Skip to main content

This is just awesome. Steven Colbert interviews/debates Bart Ehrman, author of "Jesus Interrupted".

Link
__________________________ A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ”— Thomas Jefferson
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Colbert is actually a practicing Catholic. He wasn't slamming religion, but rather Ehrman's poorly researched claims.

Yes, he was lampooning over the top conservative talk show hosts, but he also made Ehrman look pretty dumb. Like every other Christ conspiracy theorist, he doesn't have a very good understanding of Christianity. Colbert did an excellent job of exposing that.
Hi all,

While I do appreciate Colbert's defense of the Gospel; his mannerisms of talking over and interrupting the person with whom he is supposed to be debating is distracting and rude.

Possibly he sees it as funny; but, in my opinion, if one is going to have a debate on the subject of God, Jesus, and the Bible -- it is not fodder for comedy laughs.

If Colbert seriously wanted to debate this man; he should have done it on a different forum than Comedy Central. The crowd cheering, again in my opinion, were not cheering Colbert's put disproving an atheist -- but, his comedic rudeness.

On the other hand, Colbert did speak the truth about the Gospel, except for comparing Jesus to a big elephant, and deserves credit for that.

It would have been just as effective if he had used an analogy of four news writers, each seeing the story from a different perspective. But, that would not have gotten as big a laugh.

No, I will not vote for Colbert as my favorite, or even chosen, evangelist.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Ehrman has written over 20 books on Christianity. I think he understands it well. DF

Hi Deep,

It is not a matter of understanding Christianity; which, even if had written 100 books, does not mean that this man truly does understand Christianity. A person with a skewed view of any subject can write 1000 books and still be wrong in his viewpoint.

No, Deep, the key point that you and all atheists miss -- is that it is not an intellectual understanding of the Bible which is important. The important, eternally important thing is -- to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior.

In my opinion, neither of these men do. For if either were truly born again -- Jesus would not be comedy material, nor an elephant -- but, rather, He would be Lord and Savior; the ONLY Way to eternal salvation.

Salvation, my Friend, is an eternal relationship; not intellectualism.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Ehrman did not want a serious debate or he would NOT have gone on the Colbert report.
It was his stupidity showing, not Colbert's.

Hi LMM,

No, I believe that Ehrman was serious. He was serious about using any venue offered to him to push his book. And, Colbert offered him that venue; which probably boosted the sale of his book.

I am not saying that Colbert was being stupid; only that he was using his defense of Jesus and the Bible for comedy material -- not, again in my opinion, to sincerely defend the Gospel.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,

No one goes on the Colbert Report to engage in serious conversation. The whole show is a goof.

It's to the credit of people like Ehrman who show their senses of humor there.

Dawkins laughed his butt off when he was on. DF

Hi Deep,

Thank you. I knew there was something lacking in Richard Dawkins. Thank you for clarifying his impediment, his missing part.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-__Snoopy_Running
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,

No one goes on the Colbert Report to engage in serious conversation. The whole show is a goof.

It's to the credit of people like Ehrman who show their senses of humor there.

Dawkins laughed his butt off when he was on.


DF


It did not appear Ehrman was very happy to me. He was trying to be serious but Colbert kept laughing him off. I guess he was bored or annoyed with Colbert.
It's kinda strange, the Scriptures in my Bible talk about Christ associating with all kinds of people and actually spending more time with tax collectors, sinners and despised people rather than spending serious time in theological debates with the Pharisees, Scribes and religious leaders of His day. I kind of think Christ, if here today, would be right there on Leno, Colbert or other programs and would be honored at the explanation of the elephant.

To judge that Colbert was attempting to use Christ for laughs is, well, not as I saw it. If Colbert wanted to attack Christ or attack Christians he could have easily done it or allowed it. While I don't think he was overtly using his position for the advancement of Christianity I do believe he was using a program, that was meant to be funny and a comedy venue, to put into check someone that he felt was doing an injustice against a religion he apparently associates himself with and in this case defended.

Colbert didn't make fun of Christ or Christians, as I saw it. He did use humor and the laughs of the audience to dispute the author of this book and question his purpose.

