Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Trent Horn recently put out a video framed as a response to Dan McClellan. But before Trent says a single word about Dan's arguments, he pivots to mythicism, brings up Jesus' existence, cites Bart Ehrman, and establishes common ground with Dan on the historicity of Jesus. During that section, clips of my work pop up, clips of me with Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price, as Trent dismisses mythicism as fringe and driven by anti-religious zeal.
So Trent invited me to this conversation. And I'm accepting.
I'm not a mythicist. I think there was probably a historical figure behind the Jesus tradition. But that concession gives Christianity almost nothing, because the real threat to Trent's theology was never mythicism. It's mythologization. You don't need to deny Jesus existed to recognize that virtually everything Christians believe about him is the product of theological development, literary invention, and mythological embellishment built up over decades and centuries after his death.
The birth narratives contradict each other. The miracles parallel the Elijah-Elisha cycle and Hellenistic divine-man traditions. The Passion narrative is constructed from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Paul, the earliest source, never describes an empty tomb and uses vision language for the resurrection appearances. The empty tomb first appears in Mark, written around 70 CE, and Mark's original ending has no resurrection appearances at all. The trajectory from Paul to John is legendary growth, not historical memory.
And then there's the bait and switch. Trent cites Bart Ehrman to shut down mythicism, but never tells his audience what Ehrman actually concludes about Jesus: that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet who did not claim to be God, was not born of a virgin, did not perform actual miracles, and did not physically rise from the dead. Using Ehrman to defend Christianity while hiding Ehrman's conclusions is not following the data. It's curating it.
At the 21:53 mark, Trent says the quiet part out loud. He states that if Christ rose and established a church that teaches with his authority, no data can refute those dogmas. That is his actual position. The conclusion was decided before the evidence was examined. And then he ends by telling his audience to follow "data" from scholars who already agree with his dogma, scholars like Brant Pitre and Scott Hahn, while ignoring the critical Catholic scholars like John P. Meier, Raymond Brown, and Joseph Fitzmyer whose work undermines his case from within his own tradition.
Trent, you showed my clips. You brought me into this. So here's my challenge: come on MythVision. Sit down with me. Let's have this conversation face to face. Your audience deserves to hear what happens when someone pushes back in real time.
This is MythVision. I'm Derek Lambert.
Original video by @TheCounselofTrent
• My Take on Bible Scholar Dan McClellan
#MythVision #Christianity #Jesus #Mythical #JesusMythTheory #HistoricalJesus #JesusDebate #BiblicalCriticism #ReligiousHistory #JesusMyth #ChristMythTheory #Skepticism #SecularScholarship #CriticalThinking #AtheistPerspective #FaithVsFact #BeliefQuestions #HistoricalJesus #ApocalypticProphet #Eschatology #BiblicalStudies #NewTestament #MythVision #MythVision
#Mítico #JesusHistórico #DebateSobreJesus
============================
CONTACT ME
Website: 👉 mythvisionpodcast.com
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook Page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook Group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter X: 👉 https://x.com/DerekPodcast - - @DerekPodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
===========================
Join this channel to get access to perks:
youtube.com/channel/UCgLZ5SDuR1W_xO8y3A_4VVw/join
Trent Horn recently put out a video framed as a response to Dan McClellan. But before Trent says a single word about Dan's arguments, he pivots to mythicism, brings up Jesus' existence, cites Bart Ehrman, and establishes common ground with Dan on the historicity of Jesus. During that section, clips of my work pop up, clips of me with Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price, as Trent dismisses mythicism as fringe and driven by anti-religious zeal.
So Trent invited me to this conversation. And I'm accepting.
I'm not a mythicist. I think there was probably a historical figure behind the Jesus tradition. But that concession gives Christianity almost nothing, because the real threat to Trent's theology was never mythicism. It's mythologization. You don't need to deny Jesus existed to recognize that virtually everything Christians believe about him is the product of theological development, literary invention, and mythological embellishment built up over decades and centuries after his death.
The birth narratives contradict each other. The miracles parallel the Elijah-Elisha cycle and Hellenistic divine-man traditions. The Passion narrative is constructed from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Paul, the earliest source, never describes an empty tomb and uses vision language for the resurrection appearances. The empty tomb first appears in Mark, written around 70 CE, and Mark's original ending has no resurrection appearances at all. The trajectory from Paul to John is legendary growth, not historical memory.
And then there's the bait and switch. Trent cites Bart Ehrman to shut down mythicism, but never tells his audience what Ehrman actually concludes about Jesus: that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet who did not claim to be God, was not born of a virgin, did not perform actual miracles, and did not physically rise from the dead. Using Ehrman to defend Christianity while hiding Ehrman's conclusions is not following the data. It's curating it.
At the 21:53 mark, Trent says the quiet part out loud. He states that if Christ rose and established a church that teaches with his authority, no data can refute those dogmas. That is his actual position. The conclusion was decided before the evidence was examined. And then he ends by telling his audience to follow "data" from scholars who already agree with his dogma, scholars like Brant Pitre and Scott Hahn, while ignoring the critical Catholic scholars like John P. Meier, Raymond Brown, and Joseph Fitzmyer whose work undermines his case from within his own tradition.
Trent, you showed my clips. You brought me into this. So here's my challenge: come on MythVision. Sit down with me. Let's have this conversation face to face. Your audience deserves to hear what happens when someone pushes back in real time.
This is MythVision. I'm Derek Lambert.
Original video by @TheCounselofTrent
• My Take on Bible Scholar Dan McClellan
#MythVision #Christianity #Jesus #Mythical #JesusMythTheory #HistoricalJesus #JesusDebate #BiblicalCriticism #ReligiousHistory #JesusMyth #ChristMythTheory #Skepticism #SecularScholarship #CriticalThinking #AtheistPerspective #FaithVsFact #BeliefQuestions #HistoricalJesus #ApocalypticProphet #Eschatology #BiblicalStudies #NewTestament #MythVision #MythVision
#Mítico #JesusHistórico #DebateSobreJesus
============================
CONTACT ME
Website: 👉 mythvisionpodcast.com
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook Page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook Group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter X: 👉 https://x.com/DerekPodcast - - @DerekPodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
===========================
Join this channel to get access to perks:
youtube.com/channel/UCgLZ5SDuR1W_xO8y3A_4VVw/join
