raise a corpse from the dead is some how unable to restore any decay that occurred because of the length of time that the corpse was a corpse. It's like saying that a car mechanic couldn't have got an old car running again because he would have had to replace the battery and you don't believe he is capable of either.
Rhett and Link rejecting Christ devastated me. I still pray for them every once in a while when I am reminded. They reminded me of my friends growing up and we all had a strong kindred to them.
Maybe they should stick to wondering if things will "taco" or "will it ice cream?" Instead of spouting nonsense about religion. When people get "famous" for being dumb, don't be surprised when they keep being dumb.
This. And this is why I try not to base my emotions and faith on famous people. I would be devastated if Justin Bieber today suddenly declares that he doesn't believe in Jesus anymore.
Well done! I was waiting on this one after watching the Paulogia rebuttal. In light of this information, I now see CS Lewis’s liar, lunatic, or Lord argument as a sort of closing statement to his broader musings on the subject rather than a standalone argument.
Fantastic. I had someone use the "scriptures are unreliable" argument on me when I mentioned Lewis' Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilemma. I wish I'd known this follow up argument from Lewis then. Ah well, now I'm armed for the next time.
If you research, you will find both Testaments to be the most attested to ancient documents in the world with far more copies of older manuscripts and fragments than any other ancient book or writing. These "higher criticism" types don't question the validity or historical accounts they contain. They rely purely on the anti-supernatural bias claims, when by definition something supernatural is simply something science doesn't understand yet.
One thing I find ironic, even though I love apologetics is that the Bible says that some people are so blind to the truth, the the Lord will let them only believe their lie no matter what, so as a believer it’s funny/kinda sad knowing the truth wanting to prove a point to someone about the truth, but the truth says that person doesn’t have the capability to recognize it.
I adore CS Lewis for his ability to point out what rational logic actually is. Surely a man needed in this age of all ages. Everyone now is convinced of the power and rationale of their own mind. I leaned on his writing heavily to help dismantle mistakes put in to me by the seemingly good sense of others. His work is great for provoking thought as well. Nuance you may not have considered on your own. But ultimately I think all believers need to understand one thing. CS Lewis' rational defense of faith has the same limit of all rationality. The human mind. Though all modern minds are pygmy's compared to his, it's a consideration everyone should take very soberly. If one tried hard enough, we could find genuine holes in any man made logic. The solution becomes apparent when you reach the limit of 2000 years of human thought on the same subject. All men stopped at the same point as they peer at the horizon. If you disagree with God, you are just wrong. Everyone who pushes themselves far enough will probably come to the same choice. Between my ability to understand why God is right and accepting God is right, what do I choose? I'm sure CS Lewis himself understood this choice too. Probably appreciating it more than me. I know from his writing he appreciated that God IS the foundation of truth in absolutes. His entire body of writings rely on the supposition that God is just true. Ability to explain that truth helps but.. what do you choose? Do you choose your own mind or God? And you MUST choose. To refuse the choice is to have already chosen because you are born in to the default choice. Your own mind. Not that honing logic is bad, but everyone must understand this choice lay before you even in the act of doing that. And frankly it reveals a disturbing truth in belief through the ages. Like this video highlights, many will claim belief in God then undermine Him gleefully. As if God could not get the Truth to us just as he wanted us to see it. Is the God of their mind so feeble?
But what are you using to reach your conviction that a god exists, isn't that likewise your fallible human mind? I don't see how supposing an entity who has access to absolute certainty solves anything. What makes this proposed method better than getting as close to understanding reality as we can, trying to account for the flaws in our own minds? Unless you're just using "god" to mean "the essence of whatever is real", but to my outsider (agnostic atheist) perspective the word "god" implies a sentient entity. Regarding your claim that (to paraphrase and possibly exaggerate) in two thousand years no-one has had new ideas regarding things like ultimate origins, hasn't the advancement of science inspired at least a few new concepts? Artificial intelligence and simulation theory, for example, are at least tangentially related to the concept of true knowledge: even if they bring up more questions than they answer. Speaking for myself, I'm not saying that your god is wrong. To follow your horizon analogy were all standing on that shore (which for whatever reason we can't leave, maybe we haven't invented boats in this analogy) where the hundred alleged prophets are arguing over the contradictory things they claim to have seen from over the horizon. Meanwhile some scientists are setting up a giant telescope to try to see an image reflected in the sky at just the right time of day. And I'm watching the sea, trying to figure out if the currents can tell us anything about the shape of the island over the horizon. My phrasing here may imply I think religion is inherently bad or inherently opposed to learning and knowledge. I don't think that it is. There are of course many religions which do oppose thought (insert any dogmatic religion disagree with), but I don't mean to imply you do. I thought you seemed quite reasonable, even if you currently have different conclusions from me. In short, any offence was unintentional.
I just got a FB ad for an audiobook titled "The UFO that took Jesus. The truth about who Christ was." So the options are liar, lunatic, Lord, or the person adding new options is a lunatic.
Lewis clearly frames the argument as "the Christ presented to us in the Bible" so legend isn't a category. Not to mention that the historical proof of Jesus' existence is astoundingly broad and significant.
@@walkerlink367 No serious, reliable historian remotely questions it, the supporting evidence, even if you ignore the gospels, is amazing and more current to the events of Jesus' life than any other major historical character. if you read or hear someone pretending Jesus did not exist or there's no historical evidence outside the Bible, you're dealing with either a fool who is not educated, or a hack who is lying.
Interesting video. I think you make good on vindicating Lewis from a simplistic criticism of the trilemma. There are a few things that don’t seem all that useful in terms of a defense of Christianity. (By criticizing these I’m not suggesting that therefore Christianity necessarily stands or falls with success or failure of these ideas.) 1) Lewis’s appeal to authority, himself being the authority of course, although understandable and completely reasonable from a personal perspective (Lewis’s personal perspective), there’s little reason a skeptic would have to accept the appeal to authority. There would need to be a demonstration/argument for the conclusion being offered to take it seriously (by the skeptic). Obviously in terms of Lewis’s own experience it seems reasonable enough for him to believe it but being able to translate that experience into something useful that’s not a naked appeal to authority for other people is something else. 2) The ‘dwindling probabilities’ argument. Maybe I’m missing something here but this argument seems to lead inexorably to trouble for an evidence oriented Christianity. The ‘dwindling probabilities’ rebuttal of Bultmann’s claims about the Gospels sounds like an argument against all historical analysis and possibly even most of the complex multi-fact reasoning we use on a daily basis. Any evidential appeals for Christianity will also be of linked hypotheses, Example: The author of GMark is in fact John Mark and had the Apostle Peter as the source for much that is in his Gospel (and all it’s attending evidential baggage such as that Eusebius was reliably reporting what Papias reported, each of which (Eusebius and Papias) has their own additional evidential baggage). So it’s not only the ‘critics’ such as Bultmann that get mired in dwindling probabilities but all evidence based historical analyses of the New Testament documents, (and, it would seem to me, most complex reasoning humans do).
Just found this channel and this right here is some good content! I've been a long-time fan of Lewis' work, so I'm definitely gonna want to get my hands on that essay you mentioned. I've also been reading some G. K. Chesterton lately, and I appreciate the way that both he and Lewis contended for the faith with their knowledge of literature, philosophy, and generally what we would consider the humanities today. I think it's an area of study that has been neglected by Christianity for some time, and I think some of our more contemporary weaksauce arguments can attest to the damage done by that kind of neglect.
I also found Chesterton through Lewis, and I greatly prefer Chesterton (though both are obviously excellent). Small fact-drop: the single non-religious text that Lewis most credits for his conversion is Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.
@@NemisCassander I feel for me my preference depends on the day. As you said, both are amazing, but lately the wittiness of Chesterton has been winning me over haha
I agree. I think Lewis' approach was a better fit for me when I was younger, but now that I've read up on some of the philosophers and arguments that Chesterton takes to task (combined with his forceful wittiness), Chesterton feels much more meaty, for lack of a better word.
I don't think there's a single learned historian that denies the existence of Jesus as a person. He's mentioned all over in many secular documents at the time.
He was mentioned in 2, neither of them directly. However, it is somewhat probable he as a person existed, as the person writing about him lived at the same time his disciples lived. So although he never saw Jesus in the flesh, he did hear all the stories the disciples told. So either the disciples made him up, or he was a legitimate person that they based their stories on. All other secular documents just repeat what is written in the Biblical documents/gospel and took it over as if it were truth. Basing a truth claim on that would be basing a truth claim on the fact that other people assumed it to be true. If millions of people start saying there once lived a great man a couple of hundred years ago, I have no reason to doubt them. However, my lack of doubt does not prove the existence of this man.
@@drakesilmore3760 the talmud doesn't repeat what is written in the Bible, nor does it say anything positive about Jesus. Why would this account exist if Jesus didn't?
@@ata5855 The Talmud isn't a secular document. Also, the Talmud was written 200-500 years after Jesus was supposedly born. It is hardly reliable source for Jesus' existence, as nobody who wrote it was alive when Jesus was. So all information is based on a second-hand interpretation of the story the disciples of Jesus shared. Any mention of Christianity is a critique what Christians at that time believed, or what Christians at that time did. Neither of these are proof of the existence of Jesus, they are proof that Christians believe in the existence of Jesus. If you want proof of that belief, you can just as easily ask 20 people on the street and at least one of them will tell you they believe Jesus existed. They do talk of Jesus, but they talk of Jesus based on what is shared through the disciples of Jesus. This makes this information less reliable than first-hand witness statements.
In C.S. Lewis introduction to The Incarnation by Athanasius C.S. Lewis expressed the importance of studying works of the past in order to recognize the biases of the present.
As long as you start with the presupposition that the gospels are relatively fabricated, keeping only the parts you like, its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the gospels are fabricated, except for the parts you like.
Try going into it with an open mind because those gospels does contain the events that the disciples saw and experienced, the things Jesus did and said, especially the things that He taught and His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, the disciples wouldn't die for something that is fabricated or a lie.
I want to clarify, as reading other replies I suspect that there is misapprehension about what Joshua Henderson meant. My understanding is that he is pointing out that your presuppositions will determine your conclusions if said presuppositions inherently disqualify any other possibilities. I don't interpret him as indicating that he believes the gospels contain fabrications. He is simply saying that if you start out with that assumption, you will likely end up with that conclusion. I suspect he thinks the gospels are reliable, based on the way he worded his comment. For the record I stake my life on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures as being the very speech of the Almighty Creator, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I subscribe to the continental Reformed standards of the Three Forms of Unity, and agree wholeheartedly with the Westminster Standards. My reply was made from that position.
It's so annoying for me to see Rhett, someone I used to look up to, say something like this. Lewis was a classicist and very well versed in manuscript works. Even if you come to a different conclusion (which you have to say you're in the minority of contrary to what Rhett seems to be appealing to), to use this tactic of defaming is honestly just not it bro.
I recall the true story of a modern living poet who tried to answer an SAT question, with four possible answers about what the poet had in mind or what motivated the poet to write, yet seeing none of her actual thoughts or motivation in any of the answers. The question was about her own poem! Thus we see how much the literary scholars might assume or presume, but actually be way off track. This is what I think CS Lewis was also saying about how some of his scholarly readers were off track about Lewis' own writings.
Lewis discusses a similar situation re critics talking about his friend JRR Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. The critics asserted that the One ring was an allegory for atomic weapons. Lewis pointed out not only Tolkien's "cordial dislike" of allegory (Tolkien's own words) but the unavoidable fact that the LotR was originally written (and was being read bit by bit to their literary club, The Inkings, though not to be published for years) prior to the advent of atomic weapons.
A lot of these netizens and redditors who think "a bunch of dumb goat-herders from Skyrim times" were just too ignorant to raise the facile objections they come up with would end up getting very badly humiliated if they spent an afternoon walking through the market with the average Peripatetic or debating a first century Rabbi. The only reason those ancients couldn't say "I've forgotten more theology and philosophy than you'll ever learn" is because their memories were so prodigiously developed that they were practically walking libraries.
They all had to memorize the Torah at 8 years old. Not to mention the brain growth you would probably get from constantly living in a multi lingual world.
Great timing, as Paulogia is going to do a video on Lewis’s Liar, Lunatic, Lord statement, but Paulogia is going to bring in the what he thinks Lewis missed. The legend option. But as you have showed Lewis did address that as well.
If Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, as Ehrman believes, it's quite plausible that he never claimed to be divine, but rather claimed to be the Son of Man, that he believed the end was near, as many others have, and that he was simply wrong, without being a lunatic per se.
How ironic that Rhett tried saying Lewis was hoping his readers wouldnt look more into it when Rhett himself was probably hoping people wont look further into his “Hot take” lmao
Despite all of this, the legend argument is just a twist on the liar argument from the writer's perspective. They would be lying about what Jesus said or did, if it is not true.