This is a comedy show and not The John Ankerberg show. It was never meant to be a "serious" one on one confrontation and Biblical discussion on Theology. He (Colbert) used what he had, his forum, for an attack on this specific book and author. He didn't mean it to be a serious discussion in theology but in doing what he did he used a very good point to explain what others consider to be a discrepancy. If Colbert wasn't a Christian I doubt he would be getting laughs at the author's expense but rather would be openly criticizing the Church, Christ and Christianity. Whether he is or is not a Christian is not my place to judge.

Too many times the rigidity and over bearing legality approach that we Christians use turns people away from Christ and not toward creating a curiosity about Christ. Our best example to follow is Christ Himself and in His recorded dialogs and associations that He had recorded, in the Gospels, well I don't think he would have as condemning words about this program.

My personal belief is that we, Christians, are not put here to be God's appointed agents of Salvation and appointed to "save" people or to judge people. Rather we are to be instruments for God to use for His purposes that, if we do our job or our duty, God can use us to attract others unto Himself through His Holy Spirit. All too often we can get in the way of allowing God to do that which He Wills to do. We are to be more examples than judges with respect to others and judge ourselves when that time comes to see if we are being what He desires us to be. That's personally how I see it for myself.
quote:
But that's Colbert's schtick.

Colbert is basically mocking Bill O'Reilly, who does the same thing, only he's serious.

The Colbert Report is not where serious issues are discussed, it's where accomplished people go to show they have a sense of humor. Or that they don't, which happens sometimes.


Yes, I understand all that. I've seen the show before. Still, a comedian made a fool out of this guy and completely shredded his theory.

One of the funniest parts was at the end, "Jesus is an elephant". Within that joke is a very good point. I understood it, my friend who sent that to me understood it, Ehrman just sat there blinking.

He wrote 20 books trying to discredit Christianity, that doesn't mean that he understands it. When a comedian can completely dismantle your thesis, it wasn't very strong to start with.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
But that's Colbert's schtick.

Colbert is basically mocking Bill O'Reilly, who does the same thing, only he's serious.

The Colbert Report is not where serious issues are discussed, it's where accomplished people go to show they have a sense of humor. Or that they don't, which happens sometimes.


Yes, I understand all that. I've seen the show before. Still, a comedian made a fool out of this guy and completely shredded his theory.

One of the funniest parts was at the end, "Jesus is an elephant". Within that joke is a very good point. I understood it, my friend who sent that to me understood it, Ehrman just sat there blinking.

He wrote 20 books trying to discredit Christianity, that doesn't mean that he understands it. When a comedian can completely dismantle your thesis, it wasn't very strong to start with.


Comedy is meant to be funny, not necessarily accurate. Colbert has a team of writers looking to make people laugh at any expense. In this case it was Christianity and Bart.

Colbert roasts folks for a living. In a real debate, he'd be out of gas.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,

No one goes on the Colbert Report to engage in serious conversation. The whole show is a goof.

It's to the credit of people like Ehrman who show their senses of humor there.

Dawkins laughed his butt off when he was on. DF

Hi Deep,

Thank you. I knew there was something lacking in Richard Dawkins. Thank you for clarifying his impediment, his missing part.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Thank you, Bill, for my laugh of the day, if not the week. However, Dawkins seems to have plenty of what is theorized as missing.
quote:

Comedy is meant to be funny, not necessarily accurate. Colbert has a team of writers looking to make people laugh at any expense. In this case it was Christianity and Bart.

Colbert roasts folks for a living. In a real debate, he'd be out of gas.


In a debate on a deeper subject, Colbert wouldn't stand a chance. In a discussion with a crack pot Christ conspiracy theorist, it doesn't take much for their whole arguments to fall apart.

Yes, I know this isn't a real debate, it's comedy. However, like Geddon said, comedians can usually make a good point within the comedy. Colbert showed that Ehrman's theories and similar "Jesus never existed" theories are a joke, and they are.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:

Comedy is meant to be funny, not necessarily accurate. Colbert has a team of writers looking to make people laugh at any expense. In this case it was Christianity and Bart.

