Posted on 05/04/2008 7:07:38 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Imagine that a "documentary" film-maker—whose most notable former credit is a film advancing the notion that extra-terrestrials did indeed visit Area 51—brought forth a new work suggesting that key elements of the Prophet Mohammed's story had been fabricated. What are the odds ABC would devote a segment of Good Morning America to a respectful interview of the filmmaker and discussion of his work?
But that's exactly what ABC did regarding someone who has produced a documentary ["Bloodline"] calling into question key aspects of the story of Jesus Christ. Here's how GMA weekend co-anchor Bill Weir introduced the segment this morning:
Well, here's a question, was Jesus married with children? Was the Resurrection a trick pulled off by his widow? The possibility, the world's greatest cover-up, was the basis of the smash novel and movie The Da Vinci Code. And though those ideas have been largely dismissed by academics as fiction, documentary film-maker Bruce Burgess believes he has now found evidence to advance that theory. Here's a clip from his new film.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
What passages of the Bible were changed as a result of being found "factually wrong"?
The earth created in 6 days.
Earth Revolving around the Sun.
Woman coming from Adam’s rib.
Hmmm, interesting. I just bought a King James version of the Bible and all of the points you mentioned are still there. Is there a new revised and canonized version of the Bible that I missed somehow?
So you believe the earth was created in six days?
There is an interesting book called “Evidence Demands a Verdict”. Written by some agnostic/atheist (or something) lawyer that was out to prove the resurrection a myth. After getting into it he realized that if the idea was on trial, it would be found to be true. He became a Christian (and then wrote the book).
And to the disciples (I think He appeared to something like 500 of them total?) they did not have to rely on faith to believe the resurrection. “You have seen and believe, but how much greater will those that believe without seeing” or however that verse goes when he speaks to Thomas.
No, I do not believe a literal interpretation of the Bible is necessary to support Orthodox Christian Doctrine. Jesus spoke in parables when He wanted to emphasize certain moral points, and of course these stories are not literally true and He never intended that anyone believe they are literally true. How much of the Bible is literally true and how much is allegory, I don't know, and I don't particularly care, except for those points that might affect Doctrine.
Yes, I have heard of that book but have not read it. I did read a similar book by Les Strobel "The Case for Christ." He presents a lot of convincing evidence but, in my opinion, he didn't adequately represent the skeptics point of view. Still, it was good read and expanded my knowledge.
Historical proof is only one aspect of Reason though. Lewis and Chesterton don't dwell much on historical evidence but rather look to the complexities of mankind i.e. morality, culture, psychology, and even Reason itself, and take it from there, first to establish that something other than the material universe exists and secondly that Mankind is somehow out of sync, or at odds, with that Other.
So Science > Bible.
It depends on the nature of the inquiry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.