I loved this! I had forgotten about Lewis for a while, when I was also wrestling with doubt. You have settled the storm in my mind, as Jesus settled the storm with His will. Much love, God bless!!!
This is not a good defense for the divinity of Jesus. As I said to my own people in a recent vid, one of the arguments to the Jesus divinity concept was that he couldn't have been a liar or a lunatic. Well, yes he could have and very easily. How many today claim supernatural occurrences? The entire Burpo family comes to mind with a now twenties man who still believes he went to heaven at four years old even though he never actually died. And how many follow this ministry? How many followed Joseph Smith's claim of being visited by the angel Moroni? He even had eleven signed signatures of witness of later seeing tablets, hearing supernatural voices and such. So no, Jesus and his disciples claming this and that don't mean much--and the fact we actually have no signed signatures of anything or any authorship of anyone else during Jesus life only makes the case look more and more like an urban legend. Cheers, DCF
Lewis is the most important apologist of the 20th century, primarily because of his pragmatism. He made the lofty, heady, and difficult theological claims of Christianity palpable and understandable to the layman. Lewis put in the rigorous study needed to adequately explain difficult concepts to someone who lacked training. Mere Christianity should be primary reading for all Christians, both new and old.
@@jessepost1108 the 4th option also entails that some of the guys who lied about Jesus also devoted their own lives to spreading their lies to the point of being imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
No exactly. The idea that Jesus is a "Legend" isn't exactly saying he was completely made up -- he could be a real person whose life has been exaggerated and augmented , or even a representative of a combination of multiple historical figures and various myths. Of course, the idea that CS Lewis was unfamiliar with the concept of "Legends" is ridiculous. More to then point - the 'trilemma" is NOT strictly an argument for the existence of God, or even about the historicity of Jesus. It's an argument about the internal logic of what is presented in the Gospels about Jesus. Lewis is trying to say is that if you take the Jesus presented to us in the gospel, there is no basis by which you can separate the "moral teachings" from his claim of divinity. If you take the full account of Jesus and try to determine what he was, there is no way to claim that he is merely a wise man or a great moral teacher. Within the narrative of the Gospels, Jesus is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or was merely insane. Whether or not that narrative is true is really a separate matter.
There is another point in his writings, I don't remember exactly where, perhaps someone else here does, where he says that he thinks the books"The Third Day" by Sir Arnold Lunn, definitely refuted the historical critical method and its results....even if this book is a little out of date today, the point is that Lewis was well versed in modern Biblical research and he had good reasons to hold it in low regard
There is an excellent book, "Is Atheism Dead?" by Eric Metaxas, which is a devastating critique of the most popular atheist arguments and paradigms. The intro to the book takes into consideration many ideas such as "Jesus didn't claim to be God" or "the Gospels are inaccurate" and easily topples each argument with evidence and knowledge of the text, debunking the opposition to the Trilemma one by one. It is also full of archeological evidence, and a choir of science praising God's Holy name, definitely pick up the Audiobook or the physical sometime. It was an awesome read. Armed with such knowledge as is found in this book (and obviously the Bible), figures such as Richard Dawkins are revealed to be insecure goblins, screeching louder than their overconfident "allegience" to logic and reason can cover for. It's crazy these atheists were ever taken seriously.
@@PineCreekDoug I'd definitely have to say the latter. It was not written to appeal to atheists, and it pulls no punches in criticising the ideology. Perhaps a lukewarm atheist or agnostic could benefit greatly in terms of conversion or at least consideration, but that's not the book's main goal.
Some of Lewis' cultural commentary has aged like milk, but he and Chesterton remain among the best in lay theology and lay Biblical commentary. Definitely Lewis is correct about a lot of secular Biblical text crit, but I fear he might misunderstand some of what text critics do. Among Christian Biblical scholars, the goal is to reconstruct a message not lost quickly to time, but one which might not have been transmitted as fully when languages and cultures began to change; Medieval Christianity is going to look and sound very different from second-century Christianity. The purpose is to slash away *our* 21st century cultural assumptions (including our own exegetical ones!) to give the text space to breathe and give forth its message in its own cultural context, so that we can better transmit that message without cultural noise. Small gripe, but I hope one worth bringing up.
Thank you, great video on a topic of interest for me. I hadn't heard of the legend objection to Lewis's trilemma. And I have to say that it's a little hard to take seriously. Applying the word "legend" to Jesus seems almost silly in itself. I've heard Elton John is a legend, Atlantis is a legend, the exploits of Genghis Khan were legendary, etc. All very interesting indeed. But then on the other hand you have an individual so obscure that he shouldn't have made the history books at all, and yet has held the rapt attention of the world for 2000+ years, eventually directly underwriting legal code/calendar for most of the world. That would be crazy enough for a desert carpenter giving talks. But throw in making a profound, often daily impact on countless individuals this far into his death, and, well...I think they should come up with a better word/argument than "he's only a legend, maaan". BTW I think academia has started doing this with other important figures, like Shakespeare..."he couldn't have done all that, just a legend, maaan."
There's always been something of a *pop liturary critique* theory that Shakespeare's works aren't all from the same hand. I don't know how much supports that idea but I can almost understand how you reach that position, especially if you take the stronger stance of a real Shakespeare among Pseudo-Shakespeares.
Baha'i here. A weakness of the trilemma is that Christians must insist that the argument is only applicable to Jesus Christ and not any other religious figure. In the mid 19th century a merchant named Siyyid Ali Muhammad (known as the Bab), a descendant of the prophet Muhammed, claimed to be the Mahdi, a religious figure expected within Shia Islam who would appear prior to the return of Jesus. "I am, I am, I am, the promised One! I am the One whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at whose mention you have risen, whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of whose Revelation you have prayed God to hasten." The Bab's ministry was short, a mere six years from 1844 to 1850, but in that time He wrote tens of thousands of verses. He was executed by firing squad in July of 1850. His early believers were primarily Shiite clerics but soon included many thousands from all walks of life. His writing ranges from theologically dense commentary on the Quran to humble prayers. An example of His more accessible writing is: "Worship thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God’s creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men. Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise. Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God’s good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God’s favor and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom. The most acceptable prayer is the one offered with the utmost spirituality and radiance; its prolongation hath not been and is not beloved by God. The more detached and the purer the prayer, the more acceptable is it in the presence of God." The Bab suffered beatings, imprisonment, and finally execution when he could have recanted and been spared, so thus not a knowing liar. A lunatic could not have written works that convinced a large number of highly educated clerics to accept the Bab's claim. This forces the only alternative to be that He was indeed who He said He was, a conclusion the generality of Christendom rejects, making the trilemma exclusive to Jesus Christ alone.
The trilemma IS exclusively about Jesus Christ. The entire context of trilemma is divinity of Jesus Christ. People read the text and argue that Jesus was only a man and NOT divine. Jesus claimed to be God. The trilemma argues that either He is or He isn’t. To test any conviction one could apply a similar test (crazy, lying, or spit on) could be used as a test of their claim. The “trilemma” is a specific Jesus thing.
@@TheNYOkie You prove my point for me, which is that (for Christians) the trilemma is only valid when Jesus Christ is involved, but not valid if successfully applied to any other religious figure. The Bab claimed a Divine station, so He is either a liar, a lunatic, or the claim is valid. He willingly endured beatings, prison, and finally death, when He could have recanted. Christian apologists make exactly the same points: Jesus endured beatings and willingly went to His death when He could have recanted, so He is not a liar. So neither the Bab nor Jesus are liars. As to the lunatic part, G. K. Chesterton has a wonderful take on this: "No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal was a monster with one idea like a cyclops with one eye." It is the same with the writing of the Bab; it was not the writing of a half-witted imbecile. So neither the Bab nor Jesus are lunatics. That leaves the following conclusion: both the Bab and Jesus are Lord (By the way, Baha'is have no problem with this). But I dare say essentially all Christians are willing to accept the conclusion only for Jesus and reject it for the Bab. That is what I mean by exclusive. To a devout Christian the trilemma argument is valid only for Jesus; not because other religious figures cannot satisfy it, but because only the conclusion that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is Lord is acceptable.
Love seeing comedians attempt serious commentary. They're usually right at that peak of the dunning-krueger curve and vastly overestimate their grasp of whatever field they're speaking on
You forgot the important rule: we are never to read more than two of Lewis’ books at a time when criticizing him, that would make our criticism too hard and too scholarly.
I’m a Christian but I’m not sure that we can rule out the legend hypothesis when it comes to certain representations of Christ in Scripture. I watched the video but I’m not convinced it adequately answers that hypothesis. Ultimately, as apologetics are not fully able to prove that Christ is Lord, the legend hypothesis is still valid. After all, both camps, the believers and the naysayers, rely upon biblical scholarship of their choice to arrive at their conclusions. Albert Schweitzer may have said it best “ He comes to us as One unknown…” and I believe that. Christ is indeed best understood and proclaimed with the heart. For some that will never be enough, but for others that will be exactly what the Great Physician ordered.
Having watched this video, Lewis’s argument works as a rebuttal to the argument that “Jesus was not divine but was a great moral teacher” since that argument already presupposes that Jesus of the Gospels was the Jesus of history. Which was the argument it was always meant to refute. It still falls flat when dealing with someone who doesn’t believe the Gospels are a reliable account of what Jesus said. And C.S. Lewis’s argument about the Gospel according to John being reported dialogue still doesn’t refute that since it’s still entirely possible that John was a liar or a lunatic. And yes, I know the kind of people that Lewis was trying to refute wouldn’t have made that argument but that still bolsters the point that I’m making. That 1) Lewis’s trilemma only works in an intra-Christian context and 2) only works if the non-believing Christians are already halfway there.
Very great and succinct presentation of the strong and well-founded criticisms of modern Biblical scholarship from C.S. Lewis. I should also point out that his own field of literary criticism was what was and is often looked towards by Bible scholars in their own critiques of Biblical narrative. So the critical methods that Lewis critiques here were and are actually more natural in his own field as historical artifacts than they are in Biblical studies.
The trilemma argument is predicated on the assertion that the account of Jesus is factual. That assertion can be reached by sound logic even if the only information you have been given is from the bible itself (though this is a lot of work). CS Lewis talks about his reasoning not only in Mere Christianity, but also in the narrative of the Chronicles of Narnia, when the children go to the professor to ask about how to know if Lucy's experience in the wardrobe was true. It is basic logic. Once you accept that the account of Jesus's words and actions is factual, the only conclusion one can reach when he claims to be the I Am, the Son of Man, and the Son of God, is that he is sanely speaking the truth. Why is that, you may ask? It is because when anyone anywhere makes a truth claim, the claim is either true or false. If it is false, they either know it is false and say it anyway, subverting reality willingly (LIAR), or they don't know it and their reasoning is disconnected from reality concerning what they've said (LUNATIC). If is true, then their mind is connected to reality concerning what they've said (LORD). The other combination of speaking the truth but not knowing it also falls into the LUNATIC category. So which one? Not including his claims of deity, Jesus's words were perfectly sane. That is, his words were aligned with reality, reason, and truth. The LUNATIC category is excluded. What about the LIAR category? Jesus was condemned to his bloody, torturous death for the crime of blasphemy. This very claim that we're considering, the claim to deity, is what got him killed. Therefore, he made the claim knowingly, sanely, and at great cost. He did it anyway, in spite of the cost. If he was a liar, he would have recanted to preserve his worldly interests. But no, he went to the cross. The only other category that remains is the LORD category. I believe he laid down his life for his sheep, and I believe he rose from the dead, and he stands forever to justify all who look to Him for forgiveness of sins and salvation from the judgment of God.
"Jesus's words were perfectly sane. That is, his words were aligned with reality, reason, and truth. The LUNATIC category is excluded" This is just absurd. You seem to be presupposing that a "lunatic" can never say anything true or rational, like a lunatic is the statue in the riddle whose brother only tells the truth.
Well done! I remember reading parts of Lewis's critique. There's bits of it throughout the posthumous collection of essays under the title "God in the Dock", which IMO really should be required reading for those interested in Apologetics.
The video misunderstands the objection to the trilemma. Whether Lewis was impressed or not by the "legend option" is entirely irrelevant, since the construction of the argument relies on there being only three options. Wiki article on false dilemmas describes precisely this problem with Lewis' argument: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Logical_forms A false dilemma can also occur in the form of a disjunctive syllogism: In this form, the first premise ( P ∨ Q ) is responsible for the fallacious inference. Lewis's trilemma is a famous example of this type of argument involving three disjuncts: "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord". By denying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, one is forced to draw the conclusion that he was God. But this leaves out various other alternatives, for example, that Jesus was a prophet, as claimed by the Muslims.
Right? The “trilemma” rests upon the assumption that the words as written were actually spoken by an actual Jesus. The legend option undermines those assumptions. I get why believers feel like that’s not even an option, they’ve already agreed to those assumptions.
