The God Who Wasn't There
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Documentary filmmaker Brian Flemming examines the Bible and discusses the history of early Christianity, raising doubts as to whether the New Testament personage Jesus ever really existed.
Flemming examines the similarity of the Jesus story to other savior myths of the time and points to inexplicable gaps in early Christian history that combine to shed doubt on the Bible's Jesus story.
Flemming examines the similarity of the Jesus story to other savior myths of the time and points to inexplicable gaps in early Christian history that combine to shed doubt on the Bible's Jesus story.
Nov 16, 2006 4:28 AM
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
You can practically hear the guy leering as he speaks. It's pretty obvious he has done little serious research on the subject and was not out to create a factual or balanced documentary. I don't think he did anything to discredit the existence of Jesus. Poorly done.
By: heydanno
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
Hmmm. I love anything that says, "QUESTION YOUR REALITY!"
But, at ~11:00, during "Joy"'s interview, he's asking a question and the video stops during his question. It could appear to some as if this were faked. I'm sure it was just post-production editing, but still.
But, at ~11:00, during "Joy"'s interview, he's asking a question and the video stops during his question. It could appear to some as if this were faked. I'm sure it was just post-production editing, but still.
By: CornPooper
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
Brian Flemming does pause the camera during Joy's interview, but it is to ask a rhetorical question to the viewer, not to ask Joy a question:
"Why is it that Christians can be so specific about the life of Christ, but they're vague about what happened after he left?"
We are to expect that the random sampling of people he interviews at the Billy Graham Crusade would give highly specific answers. He may have "faked" it if he purposefully selected the people who gave vague answers.
The reason Brian then gives is that the life of Christ was a fictional story invented by the apostle Paul and later recorded as fact in the gospels. This is a somewhat apt explanation because Paul had a more nebulous personality than did Jesus – Paul traveled all over the Roman world many decades starting churches, whereas Jesus had a 3 year long ministry in a small province before being executed. What Brian does not explain is why people other than Paul wrote four gospels as eyewitness accounts. Paul mentions these people and these people mention each other, so it is more likely that Jesus was a man. If you were to meet someone interesting and you waited 40 years before writing about him in your memoirs, it doesn’t mean that you “forgot.” Most of the people who would have known Jesus would either have hated him or would not have known how to write. I think we can be certain that Jesus was a man, but it's harder to show that Jesus was God.
"Why is it that Christians can be so specific about the life of Christ, but they're vague about what happened after he left?"
We are to expect that the random sampling of people he interviews at the Billy Graham Crusade would give highly specific answers. He may have "faked" it if he purposefully selected the people who gave vague answers.
The reason Brian then gives is that the life of Christ was a fictional story invented by the apostle Paul and later recorded as fact in the gospels. This is a somewhat apt explanation because Paul had a more nebulous personality than did Jesus – Paul traveled all over the Roman world many decades starting churches, whereas Jesus had a 3 year long ministry in a small province before being executed. What Brian does not explain is why people other than Paul wrote four gospels as eyewitness accounts. Paul mentions these people and these people mention each other, so it is more likely that Jesus was a man. If you were to meet someone interesting and you waited 40 years before writing about him in your memoirs, it doesn’t mean that you “forgot.” Most of the people who would have known Jesus would either have hated him or would not have known how to write. I think we can be certain that Jesus was a man, but it's harder to show that Jesus was God.
By: Hummm
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
I am a Religious Studies major and well versed in many of the worlds religions, in both the new and old worlds. And one thing that has always struck me as interesting especially with Christianity is that the Church started by Paul was initally not looked upon very well by the other apostles, there was some heated debates about how to go about starting things. eventually the others gave into Pauls way and it went on from there. But why the initial disagreement?
By: frankiethefish15
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
amazing how every one who opposes the thought of christ being real must show their credentials first. as if your believing or not is so importnt? give me a beak.
By: pissmoppers
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
Christianity is never about historical facts to provide and sum up the information that Jesus Christ saves. God is the Holy Trinity. He is the Son, Father, Holy Spirit. We, humans, cannot understand completely the true ways of God. Walk with God. Never be hindered. Walk by faith. Christians don't depend on realities or explanations. God is just there. Just believe.
By: JesusSaves
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
Where did the Bible come from, JesusSaves? I ask because I truly don't know. The facts say it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. That the Bible was even written in any language makes it doubtful that it is valid. Our species of hominid has been around for about 150,000 years. That means that God could have communicated to us any time before the Bible was thought to have been composed, which is between 1500-500BC, roughly. This of course isn't definite evidence against the existence of God, but neither are the words of the Bible definite evidence of God. Basically, you might be right in what you believe only because no one can say otherwise. As you can see, we're hopelessly at odds. Neither of us can say that God exists or doesn't; that the Bible is or is not valid.
