One of the most interesting aspects of this lecture was the fact that the gospels can be broken down into three distinct layers; one being what Jesus actually said and was directly quoted to the bible, another being from a cultural trend that would help people understand the abstract ideas better, and the last being added from the author. This makes the most sense when we consider that the word gospel means good news, and the idea comes out that good news must evolve with the time and be updated to deal with a certain time periods unique set of circumstances.
Another discrepancy of the New Testament is that consistent changes can be seen from author to author that shows us certain pieces were indeed changed on purpose, ruling out an occasional forgotten comment or a slight change to the meaning of a word. The consistency of the changes shows us an evolution of theology with the changing of the times.
This could show us that religion is an evolving process and should be able to deal with present day issues as well as teach us of the cultural past.
The third idea that was discussed was the idea that close scrutiny of the bible will or will not affect the churches ability to use the bible as a teaching tool. Can people believe in an unbelievable proposition, like the idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? I believe that there is a very distinct difference between the ideas of theology, and the ideas of "brainless worship" that allows people to follow the religion blindly, never having to think for themselves. We can never really know exactly what Jesus said; instead we must use our modern day methods of theology to attempt to understand the past.