@@HammershotSGD even if they were spoken by an actual Jesus. there are quite a few Christian denominations and sects that reject the idea of Trinity and Christ's divinity, which in itself is sufficient evidence that Jesus' words can be interpreted in a number of different ways. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism Think that's one of the main problems with Lewis' argument that even if we are to grant every word of any version of the Bible he likes there would still be multiple ways to interpret the scriptures.
@@the-gadfly4743 These very views have been discussed and consequently rejected in several ecumenical councils. Before you shout "muh argument from authority". The church wasn't as powerful before the Edict of Milan of 312 (before it had state power) and thus many Christians offered to present their view and it turned out, a certain view won out against all the others. Unless you believe in atheist conspiracies of the Church wanting to control men's minds by doing this, there is a reason this occurred. "Before Abraham was, I was" is a telltale sign of a divine claim. You can disagree with his claim, but you cannot deny he claimed to be God. Just because there are alternative opinions on a subject, doesn't mean that those opinions automatically hold any value.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard lol. i'm not the one who's disagreeing with your religious claim. The other Christians are. Not even all Christian denominations agree with your scriptural interpretation. And that's without bringing other Abrahamic faiths into it. The only one who has assumed that their opinion automatically holds any value on the subject is you. You argument isn't an appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance. You might not be aware of why nontrinitarian denominations of Christianity reject the doctrine of trinity or consider their reasoning unconvincing, but neither of this implies that the denominations came by their nontrinitarian views "automatically" in any shape or form. Nor have you addressed the fallacious inference in Lewis' trilemma.
I was once attached to this idea that if the majorities of Scholars agreed on something then It must be True, but I came to find Out that scholars have presupposition of their own which makes them say what They Say, for example the Q source, it was granted by scholars as true and was given as a the source of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, I believed in it only to find out that It literally doesn’t exist, there is no manuscript of this source, nor a quotation, they literally made up a source out of thin air just to make the gospels look like non independent accounts, if this was done to any other work in history, it would be called conspiracy theory, but because it’s the gospel they can have a field day, and that’s when scholarly consensus died for me, there are more examples but it’s too much to cite them
I think there is evidence for Q, (Luke says that were earlier writings before he compiled his gospel) but a lot of the speculative reconstructions are just made up conjectures.
Scholarly Consensus just means that there are probably good arguments for the consensus position. Arguing that something is the case BECAUSE of scholarly consensus would be a an _argumentum ad populum._ Take Mythicism for example, the fact that there aren't any real scholars who hold to Mysticism is a good indication that there are good reasons to not be a Mythicist. For something like the dating of the Gospels, the reasoning for Mark being around 70 AD is because Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Since prophecy isn't real, they say, that obviously couldn't have happened. Therefore, the author of Mark must have written after it happened and just attributed it to Jesus. Of course, that's just circular reasoning.
Summarized: If the Gospels are true, Christ is either Lord, Lunatic, or Liar. If they are untrue, then our whole faith is without meaning. But the arguments that the Gospels are untrue begin from the supposition that the Gospels cannot be true. It's largely circular and does not well address the questions that naturally arise from contemporary histories.
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.” Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life: ua-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/v-deo.html For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out ua-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos and ua-cam.com/users/CrossExamined because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever! God bless y’all!
It’s hard to believe no one has mentioned this, but the trilemma operates upon an assumption that the Jesus as portrayed in literature is a mirror image of the Jesus who lived and breathed on earth. If we can’t verify the truth of this assumption, then CS Lewis’ conclusion does not logically follow.
It seems to me that the core of Lewis' argument puts Christianity in an awkward position if taken seriously. If we actually take the argument at face value, and join Lewis in interpreting Jesus in he same way that he and his followers did at the time he was alive, then what we end up with is neither modern Biblical scholarship or anything resembling medieval Christian theology, but rather Jesus as the preacher of an immanent 1st-century apocalypse that simply never came.
Have you read the old testament after reading the new testament? You were close with your first two statements but the Ehrman apocalyptist argument collapses when you realise what Jesus was really teaching.
No. Jesus never predicted an "apocalypse" as you understand it, in his lifetime. He did predict that His ministry would have earth-shattering consequences in the metaphorical sense. Your problem is, you're reading 21st century scientific literalism into the apocalyptic genre of these predictions.
Thank you for showing Lewis' perspective on modern biblical studies. I do think the lunatic (and to some degree liar) option was limited by the psychological knowledge of his time. In particular, I don't see why someone with a histrionic or narcissist personality disorder couldn't also have some morally sound teachings.
@@tell-me-a-story- If you believe he did authentic miracles and resurrected than the trilemma is not an issue. Lewis was responding specifically to the idea of a humanistic, non-miraculous Jesus that still had similar teachings. That he was just a "good teacher."
Question, isn't there a contradiction between his 2nd and 4th points here? He seems to want to say that the legend hypothesis is questionable because of the contemporaries with Christ having a much better natural grasp of the message than modern academics who are removed from that context, but then at the same time wants to argue that _because_ even people alive at the same time can easily misunderstand each other, the modern scholar has less ability to interpret the text So are contemporaries trustworthy or not? If modern people, with all our massive access to information, can easily misunderstand each other, then why couldn't ancients have done the same and produced legendary accounts and misconceptions
His argument about modern scholars is more along the lines of, “They read my writing and misinterpret it. I’m here. They don’t ask me. I refute their analysis and they don’t change. How can their analysis of an ancient text be trusted?” He’s not saying that contemporary criticism is invalid and historical criticism is invalid. He’s challenging the low standard of particular criticism. He’s raising doubt about criticism driven by agenda rather than rationale.
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.” What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” Luke 4:16-27 ESV bible.com/bible/59/luk.4.16-27.ESV
The truth of the matter is as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians, you can’t back someone into a corner of philosophical thinking to get them to believe. If they choose not to believe the raw truth of the gospel, then God gives them the free will to do so. Paul talks a lot about false conversions. I encourage you, if you think you need a sign or a proof to believe, 1, remember the verse that says a wicked and adulterous generation needs a sign. (Matt. 16:4) 2, look at the lives of true born again believers and see what their faith has done. Listen to their testimonies about what God has done. If you are struggling with doubt, pray to God about your doubt, and try faith, learn and led the Spirit pulling you lead you into receiving the truth of Christ rather than grieving the Spirit with skepticism. The truest sign you can get is the blessings that come in following Him. Even if those changes and transformations take years. He’s coming soon, and why be naked in our own selfish desires than to be clothed in the armor of Jesus and who He was. The strength He has and offers. We all have struggles, we all have problems, we all have hardship, pain, questions and needs, but when God becomes our answer, our refuge and our central focus point, rather than our own things we find the refuge and fulfillment in Him, not in theological arguments and fleshly worldly endeavors.
No. Morality isn't binary and is subject to time and culture. For instance Yahweh’s punishment for homosexuals may have been *good* for its time and culture, but in a modern society we would consider it *evil* to throw stones at anyone until they die. Morality is progressive.
@@ryanrevland4333 if it’s all relative and there is no “fixed point,” why you defend them, bro? My opinion is just as valid as yours and you’re wasting what’s left of your life before you cease to exist through death arguing with a stranger on the internet. 🤷🏿♂️
It’s funny. CS Lewis, when he was atheist, also criticized old religions as out dated when a friend of his was joining the then popular theosophical movement. His friend later accused him of “chronological snobbery” assuming modern people are more intelligent than ancient ones. And Lewis did say that this made him reconsider his views, and helped lead him to Christianity.
People who don't believe don't WANT to believe. Romans 1 - Psalm 19. The truth is manifest. In Christ, we are invited to be fully reconciled with God. Sadly, most people simply aren't interested in reconciliation. They are without excuse.
The hubris and arrogance of Rhett to believe he is, by any stretch, smarter than C.S. Lewis is just wow... it's gross and instantly shows what an utter fool he is.
I liked GMM, but I'm not taking spiritual wisdom from a guy who made himself famous eating pizza, sitting in ice baths and spinning a wheel of mythicality.
0:06, if you accept the premise that Jesus said what the New Testament says he said then that argument makes sense. Especially since, the “Jesus as moral teacher” argument presupposes that he said what he says it said. It’s when it’s used against people who don’t make that claim that the argument loses its punch
The main reasons why someone would aim to make Jesus less than what the gospels describe Him as would be 1) a desire to be equal with Him, 2) a desire to be accepted within certain social and/or professional circles, or 3) a desire to assuage one's own apostasy by the sewing of doubt into the hearts of others. Believing in Jesus is not an easy thing to do; even the strongest of us struggle with it sometimes. But here's what I would say to Lewis' critics: as it goes with all things in life, you can't expect benefit from that which requires no investment. I hope God works to help Rhett and others like him to understand the value that comes from the complete denial of oneself to embrace Jesus as our risen Savior. The same way that I hope God continues to help me to learn and grow in this, too.
Miracles are miracles because they can't happen, but do. If people rose from the dead every day, Jesus's resurrect would be meaninglessness and He would be just another person. This doesn't prove miracles, but it frustrates me when atheists say miracles don't happen, because it's impossible. Yes, when the impossible happens, it's a miracle.
Your probability calculation is a good way of looking at Ockham’s razor. There isn’t really a good reason to prefer a ‘simple’ solution over a complex one and there are many examples that show that a complex solution is correct and replaces a wrong, simple one, like elliptical orbits of the planets replacing assumed circular orbits. The calculation is very simple 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 just expressed as %. A complex hypothesis will always fall foul of this calculation but I’ve often been uneasy with the way Ockham is used. A simple 1 stage hypothesis of 65% likelihood is not better than a 3 stage 90% each hypothesis (72.9%) but is better than a 5 stage one (59%).
Also worth noting that the modern "scholarly consensus" is itself a modern, revisionist, history which is mostly based on the thinking of scholars who enter into the conversation with the starting assumption that Jesus is not God and could not have performed miracles (which are impossible). Essentially they worked backwards from their conclusion and wrote much scholarly works and books to make it seem that they did not.
6:03 My biggest problem with Bart Ehrman, is his incredibly cynical take on Biblical Accuracy. Even though he spends hours of lectures pointing out inconsistencies in texts and how it has been changed over time (in itself an assumption that the earliest text is always the most accurate, and not that later texts may have referred to more accurate (even earlier) texts now gone. But he completely fails to acknowledge that those inconsistencies do not alter the information in a significant way at all. There are 770000 words in the new testament even if you threw out 10% and the message would not change and he is claiming much less inaccuracies than that, I think like 1%.
Even with a fourth option regarding the inclusion of legend in the gospels, it still boils down to Jesus either being God or not. It's just that with this assertion regarding legend you get extra steps by way of questioning the reliability of scripture. If scripture does not accurately convey what God wants to show us about Jesus, including but not limited to his identity as God, then it is not reliable at all. If scripture is not reliable in this regard, then there is no reason to believe other things it says like that we are all sinners who need salvation or that Jesus Christ is the only way to obtain that salvation.
If Jesus was before Abraham, we have to ask, what did Jesus mean by this? He also said ABRAHAM SAW MY DAY and was glad. 1) why was Abraham glad and 2) when did that happen? If you can answer those two questions, you probably will totally understand Jesus, no more questions asked and nothing in the whole Bible will ever contradict again by simply understanding the answer to those two questions: So let me answer them quick and soundly: 1) Abraham was glad because the LIGHT circumcised his heart (the three animate levels he cut in half, which represent his DESIRES, hence the heart is the DESIRE of man which is why it is written to be more wicked and feeble than all things. The heart is the problem and it is written, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, so here is blasphemy and evil tongue (lashon hora) as well. Making the heart which is the BEAST that goes throughout the whole world, all nations, and all Kingdoms, into "MAN" is the purpose of the WORD which is Jesus Christ, the WORD made flesh. SO the LIGHT that is the LIFE of MAN (not mankind which is the creation) but MAN, the image and likeness of God. God creates evil (creature) and then FORMS the MAN within the creation. This too is written: So Abraham the first Jew, discovers the purpose of creation which is to be FORMED into MAN which separates his consciousness into three parts; God, Satan or the great darkness that the light reveals and MAN, the purpose of learning how these two together FORM this MAN we all must become. 2) The LIGHT goes through the animate desires when it gains a GREATER DESIRE than the animate and makes its first choice to trust the UNKNOWN (God) in favor of the known that is no longer giving him the desires of his animate heart. Now, if he follows the light that reveals himself to Abraham little by little, then he moves in consciousness from Beast to MAN in four phases, hence the FOUR LETTER NAME YHVH: If you want to talk more about it, just let me know:
Edited** (Accidentally used the word theophagy instead of theophany.) The foremost issue is that the translations of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old testament were so mischaracterized that the very meanings of the words have been adjusted for a western audience and European values. An example, the word that is used to describe a person in English is called a name. In Hebrew the word to describe a person is called "shem" which does not mean a name in the same way that English does. The fact that English translations take the contextual meaning of a "shem" and convert it into a noun to describe a person was the very first major infraction of translation into English. A 'shem' is not simply a name or a title it is a description of the very heart, purpose, substance, character, hope, emotions, and destiny of the individual who receives it. The reason why this is the case is because of theophany (**accidentally used the word theophagy)which means to incorporate the characteristics of a higher power into the characteristics of a created being such as humankind. You could even describe a person who has received a 'shem' with the 'shem' of Yahweh/El/Adonai/etc to be a sort of extension of that higher power aka a child of that higher power. This is what Elohim is referring to when we translated as, "Gods" or "heavenly host" or "God of Gods", in which all of that context is surgically removed by excluding the purpose of a "shem" given to an individual by the higher power. The word Shem is where we get the phrase "shalom" which means 'peace' or 'rest'. To abide in the characteristics and existence of the higher power of Israel is to become part of his 'rest' aka the people of God's kingdom. The good news was that Christ who was an obedient 'child of God' the same title given to all of God's people (Hebrews). Through the obedience to God's word Christ has made the way to adoption into God's kingdom as his children a very real possibility where there was once no chance to do so. When you mistake your understanding of the English translation to be the wisdom of God you are puffed up with pride and arrogance about how much you know about the things of God without even realizing your ignorance about the people and Kingdom of God and the context in which the phrases and references were made and to be understood through the eyes and heart of a Hebrew citizen or convert.
point or "bleat" 3 and 4 of CS Lewis here contradict each other. It seems to support a misunderstanding of Christ by early followers the same way he uses the example of his own work being misunderstood by contemporaries with a similar culture, life experience etc...
