tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253529165034405240.post-70948870977747446002008-03-19T22:29:00.000-04:002008-03-19T22:29:00.000-04:002008-03-19T22:29:00.000-04:00Hey Vince I think you may have gotten what I copied and pasted from that other blog confused with what I was writing. I can actually see though what you are saying but also what the guy from that other blog was saying, both can be right. And yes Jesus and Paul related the real world into their illustratons but come on what good communicator doesn't? It's funny I think most people when communicating want to relate to their audience except for maybe a few southern baptist old school preacher types.<BR/><BR/>When I said to what end though would Jesus or say Paul go to be culturally relevant what I meant was would they necessarily use movies or tv? I can't see Jesus plucking down the bucks to go see a movie! I think both Jesus and Paul could be way relevant without movie series though. Does that mean I think they are wring? Nope, I was merely thinking out loud asking if Jesus would watch movies. And it was more in this context...I can't see Paul or Jesus going to say the Roman colisseum(sp?) and watching gladiator's fighting to the death or Christians getting eaten and that was Romes culture I mean instead of going to see There will Be Blood the Romans went to see killing for entertainment. So our modern movie series would be like the early church having a throw the christian to the lion series. That's what I meant when I said to what end? How far would Jesus go with his illustrations. I do think movie series are good ways to relate to unchurched people but I just wonder would Jesus have used the method or taken another route. I think you can make the argument for either side of that question and it's only fair to look at both sides I thinkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com