Colbert roasts folks for a living. In a real debate, he'd be out of gas.


In a debate on a deeper subject, Colbert wouldn't stand a chance. In a discussion with a crack pot Christ conspiracy theorist, it doesn't take much for their whole arguments to fall apart.

Yes, I know this isn't a real debate, it's comedy. However, like Geddon said, comedians can usually make a good point within the comedy. Colbert showed that Ehrman's theories and similar "Jesus never existed" theories are a joke, and they are.


Nash, I agree that everyone on Stewart's or Colbert's show gets roasted. Surely everyone coming on knows this.

Also, it may be reasonable to say Jesus existed, however, it isn't reasonable to believe that he(or any of the thousands of other Gods) had magic powers.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:

Comedy is meant to be funny, not necessarily accurate. Colbert has a team of writers looking to make people laugh at any expense. In this case it was Christianity and Bart.

Colbert roasts folks for a living. In a real debate, he'd be out of gas.


In a debate on a deeper subject, Colbert wouldn't stand a chance. In a discussion with a crack pot Christ conspiracy theorist, it doesn't take much for their whole arguments to fall apart.

Yes, I know this isn't a real debate, it's comedy. However, like Geddon said, comedians can usually make a good point within the comedy. Colbert showed that Ehrman's theories and similar "Jesus never existed" theories are a joke, and they are.


Nash, I agree that everyone on Stewart's or Colbert's show gets roasted. Surely everyone coming on knows this.

Also, it may be reasonable to say Jesus existed, however, it isn't reasonable to believe that he(or any of the thousands of other Gods) had magic powers.

Regards



I'm sure some claimed that Jesus Christ had magic powers and by those powers He performed his miracles. I personally don't believe Jesus performed magic or had magic. I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, just as He said He was in the Gospel of John. God in Human Form.

This is why Jesus had to be born of a Virgin. The conception was not by man's seed/sperm but rather was by the Holy Spirit a miraculous conception. Just as human/man/woman has an inner spirit/soul so did Jesus Christ only that Spirit was the Spirit of God. Father/Son/Holy Spirit and all three are one.
quote:
If really understood it, he wouldn't have been pwned by a comedian.


Good stuff, Nash, but you either don't watch much Colbert or do not understand satire.

He and John Stewart are quite atheist-friendly and are expert satirists. Their satire - like any really good satire - is hard to detect and is funny only if you are able to "get it." You don't get it.

What you fail to understand is that Colbert -- by playing the fundamentalist buffoon -- is actually agreeing with the author.

Example: You probably thought Colbert was serious when the said (paraphrased), "Look, the bible us inerrant because is says so right there in the bible!" Fundies see that as a perfectly logical statement. Everyone else sees it as the satire it was meant to be.

Examples: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and raises the dead like a duck, it's probably a duck." (referring to Jesus as the son of God)

"'Does the bible contradict itself'? Did Jonah aat a whale? Please!"

In utter deadpan: "God is not a fan of puns, sir."

And, of course, "Jesus is an elephant."

No, Nash, Colbert didn't "pwn" this guy, he gave him a voice. The author made his case quite succinctly, I thought.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:

Comedy is meant to be funny, not necessarily accurate. Colbert has a team of writers looking to make people laugh at any expense. In this case it was Christianity and Bart.

Colbert roasts folks for a living. In a real debate, he'd be out of gas.


In a debate on a deeper subject, Colbert wouldn't stand a chance. In a discussion with a crack pot Christ conspiracy theorist, it doesn't take much for their whole arguments to fall apart.

Yes, I know this isn't a real debate, it's comedy. However, like Geddon said, comedians can usually make a good point within the comedy. Colbert showed that Ehrman's theories and similar "Jesus never existed" theories are a joke, and they are.


Nash, I agree that everyone on Stewart's or Colbert's show gets roasted. Surely everyone coming on knows this.

Also, it may be reasonable to say Jesus existed, however, it isn't reasonable to believe that he(or any of the thousands of other Gods) had magic powers.