Even before that mentioned 2000 years ago with Paul in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 NIV - If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Corinthians 1:27 27 God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful.
I’m not saddened or offended by Rhett and Link’s deconstruction, but they are making their own disbelief flashier and more complicated than it needs to be. It’s like, bruh, you didn’t have the Tara Westover experience. Their reasoning behind their deconstruction would be suffice in one 10 minute video
The amount of detail in the scripture is a very strong counterpoint to the unreliable texts argument. The level of detail from times of the day to certain parts of the cultures of individuals are impossible to construct unless you know them and were there.
What a faulty definition of miracle that Bart man uses. The "unnatural" aspect of miracles is just our perspective of them. For we define natural as the actions of the eternal (from the Atheist perspective, eternal laws). Yet, what is eternal but the nature of God? And what are miracles but the expression of God's loving nature. I tell you, do not assume what you regularly experience is all that is natural.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian and amateur apologist. But a non-Christian might argue that the video is contradictory (or at least inconsistent). That the point of 6:29 which addresses C.S. Lewis' admission that even modern reviewers can misunderstand the work of their own contemporaries [e.g. the Chronicles of Narnia] contradicts [or is inconsistent with] the earlier point of the video at 3:49 which claims that it is extremely improbable that the early church quickly came to misunderstand the message of Jesus. The non-Christian could respond by asking, "Which is it? Because you're can't have it both ways." Also, I wish the video made it more clear that skeptics like to refer to the Quadrilemma by adding the fourth "L" of Legend to the three other "L"s. The video implies it, but it would have been nicer if it explicitly acknowledged it.
If you find these kind of videos helpful please consider supporting me on Patreon. patreon.com/isjesusalive
1:19 lol I about fell in the floor. He is a molinist apologist not a biblical apologist. You obviously haven't researched Dr. James White. He addresses these such issues that William lane Craig refuses to answer.
Molinism is a soteriological view. James White would be a Calvinist apologist.
This pentalemma is more accurate: liar, lunatic, fanatic, deceived, or lard.
BS Lewis was mistaken.
This reminds me of one of C S Lewis's books called "The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe". The part where the professor is talking with Peter and Susan because they think their younger sister Lucy had gone mad because she discovered a magic world in a wardrobe.
"Well you know she doesn't tell lies and she's not mad, so she must be telling the truth."
The point of the trilemna argument was specifically to blow up the notion that Jesus was a mere moral teacher by pointing to the claim of divinity. Its force isn’t in proving Christ’s divinity, it’s in disproving a conception of Jesus as a nice guy hippie.
The trilemna only really works if we take all the words of the bible as true and accurate, and by that point if you already accept the bible as true and accurate you dont really need this whole argument cause you already accept jesus is lord cause thats what the text says. Thats at least why I find it a fairly weak argument.
@@Rurikethats if youre still not considering all the facts at hand.
If all you have is the text and cs. Lewis' reasoning. You still won't believe unless of course the God in question helps you into the life boat that is Jesus Christ the Lord.
@@Rurike You don't need to believe that the Bible is true to believe it is accurate. Even atheist historians agree to the veracity of the Bible as a historical record of Jesus' teachings, though they don't accept the supernatural claims.
@@zachhecita
That's quite far fetched. We do not have any records of Jesus' teaching outside of the Bible.
And historians know the gospels have been composed and altered over time to fit a certain narrative (and to serve church politics).
I'd go as far anyone who says the NT is a "historical record" is talking plain BS.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in Greek, Latin, and various other ancient languages and most Biblical translations go back to those original manuscripts. Are you claiming that all of those ancient manuscripts were altered to “fit a certain narrative”?
Lewis was an atheist. Lewis came to his faith reluctantly and only through rigorous examination. He’s not one for overlooking details. Lewis was brilliant.
In my own life I find some of the most pursues I’ve Christian’s were those who were either converts or reconverts.
"He’s not one for overlooking details"
Apparently he overlooked the fact that he had no evidence for the existence of a god.
@@cnault3244 he had philosophical reasons for believing and shares those reasons in his writings. It’s difficult to use empirical methods to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time.
@@koly575 A fact can hurt someone?
@@jedijudoka Since it has not been shown that there is a realm outside of space/time, there is no reason to think/believe there is a realm outside of space/time.
Instead of saying "It’s difficult to use empirical methods to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time." you could just as well say "It’s difficult to prove the existence of anything that exists outside of space/time if you won't let me use speciil pleading"
We can certainly misuse the trilemma, but Lewis did not. It's right there in the text: He was talking to and about people who read the gospels, believe them, but say, "Jesus was just a great moral teacher." He was not talking to people who believe the gospels are myths. If he was talking to those people, he would have martialed the arguments you quote from the other address.
Lewis should have realized that not only his intended audience would read his work, because as a result of this exclusion, for as long as Lewis is remembered, he will be remembered for failing to include this obvious fourth option. "Legend" even starts with an L. If only he had mentioned that option and made some sort of defense against it, he would not go down in history as if he had not even thought of it, or as if he wanted his audience to not think about it.
@@Ansatz66 What you're saying is "Lewis should have realized that the people who come after him don't read carefully, so he should have preempted their complaint ..." It's hard to predict how lazy and stupid future generations will become.
@@Ansatz66 So, he should have been a clairvoyant and predict that future generations have the reading comprehension ability of roadkill? Your job is not misunderstand what is written, not the author.
Fair enough, context matters. It is a shame that people who parrot his trilema are largely unaware of the assumptions required for it. Not necessarily Lewis's fault.
@@Ansatz66 I hope you do the same with any and every piece of writing you put out. Moreover, you are very silly if you forget one of the most important lessons when beginning to write: Consider your audience. You don’t write a Nuclear Power Plant handbook for a lay person who has no concept of what the control systems are. You write them so that an engineer knows how to operate the plant. Would it be nice to be digestible to a lay person? Sure. But at the same time, the reader should be able to understand when they are in the target audience and when they are not.
Rhett and Link went from a simplistic Christianity to a simplistic rejection of it.
It seems like whenever an atheist rejects what they see as a bad reason or argument, Christians will say they just don't understand Christianity
Amen. Matthew 7:23
This is exactly right. And tragic really. It's clear that evangelical experience doesn't prep their adherents well for debate. When they see other concepts, sometimes their faith falls apart. We really should train our believers better. They used to compel education before baptism. Check out Bullies and Saints, by John Dickson.
So disappointing. It is especially sad when someone leaves the faith and, on top of it, decides not to go quietly. What could possibly be the motivation to try to convince others to come with you? Justification for their own decision to live for themselves? I’m just so sad for them.
@@karenros5384 u want people to go quietly? What are you, the mafia?
One of the first books I read after becoming a Christian was a book by the popular textual critic, and best selling author, Bart Ehrman. I've never read something so pedantic, so pompously petty, in my entire life - and I say this as someone who enjoys reading classical and modern philosophy.
Even within his own book, Bart Ehrman confessed to the strong evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus, and his apparent subsequent resurrection. The evidence for the earliest Christians certainly believing that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond reproach. I specifically remember him flailing about for possible alternatives, including an appeal to the widely discredited "mushroom cult" theory.
After reading that, I read Mere Christianity, and it was like a breath of fresh air. Lewis' logical and wise analysis of the profound teaching woven consistently throughout Scripture felt like a return to sanity. And many things that Lewis said struck a deep chord with me, as I recognized the nature of having a personal relationship with God in my own life. He is brilliant thinker, and a terrific writer, who has brought rational assurance to many Christians. Thank you God for C.S. Lewis.
Love you, brother in Christ.
Hey nice comment. This seems to the crux of you statement.
'The evidence for the earliest Christians certainly believing that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond reproach'.
Can i interest you in a video looking at possible answers? If so please click here:
ua-cam.com/video/-TjXExCBM_U/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Paulogia
Hope this rabbit hole helps.
cheers
G
Awesome testimony, Cory. I’ve studied apologetics for years. It’s time for me to read Ehrman for myself so I can critique it.
@@graftedtheband thank you, sir. You definitely should!
@@krazo4Christ which book?
I used to wonder if Lewis was actually objectively a great scholar or just a Christian fan favorite and thus considered great. After some research I can confirm objectively that he was not only a great scholar, there's a compelling case to call him the greatest scholar of the 20th century
While he's good, I'd think Cardinal Newman might be more up there in terms of "scholarly".
Chesterton's not bad but his is more "common sense that ain't common anymore".
@@bengreen171 I’d recommend taking a look into exactly how much research he did for the Oxford History of the English Language 16th century. (I’ve never heard of any scholar attempt anything of similar magnitude)
He also earned a triple first at Oxford, and knew a handful of languages. He also was famous for his perfect recall of nearly everything he read.
(Also his Oxford professor considered him to be the most widely read person he’d ever known.)
Definitely. Young Heretics has a video on why he might be the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century.
@@bengreen171 being "well read" means "to know a lot of stuff". You'd certainly benefit from being a bit more well read.
@@bengreen171 I’m sorry to butt in here but how does John’s gospel conflict with the others?
It's always good to hear more support for the cannon of the Bible. Corrie Ten Boom said that one of the reasons why she believed the gospels to be true is that the authors do not possible themselves in good lights. They wrote the gospels and gained nothing from it- not even pride. In fact they died for it.
what authors died for writing the bible?
@@mikeywmorgan all of the New Testament ones, except John.
@@mikeywmorgan literally all but John.
I’m pretty sure the only author that we know for certain died as a martyr was Paul, and he wasn’t a witness to a physical resurrection.
As for the rest, if they did indeed use as martyrs, it only proves that they sincerely believed, not that they were in a position to know that they’re claims were true.
In any case, it's humorous to watch a UA-camr like Rhett to try and condescend an intellectual giant such as Lewis. That certainly doesn't make Rhett's objections wrong, but the context of both men's background is certainly interesting to consider.
Intellectuals have a smaller reach these days- not just in Christendom, in general :/
You should present evidence for the existence of a god, that'd really show him!
@@cnault3244 There's tons of evidence. I don't think you actually know the nature of evidence. Evidence must be interpreted.
The argument has never, is never, and will never be about evidence. It's the worldviews that make sense of the evidence the best. And secular worldviews fail on every account. Besides, your call for evidence is trivial either way because it's self defeating.
"...that'd really SHOW him" (caps for emphasis). I could show you fire from heaven, but the act of seeing, observing is built on presuppositions that can't be proven. Can you prove to me that the senses, more specifically the eyes here, really see reality as it is? If not, then admittedly your epistemology rests on assumptions in the absence of evidence. Your problem is not with evidence; it's the fact you may actually be accountable to something than your own god complex.
@@DookyButter "There's tons of evidence."
I hear that claim regularly, but te people making the claim NEVER present any of the evidence.
Here's your opportunity. Present some of the evidence.
"The argument has never, is never, and will never be about evidence"
Actually, it IS about the evidence. The believers claim there is evidence but they never present any of it. Your post is a shining example of that.
@@cnault3244 The world around is you evidence. The fact there is something rather than nothing is evidence of something higher.
Of course, you can reject this, but the onus is then on you to show how anything can come from nothing. An honest atheist knows this shortcoming, and this is why people like Lawrence Krauss have put forth laughable attempts to justify that very claim.
