Stephen Colbert defends the faith

In this video Colbert is interviewing the author of Jesus, Interrupted (Jesus never claimed to be God, the Gospels contradict, yada yada). Although he stays in comic mode he gets the guy pretty good. I saw him last year with author of a book defending Satan and when he was finished all the guy could say was, “Well . . . you were certainly paying attention in Sunday school.” to which Colbert replied that he teaches Sunday school.

I like the part that he is missing the point, that Jesus is an elephant. :D:D:D
quite funny, thanks for sharing.

Pax

I love Colbert… Brilliant… Bart needed to go with the comedy…

I love how he can defend the faith and still be funny. The elephant parable was both intelligent and incredibly funny.:smiley:

Stephen Colbert has amazing talent. And its so refreshing to hear him actually defend orthodoxy, on a show which skews left. I think his studio audience respects that - perhaps it wins over folks at home, too?

I’ve finished watching an ‘episode’ of Colbert’s shows because I found him too querulous, even if he meant it to be humorous. Now I do believe I’d judged him too hastily – thanks for sharing! :slight_smile:

It was funny. Still, I would have been reluctant to give any publicity whatever to this book.

HAHAHA this is too funny. I like the anti-jew remark, and the duck, banner headline is God dies…

I am totally passing this on.

That was HILARIOUS. Haha… love Colbert. As an aside, Ehrman has presented nothing new and nothing not already satisfactorily debunked time and again.

I don’t get what everyone thinks is so great about this interview. Colbert’s behavior is highly sophomoric, and he doesn’t really address the things the guy is saying. Just because it’s “on our side,” doesn’t make it any better than when people like Colbert and Al Franken use those tactics to ridicule conservatives.

The Elephant analogy isn’t particularly “brilliant”: while valid, it’s rather cliche.

It reminded me of the hokey Developmental Apologetics skits they do on EWTN’s Knights of St. Michael.

For example, I would have granted the guy’s position that doctrines like the Trinity are “later developments.” I would have said, “Of course they were. That’s why the Church is more important than the Bible. The Bible itself is a ‘later development.’”

On the claim to be God, I recently read a point in Fulton Sheen’s Life of Christ that I haven’t seen anywhere else: the main place Jesus claims to be God is in the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum. It’s when He claims to be able to forgive sins. THAT is the claim that is found in the Synoptics, which Jesus makes, which you cannot find in any Old Testament figure or any major pagan philosopher or sage. Jesus is the only Person in history who came along–without being considered a crank–and said, “I can forgive sins.”

Secondly, I would have granted him what he said on the term “son of God.” Even Luke says that Adam was “son of God.” The Old Testament is very clear that “Son of God” is a term referring to someone who is holy. And to meet these people where they are, we cannot simply appeal to John.

That said, when this guy says we today don’t understand the idioms then, the real idiom in question is “Son of Man.”

THAT is where Jesus directly claims to be God. He always calls Himself the “Son of Man.” Why?

Usually, what we’re told in homilies in Bible footnoes is something like, “Jesus was trying to disguise His divinity.”

Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man” for two reasons:

  1. He presumes He’s God, and “Son of Man” emphasizes the other part of His Nature.
  2. The Old Testament prophets constantly refer to “one like a Son of Man.”

It is when Jesus refers to Himself as the “Son of Man” at his trial that the high priests rends His garments.

The Old Testament reference to “Son of Man” is a direct reference to the Messiah, at least, if not to the revelatoin of God Himself, who appears “as a Son of Man.”

So, I don’t see what’s great about the interview. The author comes off as far more respectable and intelligent, while Colbert comes off as a disrespectful idiot.

Link for Canadians:

watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/full-episodes/april-9-2009/

watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/full-episodes/april-9-2009/#clip158261

I doubt that Colbert gets to choose his guests, authors are probably booked by the publisher (or an agency) with the network.

Colbert is living proof of Chesterton’s adage that, funny is not the opposite of serious. Colbert may be funny but he is very serious about what he is being funny about.

Thanks for the video.

God bless

Doesn’t Colbert usually take the advocate’s position for the postion that he is making fun of?

Ehrman is a serious scholar and deserves respect.

Do you want secular people to ignore serious works of scholarship that support Christianity?

I treat Ehrman with the same respect with which I want secular folks to treat N. T. Wright and other Christian scholars. (The fact that they don’t always do this is irrelevant–Jesus did not say “do to others as they do to you.”)

Edwin

Yes, but when he does so, it is obvious he is actually undermining his own position. That isn’t the case when he defends Christianity.

But I agree with your earlier comment that just by talking about the book “Jesus, Interrupted” there will be some sales which wouldn’t have otherwise occurred.

I’m unfamiliar with Ehrman; but just listening to the video it sounds as though he advocates some positions that have become rather trendy in recent years. I have my own doubts about the scholarship, but I’ll reserve judgment, not having read the book.

Colbert pretends to be a conservative in order to satirize conservatism. How do I know that he’s not pretending to be a defender of Christianity in order to satirize Christianity?

I can’t seem to access the video via the links posted. Does anyone have another one that works??

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.