Regards



I'm sure some claimed that Jesus Christ had magic powers and by those powers He performed his miracles. I personally don't believe Jesus performed magic or had magic. I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, just as He said He was in the Gospel of John. God in Human Form.

This is why Jesus had to be born of a Virgin. The conception was not by man's seed/sperm but rather was by the Holy Spirit a miraculous conception. Just as human/man/woman has an inner spirit/soul so did Jesus Christ only that Spirit was the Spirit of God. Father/Son/Holy Spirit and all three are one.


gb, there are several Gods before JC who claim virgin births as well.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
If really understood it, he wouldn't have been pwned by a comedian.


Good stuff, Nash, but you either don't watch much Colbert or do not understand satire.

He and John Stewart are quite atheist-friendly and are expert satirists. Their satire - like any really good satire - is hard to detect and is funny only if you are able to "get it." You don't get it.

What you fail to understand is that Colbert -- by playing the fundamentalist buffoon -- is actually agreeing with the author.

Example: You probably thought Colbert was serious when the said (paraphrased), "Look, the bible us inerrant because is says so right there in the bible!" Fundies see that as a perfectly logical statement. Everyone else sees it as the satire it was meant to be.

Examples: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and raises the dead like a duck, it's probably a duck." (referring to Jesus as the son of God)

"'Does the bible contradict itself'? Did Jonah aat a whale? Please!"

In utter deadpan: "God is not a fan of puns, sir."

And, of course, "Jesus is an elephant."

No, Nash, Colbert didn't "pwn" this guy, he gave him a voice. The author made his case quite succinctly, I thought.


I'm absolutely amazed at these responses. For the last time, yes I know Colbert was making a joke. Usually he is the butt of the humor. In this case, Ehrman was.

I think one's objectivity needs to be examined if they think Ehrman didn't look like a total crack pot in this interview.

I posted this thinking that everyone would see the humor, I think some are taking it entirely too serious. Colbert made a nut look silly, why defend the nut?
quote:
Like Horus? Do you believe his story claims that he was born to a virgin?


It is debatable. The text that I've studies indicate that Horus was born after Isis (god of motherhood and fertility) had sex with the dead remains of her brother/husband Osiris. Isis evidently has never had sex before thus was a "virgin."

I believe that story about as much as I believe in the virgin birth story of Jesus (which is hotly debated even amongst Christians).

What is NOT debatable is the fact that there are dozens (Hundreds? Thousands?) of other deities who had a human mother and god-fathers. Mother/child deities are as common as dirt, Nash.
quote:
Colbert made a nut look silly, why defend the nut?


Because I don't think the author looked like a nut. The reason he looks like a nut to you because he states something you disagree with. My take is that he stated his case quite succinctly and Colbert smartly fed the guy with talking points.

Give us one example of something he stated that was "nuts"?
Last edited by Cookey
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Colbert made a nut look silly, why defend the nut?


Because I don't think the author looked like a nut. He only looks like a nut because he states something you disagree with. My take is that he stated his case quite succinctly and Colbert smartly fed the guy with talking points.

Give us one example of something he stated that was "nuts"?


Ehrman said that three of the four Gospels did not refer to Jesus as divine.

Look up Matthew 3:16. Then look up Mark 2: 5-6.

I don't disagree with Ehrman because I'm a Christian, I disagree with him because his facts are wrong as I've just illustrated.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
Like Horus? Do you believe his story claims that he was born to a virgin?


It is debatable. The text that I've studies indicate that Horus was born after Isis (god of motherhood and fertility) had sex with the dead remains of her brother/husband Osiris. Isis evidently has never had sex before thus was a "virgin."

I believe that story about as much as I believe in the virgin birth story of Jesus (which is hotly debated even amongst Christians).

What is NOT debatable is the fact that there are dozens (Hundreds? Thousands?) of other deities who had a human mother and god-fathers. Mother/child deities are as common as dirt, Nash.


Your statement about Isis contradicts itself. Also, if Isis was married to Osiris, how can she be still considered a virgin?

Give me another example of a deity born to a virgin.
quote:
Your statement about Isis contradicts itself. Also, if Isis was married to Osiris, how can she be still considered a virgin?