The evidence of morality. For example, you want evidence so that you can get to the truth of the matter. But your demand of evidence for the pursuit of truth is a presupposition you take on faith. In the pursuit of truth, you implicitly recognize that truth is *better* than falsehood. Or would you reject that idea?
The logical reduction to pure act, which Thomas Aquinas proved. All potentiality must be backed by a source of actuality. The only thing that fits the criteria of something as pure act would be a god.
The fact you trust your senses. You're asking for evidence but only on the presupposition (which you can't prove) that your senses perceive reality as it really is. But as a secularists, you make that claim arbitrarily. You have no reason to believe that senses are reliable. If you do, I'd like to hear what evidence you have to suppose they are.
And lastly, the inherent value of humanity. If humans are just random collections of matter, then you should ascribe as much importance to a dung beetle as you do to your own mother. But something in me, call it a hunch, tells me you don't actually think that way.
If you are not satisfied with this evidence, please tell me the standard you would like. Once were done, however, I would like you to present evidence that there is no god.
Thank you for your work on this. I sat under an "Orthodox Christian" religion professor at a state university that began to question the deity of Christ. I brought up the Lewis trilemma in class. The professor encouraged me to share in class. Which he then pointed out that was true if the Scriptures were reliable. Then I didn't have a response. Now I do. I didn't know about the work Lewis did with the church leadership.
Your religion prof was exactly the kind of person Lewis was addressing
Love CS Lewis. I read Mere Christianity about 40 years ago. It shows Jesus is alive and was here on earth doing His work 2000 years ago. You did some good documentation work here, great video.
That's kinda wrong. Jesus, according to John, was the Word who spoke the universe into existence. The person who wrestled Jacob. The person who Isaiah 53 prophecized about. The person whose death concided with the penultimate 70th week of Daniel, the promised person who will crush the serpents head in genesis. And the mere translations of the first 10 patriarchs names as the promised redeemer.
@@cobramcjingleballs I think we're on the same team.
I still love CS Lewis though.
I appreciate that Lewis admits Jesus was wrong about the end of the world happening in His disciples' lifetime. That takes intellectual courage.
Rhett and Link's deconstruction was sad in how emotional it was. For link especially it boiled down to "love is love" and like his homosexual friends. While it's not true of all deconstructions, in their case, it seems obvious that it was a comprise with the world as they gained success and worldly friends, and justifications came later.
That was my take, as well. I went through something similar for a decade before rediscovering my faith. I had to stop looking down on it before I allowed myself to examine it fairly.
Most people's deconstruction isn't as philosophically rigorous as one could hope, but it doesn't really matter. They got to the point where their morals (and their expanded worldview after going through a lot of life changes) continued to butt up against what they believed about their god. It was sad, because when someone realizes that they don't believe anymore, they're forced to give up much more than they initially realized. I know because I've been through this as well, though the reasons that caused me to lose all belief in the supernatural are different from their reasons.
Do you have the same disdain for Christian testimonies that are steeped in emotion?
I wish I had followed it more. I remember their video coming out. I used to watch GMM almost religiously in high school, and I can't really remember what it was about or if it was even explicitly Christian. I remember being surprised to learn they were Christian at all.
when the video came out, I got it in my feed. but by then I hadn't watched any of their content in 3 or 4 years and I just haven't gone back to investigate again
It’s better to choose the world
Polycarp called Jesus
"our Lord and God Jesus Christ"
That alone debunks the development hypothesis
so the trilemma still stands.
Amen. The LORD God Jesus Christ was sent into the world by Our Heavenly Father to die on the cross for our sins and Rise for our eternal life in Him; it is He who is True and Risen indeed.
Polycarp knew the Apostle John so he knew someone who was alive when the events of Jesus life were said to have happened.
Rhet spent many years trying to reconcile his religious upbringing (South) with the humanistic, even nihilist, culture of southern California. And the culture won. Won in part with the ploy of using one's concepts brotherly love and compassion against him-- that a person's behavior and the person are one and the same and to reject unhealthy behaviors is to deny one's person hood. It is labeled "judgemental". Further, if we say a certain lifestyle is unhealthy, even dangerous, are hateful bigots and not the light of Christ .
The problem with Rhett and others like him is the conversion (or deconstruction) often has a large component of emotional reasoning rather than intellectual and so we get arguments like these, that on the face might seem cogent, but are simplistic and well. . . wrong.
Or to put another way: Rhett caved to the woke mob and is now trying to justify how it was not a cave but a careful, well thought ought transition.
I can't speak for Rhett, but I'd caution against the term "emotional reasoning." The idea that we have a purely logical and a purely emotional side to me reeks of dualism. Both have to work in tandem and balance each other out. After all, we usually only bother to learn about something in the first place because of some underlying emotional reason. That's just my two cents.
@@Cataphract3 Not necessary. The position is quite defensible.
@@dpwellman Oh it was a cave alright. He hadn't thought it out well enough at the time to realize that condemning people like Ken Ham as charlatans who "believed" only so long as it gave them money or influence was laughable considering that he and Link deconstructed right as they were on the verge of breaking into Hollywood, at the precise moment when it would have (and did) give their careers the maximum amount of forward momentum.
@@shaminshaman6254 Not right at, but after spending having more time in sunny CA, certainly.
Rhett's vid on the subject (two years ago) was quite similar to many others describing their own decisions-- very much the same with certain keywords and issues that indicated social pressure as the primary driver.
Anecdotally, my fiance had an opposite experience moving from LA to middle, TN. . . "Where did all the flags come from?" she'd ask. Or when we went to a sports bar to watch a game and everyone stopped talking and some stood up for the Natl Anthem. "What's everyone doing?"
I love the idea that the power that could raise a corpse from the dead is some how unable to restore any decay that occurred because of the length of time that the corpse was a corpse.
It's like saying that a car mechanic couldn't have got an old car running again because he would have had to replace the battery and you don't believe he is capable of either.
Rhett and Link rejecting Christ devastated me. I still pray for them every once in a while when I am reminded. They reminded me of my friends growing up and we all had a strong kindred to them.
Maybe they should stick to wondering if things will "taco" or "will it ice cream?" Instead of spouting nonsense about religion. When people get "famous" for being dumb, don't be surprised when they keep being dumb.
This. And this is why I try not to base my emotions and faith on famous people. I would be devastated if Justin Bieber today suddenly declares that he doesn't believe in Jesus anymore.
Well done! I was waiting on this one after watching the Paulogia rebuttal.
In light of this information, I now see CS Lewis’s liar, lunatic, or Lord argument as a sort of closing statement to his broader musings on the subject rather than a standalone argument.
That does seem to have been his intent, though in today’s gotcha/bumper sticker slogan culture, even apologists have used it over simply.
Fantastic. I had someone use the "scriptures are unreliable" argument on me when I mentioned Lewis' Lord, Liar, or Lunatic trilemma. I wish I'd known this follow up argument from Lewis then. Ah well, now I'm armed for the next time.
If you research, you will find both Testaments to be the most attested to ancient documents in the world with far more copies of older manuscripts and fragments than any other ancient book or writing. These "higher criticism" types don't question the validity or historical accounts they contain. They rely purely on the anti-supernatural bias claims, when by definition something supernatural is simply something science doesn't understand yet.
One thing I find ironic, even though I love apologetics is that the Bible says that some people are so blind to the truth, the the Lord will let them only believe their lie no matter what, so as a believer it’s funny/kinda sad knowing the truth wanting to prove a point to someone about the truth, but the truth says that person doesn’t have the capability to recognize it.
I adore CS Lewis for his ability to point out what rational logic actually is. Surely a man needed in this age of all ages. Everyone now is convinced of the power and rationale of their own mind. I leaned on his writing heavily to help dismantle mistakes put in to me by the seemingly good sense of others. His work is great for provoking thought as well. Nuance you may not have considered on your own. But ultimately I think all believers need to understand one thing. CS Lewis' rational defense of faith has the same limit of all rationality. The human mind. Though all modern minds are pygmy's compared to his, it's a consideration everyone should take very soberly. If one tried hard enough, we could find genuine holes in any man made logic. The solution becomes apparent when you reach the limit of 2000 years of human thought on the same subject. All men stopped at the same point as they peer at the horizon.
If you disagree with God, you are just wrong.
Everyone who pushes themselves far enough will probably come to the same choice. Between my ability to understand why God is right and accepting God is right, what do I choose? I'm sure CS Lewis himself understood this choice too. Probably appreciating it more than me. I know from his writing he appreciated that God IS the foundation of truth in absolutes. His entire body of writings rely on the supposition that God is just true. Ability to explain that truth helps but.. what do you choose? Do you choose your own mind or God? And you MUST choose. To refuse the choice is to have already chosen because you are born in to the default choice. Your own mind. Not that honing logic is bad, but everyone must understand this choice lay before you even in the act of doing that.
And frankly it reveals a disturbing truth in belief through the ages. Like this video highlights, many will claim belief in God then undermine Him gleefully. As if God could not get the Truth to us just as he wanted us to see it. Is the God of their mind so feeble?
But what are you using to reach your conviction that a god exists, isn't that likewise your fallible human mind? I don't see how supposing an entity who has access to absolute certainty solves anything. What makes this proposed method better than getting as close to understanding reality as we can, trying to account for the flaws in our own minds?
Unless you're just using "god" to mean "the essence of whatever is real", but to my outsider (agnostic atheist) perspective the word "god" implies a sentient entity.
Regarding your claim that (to paraphrase and possibly exaggerate) in two thousand years no-one has had new ideas regarding things like ultimate origins, hasn't the advancement of science inspired at least a few new concepts? Artificial intelligence and simulation theory, for example, are at least tangentially related to the concept of true knowledge: even if they bring up more questions than they answer.
Speaking for myself, I'm not saying that your god is wrong. To follow your horizon analogy were all standing on that shore (which for whatever reason we can't leave, maybe we haven't invented boats in this analogy) where the hundred alleged prophets are arguing over the contradictory things they claim to have seen from over the horizon. Meanwhile some scientists are setting up a giant telescope to try to see an image reflected in the sky at just the right time of day. And I'm watching the sea, trying to figure out if the currents can tell us anything about the shape of the island over the horizon.
My phrasing here may imply I think religion is inherently bad or inherently opposed to learning and knowledge. I don't think that it is. There are of course many religions which do oppose thought (insert any dogmatic religion disagree with), but I don't mean to imply you do. I thought you seemed quite reasonable, even if you currently have different conclusions from me. In short, any offence was unintentional.
I just got a FB ad for an audiobook titled "The UFO that took Jesus. The truth about who Christ was."
So the options are liar, lunatic, Lord, or the person adding new options is a lunatic.
Lewis clearly frames the argument as "the Christ presented to us in the Bible" so legend isn't a category. Not to mention that the historical proof of Jesus' existence is astoundingly broad and significant.
Nearly every historian agrees Jesus existed, & was crucified by the Jews under Pilate
@@walkerlink367 No serious, reliable historian remotely questions it, the supporting evidence, even if you ignore the gospels, is amazing and more current to the events of Jesus' life than any other major historical character.
if you read or hear someone pretending Jesus did not exist or there's no historical evidence outside the Bible, you're dealing with either a fool who is not educated, or a hack who is lying.
Interesting video. I think you make good on vindicating Lewis from a simplistic criticism of the trilemma.
There are a few things that don’t seem all that useful in terms of a defense of Christianity. (By criticizing these I’m not suggesting that therefore Christianity necessarily stands or falls with success or failure of these ideas.)
1) Lewis’s appeal to authority, himself being the authority of course, although understandable and completely reasonable from a personal perspective (Lewis’s personal perspective), there’s little reason a skeptic would have to accept the appeal to authority. There would need to be a demonstration/argument for the conclusion being offered to take it seriously (by the skeptic). Obviously in terms of Lewis’s own experience it seems reasonable enough for him to believe it but being able to translate that experience into something useful that’s not a naked appeal to authority for other people is something else.
2) The ‘dwindling probabilities’ argument. Maybe I’m missing something here but this argument seems to lead inexorably to trouble for an evidence oriented Christianity. The ‘dwindling probabilities’ rebuttal of Bultmann’s claims about the Gospels sounds like an argument against all historical analysis and possibly even most of the complex multi-fact reasoning we use on a daily basis. Any evidential appeals for Christianity will also be of linked hypotheses,
Example: The author of GMark is in fact John Mark and had the Apostle Peter as the source for much that is in his Gospel (and all it’s attending evidential baggage such as that Eusebius was reliably reporting what Papias reported, each of which (Eusebius and Papias) has their own additional evidential baggage).
So it’s not only the ‘critics’ such as Bultmann that get mired in dwindling probabilities but all evidence based historical analyses of the New Testament documents, (and, it would seem to me, most complex reasoning humans do).