This is okay, because there aren't any glaring consequences for our actions; the only thing at risk here are our words. But what about those people who are constricted by Christians who believe that God exists and what the Bible says is reality? We've just established that neither of us is right for certain. The french essayist Michel de Montaigne summed this idea up when he said, "it is to put a high value on your surmises to roast a man alive for them." Of course people aren't being roasted alive, at least in America, but for Christians to limit other people based on what they believe is to say that they don't just believe it themselves anymore: it is to say that they now find it to be the absolute truth to which others should be subject; not to mention that these people are enacting God's will themselves, which is a little vainglorious to say the least, considering how they "cannot understand completely the true ways of God" (quoted from you).
Now, I'm assuming you're not one of these people, and I know I'm not. But can you or I stop people from thinking this way, or acting this way? Can you or I stop everyone who has or will read the Bible, or the Koran, or any other religious writings for that matter, from behaving this way? Can anyone? The life of Jesus Christ aside, do you see why we have a problem?
This is okay, because there aren't any glaring consequences for our actions; the only thing at risk here are our words. But what about those people who are constricted by Christians who believe that God exists and what the Bible says is reality? We've just established that neither of us is right for certain. The french essayist Michel de Montaigne summed this idea up when he said, "it is to put a high value on your surmises to roast a man alive for them." Of course people aren't being roasted alive, at least in America, but for Christians to limit other people based on what they believe is to say that they don't just believe it themselves anymore: it is to say that they now find it to be the absolute truth to which others should be subject; not to mention that these people are enacting God's will themselves, which is a little vainglorious to say the least, considering how they "cannot understand completely the true ways of God" (quoted from you).
Now, I'm assuming you're not one of these people, and I know I'm not. But can you or I stop people from thinking this way, or acting this way? Can you or I stop everyone who has or will read the Bible, or the Koran, or any other religious writings for that matter, from behaving this way? Can anyone? The life of Jesus Christ aside, do you see why we have a problem?
By: Wondahboy
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
An enlightened person will not limit others based on their beliefs. However, Brian Flemming's video does not encourage tollerance. He has only increased an existing devide.
The concept that Brian (and other anti-christians) object to the most is the idea that people will be go eternally to heaven or hell. The heaven/hell concept is central to Christianity and other religions. A person of faith will see this as the critical part of their message but they won't see it as an intollerant viewpoint. Anti-christians think that Christians are intollerant because they teach heaven/hell. Jesus taught heaven/hell, so to be a Christian means to also teach heaven/hell. There's no middle ground.
The concept that Brian (and other anti-christians) object to the most is the idea that people will be go eternally to heaven or hell. The heaven/hell concept is central to Christianity and other religions. A person of faith will see this as the critical part of their message but they won't see it as an intollerant viewpoint. Anti-christians think that Christians are intollerant because they teach heaven/hell. Jesus taught heaven/hell, so to be a Christian means to also teach heaven/hell. There's no middle ground.
By: Hummm
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
I love thorough, well-researched historical documentaries that investigate religious claims.
This wasn't one.
I'm no religious scholar, but even I could see the gaping holes (e.g., Christianity ignores the history of the early church after Jesus' death? Um, how about the book of Acts?). Furthermore, I was hoping to see a critique of Christian scholarship, but this film spent a lot of its time ridiculing movies about Jesus and the ignorance of random people on the street. Why not interview some Christian scholars and then debunk their claims?
What I thought was going to be a very interesting video turned out to be an extremely unbalanced hatchet job by a guy with a grudge. And sure enough, after a quick web search I found that its claims have been convincingly debunked
(e.g., http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87).
This wasn't one.
I'm no religious scholar, but even I could see the gaping holes (e.g., Christianity ignores the history of the early church after Jesus' death? Um, how about the book of Acts?). Furthermore, I was hoping to see a critique of Christian scholarship, but this film spent a lot of its time ridiculing movies about Jesus and the ignorance of random people on the street. Why not interview some Christian scholars and then debunk their claims?
What I thought was going to be a very interesting video turned out to be an extremely unbalanced hatchet job by a guy with a grudge. And sure enough, after a quick web search I found that its claims have been convincingly debunked
(e.g., http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87).
By: UofMSkinsFan
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
Christianity was wrong about the solar system?
Really? Where?
And, oh yeah, let's take anyone who claimed any relation to Christianity and did something bad, and act like that means something...
Any nut can say they're a "Christian" and blow someone away.
As for "Why can Christians be so specific about the life of Christ, but they're vague about what happened afterwards?"
Oh, yes, let's intereview a few retards and soccer moms who have no idea what they're talking about, generalize them as all Christians, and blame Christian 'leaders' for not teaching them properly.
Want me to describe every single bit of the ministry of the apostles in detail? And I don't even have a college degree. =/
And where's this guy come off thinking "Paul never heard about Joseph, Mary, John the Baptist, any of the miracles". WRONG. Paul was a very learned man. He probably kept very up on the times. And was very outspoken and studied on the life of Christ BEFORE he even gained the name "Paul".
And after becoming a follower of Christ, he met with the Christians in Jerusalem. Spoke with Peter and the other apostles.
This guy's twisted translation of Hewbrews 8:4
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not have been a priest."