Isis was worshiped as a VIRGIN goddess of fertility. The dude was evidently her brother before he was chopped up then reincarnated. THEN they were married.

I agree that it makes almost as much sense as a 13 year old woman being told by an angel that the creator of the universe has sex with her while she slept.

I agree none of this makes any sort of rational sense but I didn't make this stuff up.

quote:
Give me another example of a deity born to a virgin.


Do you really assert that the virgin birth story of Jesus is the only one? Most major religions have a virgin birth story. Buddha, for example, was born through a slit in his virgin mother's side (vaginal birth is unholy for some reason). This is common knowledge.

But if you would like to educate yourself, this seems to be as good a start as any: Link
Ask about others who claim a virgin birth, I haven't researched those who claim virgin birth or whom it is even written about another virgin birth. My point is not to argue whether they are true or not my point is to state basically that I believe Jesus Christ claim that He is the Son of God (conceived of the Holy Spirit) born of a Virgin, as prophesied in Old Testament Scriptures. If I'm looking for something and I find that which I'm looking for that fulfills all my needs then why would I be looking any further. I have found my answers to the life's questions and I found those in Jesus Christ. I consider the Holy Bible as God's scriptures and God's communication to man. I discuss it here on the Religion forum for that is the topic and reason for this forum.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only one way to God the Father and I believe that Salvation is available to man through belief in Christ for it is His Sacrifice only that atones for our Sins through His shed Blood.

Those are some of my beliefs. I force them on no-one, I state them as a point of my belief, I condemn no others based upon their beliefs.

I question though why, are my beliefs so threatening to others that feel that they have to try and deny them or prove them false by association? If something is false it will die on it's on and fade away. Amazing that almost 2000 years after Christ we are still debating Him and have so many that believe as I do. Could there be a valid reason for this? It is for each person to decide what truth they accept and what they believe. I am very happy and content with my beliefs and have no reason to look for answers I already have. To waste my time researching others when I can learn more about the Religion and teachings of Christ would be very foolish of myself.

If you don't believe in God or Christ that's fine but don't if you get upset that others do then that's your problem.

I very much appreciate those that are respectful in their disagreements but I have stated my beliefs and I hope that those that disagree will at least respect that.
quote:
I question though why, are my beliefs so threatening to others that feel that they have to try and deny them or prove them false


I question why you would ask such a question on a forum known for hearty debate?

Care to respond to the fact that Jesus was simply one of a long line of great virgin birth stories? That is either true or not true. Which is is, GB?
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
quote:
I question though why, are my beliefs so threatening to others that feel that they have to try and deny them or prove them false


I question why you would ask such a question on a forum known for hearty debate?

Care to respond to the fact that Jesus was simply one of a long line of great virgin birth stories? That is either true or not true. Which is is, GB?



Jesus Virgin birth was a fulfillment of prophecy that came long before. It also was never proved to be false it falls, just like the other reports of other people, into the realm of faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ was born a virgin as for the others I have no reason to concern myself with them but to answer your question directly no I don't believe any other statement of virgin birth. The reason for Christ Virgin birth was that Jesus would be the Son of God, not of man's seed as prophesied. I have faith that Christ was the only Virgin Birth.

As for why I would make such a statement. Sometimes it's tiring having to defend your FAITH (Religious Faith) in a forum dedicated to Religion when and where it should be accepted that you would hear Religious topics and content.

It appears, at times, that the only reason some come into the Religious forum is to attack those that have faith. It isn't a case of debates between religions or faiths but rather people telling us how delusional we are to actually believe. Being told that what we believe is invalid, from another, just because that person doesn't have the same experiences or beliefs.

Turned around how would it be taken if there was a forum dedicated to atheist or agnostics or even the political or food forums just to have a Christian come into the forum, under each topic, and have them post judgmental messages about how they are going to face judgment or eternal punishment. I think I know how that would be taken. Many Christians, that have to continue over and over to defend their faith and personal held beliefs, due to people that have absolutely no interest in Religion invade the forums for no other purpose than to abuse those that believe differently or believe at all.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×