Just found this channel and this right here is some good content! I've been a long-time fan of Lewis' work, so I'm definitely gonna want to get my hands on that essay you mentioned.
I've also been reading some G. K. Chesterton lately, and I appreciate the way that both he and Lewis contended for the faith with their knowledge of literature, philosophy, and generally what we would consider the humanities today. I think it's an area of study that has been neglected by Christianity for some time, and I think some of our more contemporary weaksauce arguments can attest to the damage done by that kind of neglect.
I also found Chesterton through Lewis, and I greatly prefer Chesterton (though both are obviously excellent). Small fact-drop: the single non-religious text that Lewis most credits for his conversion is Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.
@@NemisCassander I feel for me my preference depends on the day. As you said, both are amazing, but lately the wittiness of Chesterton has been winning me over haha
I agree. I think Lewis' approach was a better fit for me when I was younger, but now that I've read up on some of the philosophers and arguments that Chesterton takes to task (combined with his forceful wittiness), Chesterton feels much more meaty, for lack of a better word.
I don't think there's a single learned historian that denies the existence of Jesus as a person. He's mentioned all over in many secular documents at the time.
He was mentioned in 2, neither of them directly. However, it is somewhat probable he as a person existed, as the person writing about him lived at the same time his disciples lived. So although he never saw Jesus in the flesh, he did hear all the stories the disciples told. So either the disciples made him up, or he was a legitimate person that they based their stories on.
All other secular documents just repeat what is written in the Biblical documents/gospel and took it over as if it were truth. Basing a truth claim on that would be basing a truth claim on the fact that other people assumed it to be true. If millions of people start saying there once lived a great man a couple of hundred years ago, I have no reason to doubt them. However, my lack of doubt does not prove the existence of this man.
@@drakesilmore3760 the talmud doesn't repeat what is written in the Bible, nor does it say anything positive about Jesus. Why would this account exist if Jesus didn't?
@@ata5855 The Talmud isn't a secular document. Also, the Talmud was written 200-500 years after Jesus was supposedly born. It is hardly reliable source for Jesus' existence, as nobody who wrote it was alive when Jesus was. So all information is based on a second-hand interpretation of the story the disciples of Jesus shared.
Any mention of Christianity is a critique what Christians at that time believed, or what Christians at that time did. Neither of these are proof of the existence of Jesus, they are proof that Christians believe in the existence of Jesus. If you want proof of that belief, you can just as easily ask 20 people on the street and at least one of them will tell you they believe Jesus existed.
They do talk of Jesus, but they talk of Jesus based on what is shared through the disciples of Jesus. This makes this information less reliable than first-hand witness statements.
Any standard used to dismiss the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, consistently applied, would lead one to dismiss that anyone ever existed.
@@drakesilmore3760 not a valid argument. Next.
In C.S. Lewis introduction to The Incarnation by Athanasius C.S. Lewis expressed the importance of studying works of the past in order to recognize the biases of the present.
As long as you start with the presupposition that the gospels are relatively fabricated, keeping only the parts you like, its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the gospels are fabricated, except for the parts you like.
Do you dislike parts of the Bible?
Well put, Joshua Henderson.
Try going into it with an open mind because those gospels does contain the events that the disciples saw and experienced, the things Jesus did and said, especially the things that He taught and His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, the disciples wouldn't die for something that is fabricated or a lie.
@@wildcard4552 people can and have died on behalf of lies. Also I was raised Catholic so I do believe I have been there with an open mind.
I want to clarify, as reading other replies I suspect that there is misapprehension about what Joshua Henderson meant. My understanding is that he is pointing out that your presuppositions will determine your conclusions if said presuppositions inherently disqualify any other possibilities. I don't interpret him as indicating that he believes the gospels contain fabrications. He is simply saying that if you start out with that assumption, you will likely end up with that conclusion. I suspect he thinks the gospels are reliable, based on the way he worded his comment. For the record I stake my life on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures as being the very speech of the Almighty Creator, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I subscribe to the continental Reformed standards of the Three Forms of Unity, and agree wholeheartedly with the Westminster Standards. My reply was made from that position.
It's so annoying for me to see Rhett, someone I used to look up to, say something like this. Lewis was a classicist and very well versed in manuscript works. Even if you come to a different conclusion (which you have to say you're in the minority of contrary to what Rhett seems to be appealing to), to use this tactic of defaming is honestly just not it bro.
Rhett is now just another worldly shill
I recall the true story of a modern living poet who tried to answer an SAT question, with four possible answers about what the poet had in mind or what motivated the poet to write, yet seeing none of her actual thoughts or motivation in any of the answers. The question was about her own poem! Thus we see how much the literary scholars might assume or presume, but actually be way off track. This is what I think CS Lewis was also saying about how some of his scholarly readers were off track about Lewis' own writings.
Lewis discusses a similar situation re critics talking about his friend JRR Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. The critics asserted that the One ring was an allegory for atomic weapons. Lewis pointed out not only Tolkien's "cordial dislike" of allegory (Tolkien's own words) but the unavoidable fact that the LotR was originally written (and was being read bit by bit to their literary club, The Inkings, though not to be published for years) prior to the advent of atomic weapons.
A lot of these netizens and redditors who think "a bunch of dumb goat-herders from Skyrim times" were just too ignorant to raise the facile objections they come up with would end up getting very badly humiliated if they spent an afternoon walking through the market with the average Peripatetic or debating a first century Rabbi.
The only reason those ancients couldn't say "I've forgotten more theology and philosophy than you'll ever learn" is because their memories were so prodigiously developed that they were practically walking libraries.
They all had to memorize the Torah at 8 years old. Not to mention the brain growth you would probably get from constantly living in a multi lingual world.
Great timing, as Paulogia is going to do a video on Lewis’s Liar, Lunatic, Lord statement, but Paulogia is going to bring in the what he thinks Lewis missed. The legend option. But as you have showed Lewis did address that as well.
Not all that well in my opinion
If Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, as Ehrman believes, it's quite plausible that he never claimed to be divine, but rather claimed to be the Son of Man, that he believed the end was near, as many others have, and that he was simply wrong, without being a lunatic per se.
How ironic that Rhett tried saying Lewis was hoping his readers wouldnt look more into it when Rhett himself was probably hoping people wont look further into his “Hot take” lmao
Rhett is unknowingly doing Gods work.
Despite all of this, the legend argument is just a twist on the liar argument from the writer's perspective. They would be lying about what Jesus said or did, if it is not true.
I loved this! I had forgotten about Lewis for a while, when I was also wrestling with doubt. You have settled the storm in my mind, as Jesus settled the storm with His will. Much love, God bless!!!
Haha nice, praise God! 🙌🏼
This is not a good defense for the divinity of Jesus. As I said to my own people in a recent vid, one of the arguments to the Jesus divinity concept was that he couldn't have been a liar or a lunatic. Well, yes he could have and very easily. How many today claim supernatural occurrences? The entire Burpo family comes to mind with a now twenties man who still believes he went to heaven at four years old even though he never actually died. And how many follow this ministry? How many followed Joseph Smith's claim of being visited by the angel Moroni? He even had eleven signed signatures of witness of later seeing tablets, hearing supernatural voices and such. So no, Jesus and his disciples claming this and that don't mean much--and the fact we actually have no signed signatures of anything or any authorship of anyone else during Jesus life only makes the case look more and more like an urban legend. Cheers, DCF
Lewis is the most important apologist of the 20th century, primarily because of his pragmatism. He made the lofty, heady, and difficult theological claims of Christianity palpable and understandable to the layman. Lewis put in the rigorous study needed to adequately explain difficult concepts to someone who lacked training.
Mere Christianity should be primary reading for all Christians, both new and old.
So I’ll admit, this video went over my head. Is the argument against the trilema essentially, “It could have just been made up?”
Basically. More specifically, it would be that Jesus' claims to be the Messiah were made up.
@@jessepost1108 the 4th option also entails that some of the guys who lied about Jesus also devoted their own lives to spreading their lies to the point of being imprisoned, tortured, and killed.
No exactly. The idea that Jesus is a "Legend" isn't exactly saying he was completely made up -- he could be a real person whose life has been exaggerated and augmented , or even a representative of a combination of multiple historical figures and various myths. Of course, the idea that CS Lewis was unfamiliar with the concept of "Legends" is ridiculous.
More to then point - the 'trilemma" is NOT strictly an argument for the existence of God, or even about the historicity of Jesus. It's an argument about the internal logic of what is presented in the Gospels about Jesus. Lewis is trying to say is that if you take the Jesus presented to us in the gospel, there is no basis by which you can separate the "moral teachings" from his claim of divinity. If you take the full account of Jesus and try to determine what he was, there is no way to claim that he is merely a wise man or a great moral teacher.
Within the narrative of the Gospels, Jesus is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or was merely insane. Whether or not that narrative is true is really a separate matter.
yes
@@scruffythejanitor1969 right on!
Liar, Lunatic, Honest or Wrong. Those conclusions can basically be made on any person that has any claim.
It amazes me that Christians even consider listening to what non-Christians say that the Bible says or what the Bible is
Study of the gospels in the 1940s/1950s was a *lot* different that it is today.
There is another point in his writings, I don't remember exactly where, perhaps someone else here does, where he says that he thinks the books"The Third Day" by Sir Arnold Lunn, definitely refuted the historical critical method and its results....even if this book is a little out of date today, the point is that Lewis was well versed in modern Biblical research and he had good reasons to hold it in low regard
There is an excellent book, "Is Atheism Dead?" by Eric Metaxas, which is a devastating critique of the most popular atheist arguments and paradigms.
The intro to the book takes into consideration many ideas such as "Jesus didn't claim to be God" or "the Gospels are inaccurate" and easily topples each argument with evidence and knowledge of the text, debunking the opposition to the Trilemma one by one.
It is also full of archeological evidence, and a choir of science praising God's Holy name, definitely pick up the Audiobook or the physical sometime. It was an awesome read.
Armed with such knowledge as is found in this book (and obviously the Bible), figures such as Richard Dawkins are revealed to be insecure goblins, screeching louder than their overconfident "allegience" to logic and reason can cover for. It's crazy these atheists were ever taken seriously.
I’ll have to check out that book, thanks.
I’ll have to check out that book, thanks.
@@PineCreekDoug I'd definitely have to say the latter. It was not written to appeal to atheists, and it pulls no punches in criticising the ideology.
Perhaps a lukewarm atheist or agnostic could benefit greatly in terms of conversion or at least consideration, but that's not the book's main goal.
@@farmercraig6080 No problem.
@@PineCreekDoug pinecreek is wrong, atheism is false.
Some of Lewis' cultural commentary has aged like milk, but he and Chesterton remain among the best in lay theology and lay Biblical commentary.
Definitely Lewis is correct about a lot of secular Biblical text crit, but I fear he might misunderstand some of what text critics do. Among Christian Biblical scholars, the goal is to reconstruct a message not lost quickly to time, but one which might not have been transmitted as fully when languages and cultures began to change; Medieval Christianity is going to look and sound very different from second-century Christianity. The purpose is to slash away *our* 21st century cultural assumptions (including our own exegetical ones!) to give the text space to breathe and give forth its message in its own cultural context, so that we can better transmit that message without cultural noise.
Small gripe, but I hope one worth bringing up.
Thank you, great video on a topic of interest for me. I hadn't heard of the legend objection to Lewis's trilemma. And I have to say that it's a little hard to take seriously. Applying the word "legend" to Jesus seems almost silly in itself. I've heard Elton John is a legend, Atlantis is a legend, the exploits of Genghis Khan were legendary, etc. All very interesting indeed. But then on the other hand you have an individual so obscure that he shouldn't have made the history books at all, and yet has held the rapt attention of the world for 2000+ years, eventually directly underwriting legal code/calendar for most of the world. That would be crazy enough for a desert carpenter giving talks. But throw in making a profound, often daily impact on countless individuals this far into his death, and, well...I think they should come up with a better word/argument than "he's only a legend, maaan".
BTW I think academia has started doing this with other important figures, like Shakespeare..."he couldn't have done all that, just a legend, maaan."
There's always been something of a *pop liturary critique* theory that Shakespeare's works aren't all from the same hand. I don't know how much supports that idea but I can almost understand how you reach that position, especially if you take the stronger stance of a real Shakespeare among Pseudo-Shakespeares.
Still a powerful argument when properly examined , nice work Eric
Baha'i here. A weakness of the trilemma is that Christians must insist that the argument is only applicable to Jesus Christ and not any other religious figure. In the mid 19th century a merchant named Siyyid Ali Muhammad (known as the Bab), a descendant of the prophet Muhammed, claimed to be the Mahdi, a religious figure expected within Shia Islam who would appear prior to the return of Jesus. "I am, I am, I am, the promised One! I am the One whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at whose mention you have risen, whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of whose Revelation you have prayed God to hasten." The Bab's ministry was short, a mere six years from 1844 to 1850, but in that time He wrote tens of thousands of verses. He was executed by firing squad in July of 1850. His early believers were primarily Shiite clerics but soon included many thousands from all walks of life. His writing ranges from theologically dense commentary on the Quran to humble prayers. An example of His more accessible writing is:
"Worship thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God’s creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men. Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise. Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God’s good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God’s favor and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom. The most acceptable prayer is the one offered with the utmost spirituality and radiance; its prolongation hath not been and is not beloved by God. The more detached and the purer the prayer, the more acceptable is it in the presence of God."