Yeah, nice one, Mr Moron.
King James:
"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to law."
New American Standard:
"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer gifts according to the Law;"
Paul is actually saying that if Christ were on earth at that moment, not if he had been on earth.
I don't know about this guy, but I'd feel pretty stupid if I had only one citation to back up my claim and I had tampered with the tenses to make it fit my contention.
His two experts he constantly quotes? A nerdy kid with a lisp who has no idea what he's talking about and is probably still in school, and some fat old guy with no decent credentials worth mentioning.
And I kept waiting for him to bring up references to where he gets all this stuff he keeps talking about. There isn't any.
I'm not watching beyond fifteen minutes. Loose Change was at least worth watching through to the end (for the laughs if anything).
I can't even survive a quarter of this bull.
I declare this guy ignorant. He has no idea what he's talking about. =/
Really? Where?
And, oh yeah, let's take anyone who claimed any relation to Christianity and did something bad, and act like that means something...
Any nut can say they're a "Christian" and blow someone away.
As for "Why can Christians be so specific about the life of Christ, but they're vague about what happened afterwards?"
Oh, yes, let's intereview a few retards and soccer moms who have no idea what they're talking about, generalize them as all Christians, and blame Christian 'leaders' for not teaching them properly.
Want me to describe every single bit of the ministry of the apostles in detail? And I don't even have a college degree. =/
And where's this guy come off thinking "Paul never heard about Joseph, Mary, John the Baptist, any of the miracles". WRONG. Paul was a very learned man. He probably kept very up on the times. And was very outspoken and studied on the life of Christ BEFORE he even gained the name "Paul".
And after becoming a follower of Christ, he met with the Christians in Jerusalem. Spoke with Peter and the other apostles.
This guy's twisted translation of Hewbrews 8:4
"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not have been a priest."
Yeah, nice one, Mr Moron.
King James:
"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to law."
New American Standard:
"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer gifts according to the Law;"
Paul is actually saying that if Christ were on earth at that moment, not if he had been on earth.
I don't know about this guy, but I'd feel pretty stupid if I had only one citation to back up my claim and I had tampered with the tenses to make it fit my contention.
His two experts he constantly quotes? A nerdy kid with a lisp who has no idea what he's talking about and is probably still in school, and some fat old guy with no decent credentials worth mentioning.
And I kept waiting for him to bring up references to where he gets all this stuff he keeps talking about. There isn't any.
I'm not watching beyond fifteen minutes. Loose Change was at least worth watching through to the end (for the laughs if anything).
I can't even survive a quarter of this bull.
I declare this guy ignorant. He has no idea what he's talking about. =/
By: squeakytoad
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
You asked where Christianity was wrong about the solar system. Obviously it is you who don't know Christian history.
The Inquisition ordered Gallileo and others to recant their view that the Earth revolved around the sun, which they said was heresy. The Church taught that the Sun (and everything) revolved around the earth (geocentrism).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_disputes_over_heliocentrism
The Inquisition ordered Gallileo and others to recant their view that the Earth revolved around the sun, which they said was heresy. The Church taught that the Sun (and everything) revolved around the earth (geocentrism).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_disputes_over_heliocentrism
By: barnacle
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
So some ROMAN CATHOLIC leaders teach some false concepts, and they somehow represent all of Christianity?
So if my next door neighbor said that he was Muslim, started his own group of which he was the leader, and then proclaimed that the earth is flat, would that mean that "Muslims were wrong about the world's shape."
You obviously, just like the guy who created this video, have no idea what you're talking about. =/
So if my next door neighbor said that he was Muslim, started his own group of which he was the leader, and then proclaimed that the earth is flat, would that mean that "Muslims were wrong about the world's shape."
You obviously, just like the guy who created this video, have no idea what you're talking about. =/
By: squeakytoad
Re: The God Who Wasn't There
About 5 minutes of actually worthwhile argument about the existence or not of a historical Jesus. I would have considered it worth spending an hour on if following up on that argument and its debatable points was how most of it was spent.
Instead I sat through the usual "mirror image" ruled presentation - the religious enthusiasts and antireligion enthusiasts are basically two sides of the same coin seeking to slur each other with the same sort of slurs, tar each other with the same sort of brush, and do the bait&switch tactic of seeming to take up a sensible subject but then just spinning the matter as they please without really having demonstrated anything but their own baises at the end of it.
Real scholarship (of the sort promised by the blurb provided by spam-vig) would have been worth the time, but this wasn't.
Instead I sat through the usual "mirror image" ruled presentation - the religious enthusiasts and antireligion enthusiasts are basically two sides of the same coin seeking to slur each other with the same sort of slurs, tar each other with the same sort of brush, and do the bait&switch tactic of seeming to take up a sensible subject but then just spinning the matter as they please without really having demonstrated anything but their own baises at the end of it.
Real scholarship (of the sort promised by the blurb provided by spam-vig) would have been worth the time, but this wasn't.
By: nullportal
