Steven Carr

We can even take Brit's recollections of the person voted the greatest ever Briton - Sir Winston Churchill.

Most Britons have no real idea of when , or in what circumstances, (Parliament or radio broadcast), Churchill said 'We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall never surrender'.'

And this is a really famous line by possibly the most famous Englishman of all time.

Now transport yourself back in time to a time when people thought they could meet gods like Hermes and Zeus in the street, and imagine how much checking of stories went on, or more importantly, how much effect such checking would have on the followers of gods.

ISVfan

Although Mark never claimed to be an eyewitness Matthew was certainly an eyewitness and the recount of him becoming a disciple of Christ is told. You have no proof Luke was not an eyewitness and it seems he probably was a disciple of Christ and certainly was instrumental in the early church. He wrote Acts which takes place right after Christ's ascension.

Name a contradiction in the Gospels? There are none. Some parts of the Gospel go into more detail while another Gospel may just skim the surface or never even tell that story you do realize we are smart and God realizes this he doesn't have to tell us the same story 4 times for us to get it. And one has to realize who the Gospels were written to. Matthew for instance was written to the Jews while the John was written to everyone.

ISVfan

Jews are nothing special but remeber this the Masoretic scribes knew how many letters there were in each line of the OT and had special pens to write the name of God with. If your mss had even the slightest fault they would throw it out and start fresh although they do not have a special gene they do take their lineage and history more serious than most.

Toto

This is not the opinion of current critical scholarship, or of anyone who is not bound by their faith.

Matthew on EarlyChristianWritings.com

Luke is nowhere claimed to be a disciple of Jesus. He was a companion of Paul, and also relied heavily on Mark. The only credible claim is that he might have been a witness to Paul's existence.

Oh? Start with the two different geneologies of Jesus in Matt and Luke, the two different birth dates, the irreconcilable details of the resurrection . . . .

Terrible Heresy

In both cases, I think it's understandable. Bottomline is what the agenda is for the show or movie. And I think it's fair to say that the agenda is(and should be) about shocking beleif's. Get them to think about it and look into it more. Nothing more, nothing less. I think seasoned vets of the atheist camp can sometimes forget just how ignorant(not meant as an insult, I just think it's the correct word) your average religious person is on this subject. It's not about proving there was a connection between Jesus and the other messiah's, it's about letting people know there was a connection at all!

The details of these arguments are just too numerous to go into either Bullshit or the movie. And if you did make a video like that, it would probably be useless to the layman anyway.

That said, I haven't seen the video, except for the clips. I saw the episode of Bullshit, and I was a little dissapointed in it. I think the show would have been more effective pointing out all the horrors of the OT then some piddly contradictions. For being as brash as the show normally is, it's a little strange that he set out to prove such a small point at the beginning of the episode, which is basically just that the inerrentists have it wrong. I don't think that's all that great of an idea. Your average Christian will probably simply say "So what?". Though going after some of thier sacred cows(the Ark) was good, and would probably resonate with your average Christian.

Hehe, someone who claims the Gospels were written by the actual apostles, and that there are no contradictions in them. *Shakes head* Fight the power, brother!

ISVfan

The same current critical scholarship also held the opinion that the GoJohn wasn't written until 150-200 A.D. And then we found a papyri that completely dismantled their opinion. That's the problem with opinions they cannot be backed by fact. So forgive me if I show a lack of trust towards "current critical scholars" and their opinions.

Ok I have a paper lying around here somewhere dealing with the geneology issue. I'll dig it up and post it as soon as possible. Could you please tell me where the Gospels differ in resurrection details? :huh:

Amaleq13

Isn't this an example of conclusions changing because of new facts?

And shouldn't such an approach be praised rather than criticized?

Kosh

Don't waste your time, it probably says that one traces through Joseph, and the other through Mary. Of course, Joseph didn't really make a, uh, contribution there, did he? Oops! And of course it had to be modified to make the number of generations break into 14 from Abraham to David, David to the deportation, and dep. to Jesus. . How convenient! Dang that Mark, writing first and getting it WRONG.

ISVfan

Yes this is an example of belief being changed by new facts. Many of these people come up with their opinions based on their anti-Christian beliefs when they are proven wrong they continue to make claims which do nothing more than just try to destroy the Bible.They believe nothing Christianity says can be true so they start from that position then when their proven wrong they still ignore the possibility that God's Word is Truth.

Rhaedas

Haven't seen the whole movie either, but the parts where they interview "average" people demonstrates your point. People don't believe this stuff because of knowledge of it...they just believe it, and when questioned, have to stumble around for an answer. They aren't used to actually thinking about it.

You don't have to chop the tree down, just shake the branches a bit. If the film went too much into detail, it might lose the general message, and interest of the viewer. Better to give them a little taste of curiosity, and let them take it from there.

The biggest problem would be if generalizing some of the issues distorts the facts. Are there any glaring problems anyone noticed in the film/clips?