The Bab suffered beatings, imprisonment, and finally execution when he could have recanted and been spared, so thus not a knowing liar. A lunatic could not have written works that convinced a large number of highly educated clerics to accept the Bab's claim. This forces the only alternative to be that He was indeed who He said He was, a conclusion the generality of Christendom rejects, making the trilemma exclusive to Jesus Christ alone.
The trilemma IS exclusively about Jesus Christ. The entire context of trilemma is divinity of Jesus Christ.
People read the text and argue that Jesus was only a man and NOT divine. Jesus claimed to be God. The trilemma argues that either He is or He isn’t.
To test any conviction one could apply a similar test (crazy, lying, or spit on) could be used as a test of their claim. The “trilemma” is a specific Jesus thing.
@@TheNYOkie You prove my point for me, which is that (for Christians) the trilemma is only valid when Jesus Christ is involved, but not valid if successfully applied to any other religious figure. The Bab claimed a Divine station, so He is either a liar, a lunatic, or the claim is valid. He willingly endured beatings, prison, and finally death, when He could have recanted. Christian apologists make exactly the same points: Jesus endured beatings and willingly went to His death when He could have recanted, so He is not a liar. So neither the Bab nor Jesus are liars. As to the lunatic part, G. K. Chesterton has a wonderful take on this: "No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal was a monster with one idea like a cyclops with one eye." It is the same with the writing of the Bab; it was not the writing of a half-witted imbecile. So neither the Bab nor Jesus are lunatics. That leaves the following conclusion: both the Bab and Jesus are Lord (By the way, Baha'is have no problem with this). But I dare say essentially all Christians are willing to accept the conclusion only for Jesus and reject it for the Bab. That is what I mean by exclusive. To a devout Christian the trilemma argument is valid only for Jesus; not because other religious figures cannot satisfy it, but because only the conclusion that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is Lord is acceptable.
Love seeing comedians attempt serious commentary. They're usually right at that peak of the dunning-krueger curve and vastly overestimate their grasp of whatever field they're speaking on
You forgot the important rule: we are never to read more than two of Lewis’ books at a time when criticizing him, that would make our criticism too hard and too scholarly.
I’m a Christian but I’m not sure that we can rule out the legend hypothesis when it comes to certain representations of Christ in Scripture. I watched the video but I’m not convinced it adequately answers that hypothesis. Ultimately, as apologetics are not fully able to prove that Christ is Lord, the legend hypothesis is still valid. After all, both camps, the believers and the naysayers, rely upon biblical scholarship of their choice to arrive at their conclusions. Albert Schweitzer may have said it best “ He comes to us as One unknown…” and I believe that. Christ is indeed best understood and proclaimed with the heart. For some that will never be enough, but for others that will be exactly what the Great Physician ordered.
Having watched this video, Lewis’s argument works as a rebuttal to the argument that “Jesus was not divine but was a great moral teacher” since that argument already presupposes that Jesus of the Gospels was the Jesus of history. Which was the argument it was always meant to refute. It still falls flat when dealing with someone who doesn’t believe the Gospels are a reliable account of what Jesus said. And C.S. Lewis’s argument about the Gospel according to John being reported dialogue still doesn’t refute that since it’s still entirely possible that John was a liar or a lunatic. And yes, I know the kind of people that Lewis was trying to refute wouldn’t have made that argument but that still bolsters the point that I’m making. That 1) Lewis’s trilemma only works in an intra-Christian context and 2) only works if the non-believing Christians are already halfway there.
Very great and succinct presentation of the strong and well-founded criticisms of modern Biblical scholarship from C.S. Lewis.
I should also point out that his own field of literary criticism was what was and is often looked towards by Bible scholars in their own critiques of Biblical narrative. So the critical methods that Lewis critiques here were and are actually more natural in his own field as historical artifacts than they are in Biblical studies.
And to be bleeding obvious, the more "modern" the scholarship, the farther away it is from the cross, in time and experience.
The trilemma argument is predicated on the assertion that the account of Jesus is factual. That assertion can be reached by sound logic even if the only information you have been given is from the bible itself (though this is a lot of work). CS Lewis talks about his reasoning not only in Mere Christianity, but also in the narrative of the Chronicles of Narnia, when the children go to the professor to ask about how to know if Lucy's experience in the wardrobe was true. It is basic logic. Once you accept that the account of Jesus's words and actions is factual, the only conclusion one can reach when he claims to be the I Am, the Son of Man, and the Son of God, is that he is sanely speaking the truth.
Why is that, you may ask? It is because when anyone anywhere makes a truth claim, the claim is either true or false. If it is false, they either know it is false and say it anyway, subverting reality willingly (LIAR), or they don't know it and their reasoning is disconnected from reality concerning what they've said (LUNATIC). If is true, then their mind is connected to reality concerning what they've said (LORD). The other combination of speaking the truth but not knowing it also falls into the LUNATIC category.
So which one? Not including his claims of deity, Jesus's words were perfectly sane. That is, his words were aligned with reality, reason, and truth. The LUNATIC category is excluded. What about the LIAR category? Jesus was condemned to his bloody, torturous death for the crime of blasphemy. This very claim that we're considering, the claim to deity, is what got him killed. Therefore, he made the claim knowingly, sanely, and at great cost. He did it anyway, in spite of the cost. If he was a liar, he would have recanted to preserve his worldly interests. But no, he went to the cross. The only other category that remains is the LORD category. I believe he laid down his life for his sheep, and I believe he rose from the dead, and he stands forever to justify all who look to Him for forgiveness of sins and salvation from the judgment of God.
"Jesus's words were perfectly sane. That is, his words were aligned with reality, reason, and truth. The LUNATIC category is excluded"
This is just absurd. You seem to be presupposing that a "lunatic" can never say anything true or rational, like a lunatic is the statue in the riddle whose brother only tells the truth.
Well done! I remember reading parts of Lewis's critique. There's bits of it throughout the posthumous collection of essays under the title "God in the Dock", which IMO really should be required reading for those interested in Apologetics.
6:01 Bart is ignoring the tens millions of people who converted to Christianity due to witnessing a miracle first hand.
The video misunderstands the objection to the trilemma. Whether Lewis was impressed or not by the "legend option" is entirely irrelevant, since the construction of the argument relies on there being only three options.
Wiki article on false dilemmas describes precisely this problem with Lewis' argument:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Logical_forms
A false dilemma can also occur in the form of a disjunctive syllogism:
In this form, the first premise ( P ∨ Q ) is responsible for the fallacious inference. Lewis's trilemma is a famous example of this type of argument involving three disjuncts: "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord". By denying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, one is forced to draw the conclusion that he was God. But this leaves out various other alternatives, for example, that Jesus was a prophet, as claimed by the Muslims.
Right? The “trilemma” rests upon the assumption that the words as written were actually spoken by an actual Jesus. The legend option undermines those assumptions. I get why believers feel like that’s not even an option, they’ve already agreed to those assumptions.
@@HammershotSGD even if they were spoken by an actual Jesus. there are quite a few Christian denominations and sects that reject the idea of Trinity and Christ's divinity, which in itself is sufficient evidence that Jesus' words can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
Think that's one of the main problems with Lewis' argument that even if we are to grant every word of any version of the Bible he likes there would still be multiple ways to interpret the scriptures.
@@the-gadfly4743 These very views have been discussed and consequently rejected in several ecumenical councils. Before you shout "muh argument from authority". The church wasn't as powerful before the Edict of Milan of 312 (before it had state power) and thus many Christians offered to present their view and it turned out, a certain view won out against all the others. Unless you believe in atheist conspiracies of the Church wanting to control men's minds by doing this, there is a reason this occurred.
"Before Abraham was, I was" is a telltale sign of a divine claim. You can disagree with his claim, but you cannot deny he claimed to be God.
Just because there are alternative opinions on a subject, doesn't mean that those opinions automatically hold any value.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard lol. i'm not the one who's disagreeing with your religious claim. The other Christians are. Not even all Christian denominations agree with your scriptural interpretation. And that's without bringing other Abrahamic faiths into it.
The only one who has assumed that their opinion automatically holds any value on the subject is you. You argument isn't an appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance.
You might not be aware of why nontrinitarian denominations of Christianity reject the doctrine of trinity or consider their reasoning unconvincing, but neither of this implies that the denominations came by their nontrinitarian views "automatically" in any shape or form.
Nor have you addressed the fallacious inference in Lewis' trilemma.
Imagine a simple comedian thinking he has put more thought into this than Lewis. Sheesh
I was once attached to this idea that if the majorities of Scholars agreed on something then It must be True, but I came to find Out that scholars have presupposition of their own which makes them say what They Say, for example the Q source, it was granted by scholars as true and was given as a the source of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, I believed in it only to find out that It literally doesn’t exist, there is no manuscript of this source, nor a quotation, they literally made up a source out of thin air just to make the gospels look like non independent accounts, if this was done to any other work in history, it would be called conspiracy theory, but because it’s the gospel they can have a field day, and that’s when scholarly consensus died for me, there are more examples but it’s too much to cite them
I think there is evidence for Q, (Luke says that were earlier writings before he compiled his gospel) but a lot of the speculative reconstructions are just made up conjectures.
Great point.
@@dftknight I recently found the idea of an early Aramaic Matthew or notes for the same being the best concept of a real ’Q’
Scholarly Consensus just means that there are probably good arguments for the consensus position. Arguing that something is the case BECAUSE of scholarly consensus would be a an _argumentum ad populum._
Take Mythicism for example, the fact that there aren't any real scholars who hold to Mysticism is a good indication that there are good reasons to not be a Mythicist.
For something like the dating of the Gospels, the reasoning for Mark being around 70 AD is because Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Since prophecy isn't real, they say, that obviously couldn't have happened. Therefore, the author of Mark must have written after it happened and just attributed it to Jesus. Of course, that's just circular reasoning.
@@xianartman Yeah. That's more plausible than some of the speculative theories going around.
Summarized: If the Gospels are true, Christ is either Lord, Lunatic, or Liar. If they are untrue, then our whole faith is without meaning.
But the arguments that the Gospels are untrue begin from the supposition that the Gospels cannot be true. It's largely circular and does not well address the questions that naturally arise from contemporary histories.
Using the modern scholars alone needs to be a new category of fallacy .
They accept so much nonsense from enlightenment and atheist thinkers.
True. It's called chronological snobbery. Lewis talked about it a lot!
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.”
Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life:
ua-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/v-deo.html
For evidence for Christianity and answered questions, check out
ua-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos
and ua-cam.com/users/CrossExamined
because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever!
God bless y’all!
I had never heard about this particular story of Lewis before. Thanks for the great video!
It’s hard to believe no one has mentioned this, but the trilemma operates upon an assumption that the Jesus as portrayed in literature is a mirror image of the Jesus who lived and breathed on earth.
If we can’t verify the truth of this assumption, then CS Lewis’ conclusion does not logically follow.
This is the entire reason for the video. It’s hard to believe you watched this and didn’t understand that.
It seems to me that the core of Lewis' argument puts Christianity in an awkward position if taken seriously. If we actually take the argument at face value, and join Lewis in interpreting Jesus in he same way that he and his followers did at the time he was alive, then what we end up with is neither modern Biblical scholarship or anything resembling medieval Christian theology, but rather Jesus as the preacher of an immanent 1st-century apocalypse that simply never came.
Have you read the old testament after reading the new testament? You were close with your first two statements but the Ehrman apocalyptist argument collapses when you realise what Jesus was really teaching.
No. Jesus never predicted an "apocalypse" as you understand it, in his lifetime. He did predict that His ministry would have earth-shattering consequences in the metaphorical sense. Your problem is, you're reading 21st century scientific literalism into the apocalyptic genre of these predictions.
I take it you like Bart Ehrman.
Thank you for showing Lewis' perspective on modern biblical studies. I do think the lunatic (and to some degree liar) option was limited by the psychological knowledge of his time. In particular, I don't see why someone with a histrionic or narcissist personality disorder couldn't also have some morally sound teachings.
Well, the lunitic and liar options seem to be disproven by the things he was able to do.
@@tell-me-a-story- If you believe he did authentic miracles and resurrected than the trilemma is not an issue. Lewis was responding specifically to the idea of a humanistic, non-miraculous Jesus that still had similar teachings. That he was just a "good teacher."
Naturalist can't accept miracles but accept the entire universe sprang out of nothing in a fraction of a second. Now that is a miracle.
Question, isn't there a contradiction between his 2nd and 4th points here? He seems to want to say that the legend hypothesis is questionable because of the contemporaries with Christ having a much better natural grasp of the message than modern academics who are removed from that context, but then at the same time wants to argue that _because_ even people alive at the same time can easily misunderstand each other, the modern scholar has less ability to interpret the text
So are contemporaries trustworthy or not? If modern people, with all our massive access to information, can easily misunderstand each other, then why couldn't ancients have done the same and produced legendary accounts and misconceptions
His argument about modern scholars is more along the lines of, “They read my writing and misinterpret it. I’m here. They don’t ask me. I refute their analysis and they don’t change. How can their analysis of an ancient text be trusted?”
He’s not saying that contemporary criticism is invalid and historical criticism is invalid. He’s challenging the low standard of particular criticism. He’s raising doubt about criticism driven by agenda rather than rationale.
@@TheNYOkie ah okay so it was more pointed at particular culture of the time not a generalized thing got it
I read fern seeds and elephants and it was very good! I highly recommend
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.” What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”
Luke 4:16-27 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/luk.4.16-27.ESV
Ok... LOVING this one!
The truth of the matter is as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians, you can’t back someone into a corner of philosophical thinking to get them to believe. If they choose not to believe the raw truth of the gospel, then God gives them the free will to do so. Paul talks a lot about false conversions.
I encourage you, if you think you need a sign or a proof to believe, 1, remember the verse that says a wicked and adulterous generation needs a sign. (Matt. 16:4) 2, look at the lives of true born again believers and see what their faith has done. Listen to their testimonies about what God has done.
If you are struggling with doubt, pray to God about your doubt, and try faith, learn and led the Spirit pulling you lead you into receiving the truth of Christ rather than grieving the Spirit with skepticism. The truest sign you can get is the blessings that come in following Him. Even if those changes and transformations take years. He’s coming soon, and why be naked in our own selfish desires than to be clothed in the armor of Jesus and who He was. The strength He has and offers.
We all have struggles, we all have problems, we all have hardship, pain, questions and needs, but when God becomes our answer, our refuge and our central focus point, rather than our own things we find the refuge and fulfillment in Him, not in theological arguments and fleshly worldly endeavors.
Rhett and Link were deceived and easily, I might add.
What's the chance they're right and you are deceived? 50/50 or would you place you percentage higher?
@@ryanrevland4333 is there an absolute good and an absolute evil in the world? Simple question. Yes or no.
No. Morality isn't binary and is subject to time and culture. For instance Yahweh’s punishment for homosexuals may have been *good* for its time and culture, but in a modern society we would consider it *evil* to throw stones at anyone until they die. Morality is progressive.
@@ryanrevland4333 if it’s all relative and there is no “fixed point,” why you defend them, bro?
My opinion is just as valid as yours and you’re wasting what’s left of your life before you cease to exist through death arguing with a stranger on the internet. 🤷🏿♂️
It’s funny. CS Lewis, when he was atheist, also criticized old religions as out dated when a friend of his was joining the then popular theosophical movement. His friend later accused him of “chronological snobbery” assuming modern people are more intelligent than ancient ones. And Lewis did say that this made him reconsider his views, and helped lead him to Christianity.
Definitely subscribing after this video! Well done 🔥🔥
Thanks for the sub
People who don't believe don't WANT to believe. Romans 1 - Psalm 19. The truth is manifest. In Christ, we are invited to be fully reconciled with God. Sadly, most people simply aren't interested in reconciliation. They are without excuse.
The hubris and arrogance of Rhett to believe he is, by any stretch, smarter than C.S. Lewis is just wow... it's gross and instantly shows what an utter fool he is.
Man I remember Good Mythical Morning. I grew up watching Rhett and Link’s channel.
Yeah call me surprised when this funny man from my childhood is dropping hard philosophy. Both that he can and that he is willing to risk it.
I liked GMM, but I'm not taking spiritual wisdom from a guy who made himself famous eating pizza, sitting in ice baths and spinning a wheel of mythicality.
0:06, if you accept the premise that Jesus said what the New Testament says he said then that argument makes sense. Especially since, the “Jesus as moral teacher” argument presupposes that he said what he says it said. It’s when it’s used against people who don’t make that claim that the argument loses its punch
The main reasons why someone would aim to make Jesus less than what the gospels describe Him as would be 1) a desire to be equal with Him, 2) a desire to be accepted within certain social and/or professional circles, or 3) a desire to assuage one's own apostasy by the sewing of doubt into the hearts of others.
Believing in Jesus is not an easy thing to do; even the strongest of us struggle with it sometimes. But here's what I would say to Lewis' critics: as it goes with all things in life, you can't expect benefit from that which requires no investment. I hope God works to help Rhett and others like him to understand the value that comes from the complete denial of oneself to embrace Jesus as our risen Savior. The same way that I hope God continues to help me to learn and grow in this, too.
Oh Snap! Great job showing the hypocrisy of people like Rhett!
I don't chalk it up to hypocrisy so much as his being in the dark about Lewis' writings in the bigger picture.
@@glennshrom5801
Look at Rhett's second tweet in Testify's video again. If he is in the dark, then he is a hypocrite.
Miracles are miracles because they can't happen, but do.
If people rose from the dead every day, Jesus's resurrect would be meaninglessness and He would be just another person.
This doesn't prove miracles, but it frustrates me when atheists say miracles don't happen, because it's impossible. Yes, when the impossible happens, it's a miracle.
Hall of fame video right here
Thanks to the late Walter Hooper's devotion, CS Lewis many works remained extant.
Your probability calculation is a good way of looking at Ockham’s razor.
There isn’t really a good reason to prefer a ‘simple’ solution over a complex one and there are many examples that show that a complex solution is correct and replaces a wrong, simple one, like elliptical orbits of the planets replacing assumed circular orbits. The calculation is very simple 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 just expressed as %. A complex hypothesis will always fall foul of this calculation but I’ve often been uneasy with the way Ockham is used. A simple 1 stage hypothesis of 65% likelihood is not better than a 3 stage 90% each hypothesis (72.9%) but is better than a 5 stage one (59%).
Also worth noting that the modern "scholarly consensus" is itself a modern, revisionist, history which is mostly based on the thinking of scholars who enter into the conversation with the starting assumption that Jesus is not God and could not have performed miracles (which are impossible). Essentially they worked backwards from their conclusion and wrote much scholarly works and books to make it seem that they did not.
6:03 My biggest problem with Bart Ehrman, is his incredibly cynical take on Biblical Accuracy. Even though he spends hours of lectures pointing out inconsistencies in texts and how it has been changed over time (in itself an assumption that the earliest text is always the most accurate, and not that later texts may have referred to more accurate (even earlier) texts now gone. But he completely fails to acknowledge that those inconsistencies do not alter the information in a significant way at all. There are 770000 words in the new testament even if you threw out 10% and the message would not change and he is claiming much less inaccuracies than that, I think like 1%.
Just thought I'd point out, the word is pronounced "in-EX-orable." (time stamp 0:19)
Be well, I am really enjoying your content.
Even with a fourth option regarding the inclusion of legend in the gospels, it still boils down to Jesus either being God or not. It's just that with this assertion regarding legend you get extra steps by way of questioning the reliability of scripture. If scripture does not accurately convey what God wants to show us about Jesus, including but not limited to his identity as God, then it is not reliable at all. If scripture is not reliable in this regard, then there is no reason to believe other things it says like that we are all sinners who need salvation or that Jesus Christ is the only way to obtain that salvation.
If Jesus was before Abraham, we have to ask, what did Jesus mean by this? He also said ABRAHAM SAW MY DAY and was glad. 1) why was Abraham glad and 2) when did that happen? If you can answer those two questions, you probably will totally understand Jesus, no more questions asked and nothing in the whole Bible will ever contradict again by simply understanding the answer to those two questions: So let me answer them quick and soundly:
1) Abraham was glad because the LIGHT circumcised his heart (the three animate levels he cut in half, which represent his DESIRES, hence the heart is the DESIRE of man which is why it is written to be more wicked and feeble than all things. The heart is the problem and it is written, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, so here is blasphemy and evil tongue (lashon hora) as well. Making the heart which is the BEAST that goes throughout the whole world, all nations, and all Kingdoms, into "MAN" is the purpose of the WORD which is Jesus Christ, the WORD made flesh. SO the LIGHT that is the LIFE of MAN (not mankind which is the creation) but MAN, the image and likeness of God. God creates evil (creature) and then FORMS the MAN within the creation. This too is written: So Abraham the first Jew, discovers the purpose of creation which is to be FORMED into MAN which separates his consciousness into three parts; God, Satan or the great darkness that the light reveals and MAN, the purpose of learning how these two together FORM this MAN we all must become.
2) The LIGHT goes through the animate desires when it gains a GREATER DESIRE than the animate and makes its first choice to trust the UNKNOWN (God) in favor of the known that is no longer giving him the desires of his animate heart. Now, if he follows the light that reveals himself to Abraham little by little, then he moves in consciousness from Beast to MAN in four phases, hence the FOUR LETTER NAME YHVH:
If you want to talk more about it, just let me know:
Edited**
(Accidentally used the word theophagy instead of theophany.)
The foremost issue is that the translations of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old testament were so mischaracterized that the very meanings of the words have been adjusted for a western audience and European values. An example, the word that is used to describe a person in English is called a name. In Hebrew the word to describe a person is called "shem" which does not mean a name in the same way that English does. The fact that English translations take the contextual meaning of a "shem" and convert it into a noun to describe a person was the very first major infraction of translation into English.
A 'shem' is not simply a name or a title it is a description of the very heart, purpose, substance, character, hope, emotions, and destiny of the individual who receives it. The reason why this is the case is because of theophany (**accidentally used the word theophagy)which means to incorporate the characteristics of a higher power into the characteristics of a created being such as humankind. You could even describe a person who has received a 'shem' with the 'shem' of Yahweh/El/Adonai/etc to be a sort of extension of that higher power aka a child of that higher power. This is what Elohim is referring to when we translated as, "Gods" or "heavenly host" or "God of Gods", in which all of that context is surgically removed by excluding the purpose of a "shem" given to an individual by the higher power.
The word Shem is where we get the phrase "shalom" which means 'peace' or 'rest'. To abide in the characteristics and existence of the higher power of Israel is to become part of his 'rest' aka the people of God's kingdom. The good news was that Christ who was an obedient 'child of God' the same title given to all of God's people (Hebrews).
Through the obedience to God's word Christ has made the way to adoption into God's kingdom as his children a very real possibility where there was once no chance to do so.
When you mistake your understanding of the English translation to be the wisdom of God you are puffed up with pride and arrogance about how much you know about the things of God without even realizing your ignorance about the people and Kingdom of God and the context in which the phrases and references were made and to be understood through the eyes and heart of a Hebrew citizen or convert.
point or "bleat" 3 and 4 of CS Lewis here contradict each other. It seems to support a misunderstanding of Christ by early followers the same way he uses the example of his own work being misunderstood by contemporaries with a similar culture, life experience etc...
Even before that mentioned 2000 years ago with Paul in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 NIV - If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Corinthians 1:27
27 God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful.
I’m not saddened or offended by Rhett and Link’s deconstruction, but they are making their own disbelief flashier and more complicated than it needs to be. It’s like, bruh, you didn’t have the Tara Westover experience. Their reasoning behind their deconstruction would be suffice in one 10 minute video
Looks like Lewis' arguments are still up to date.
The amount of detail in the scripture is a very strong counterpoint to the unreliable texts argument. The level of detail from times of the day to certain parts of the cultures of individuals are impossible to construct unless you know them and were there.
What a faulty definition of miracle that Bart man uses. The "unnatural" aspect of miracles is just our perspective of them. For we define natural as the actions of the eternal (from the Atheist perspective, eternal laws). Yet, what is eternal but the nature of God? And what are miracles but the expression of God's loving nature. I tell you, do not assume what you regularly experience is all that is natural.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian and amateur apologist. But a non-Christian might argue that the video is contradictory (or at least inconsistent). That the point of 6:29 which addresses C.S. Lewis' admission that even modern reviewers can misunderstand the work of their own contemporaries [e.g. the Chronicles of Narnia] contradicts [or is inconsistent with] the earlier point of the video at 3:49 which claims that it is extremely improbable that the early church quickly came to misunderstand the message of Jesus. The non-Christian could respond by asking, "Which is it? Because you're can't have it both ways."
Also, I wish the video made it more clear that skeptics like to refer to the Quadrilemma by adding the fourth "L" of Legend to the three other "L"s. The video implies it, but it would have been nicer if it explicitly acknowledged it.
The problem is the early church included witnesses who knew Jesus, which cuts down the possibility of misinterpretation by quite a bit