The God Who Wasn't There

[BoSoxGal]

from the site linked:

Directed by award-winning filmmaker (and former Christian) Brian Flemming

[loCAtek]

Yes, I got that when I started using 'he'.

[loCAtek]

Okay watching it now....

It opens in the exact same way as the long trailer, the first four minutes ARE the trailer equating Christianity with dogmatic cults; and asks, 'Why am I [Brian Flemming] not a happy christian? The next six minutes are a mocking description, with outdated SPX of Jesus' life.

11:28 begins the timeline which may be inaccurately presented.

However, the film claims Paul, who was Saul begin the Church "decades later" of Christ's Crucifixion, with no date given, but historians say Saul was born 10AD and had his conversion at age ~32. Even with a proper timeline, that would only be ten years or so after the resurrection, and it' s documented that Saul spent much of his adult life persecuting Christians. So the claim that 'everyone forgot about Jesus Christ for forty years [until Paul's conversion] is false. The existence of Christians prior to Paul/Saul is acknowledged. It is the adoption of a regulated Christian religion AKA 'dogma' that wasn't present before Paul.

13:37 Flemming claims Paul never heard of Jesus' life...

While just admitting, Paul didn't live near the lands of the Jesus' wanderings; what's left out out is: The bible states- Paul went out in search of Peter, chief of the disciples, to learn how Jesus had lived. This was before Paul began preaching, so he did know Jesus' life, before the gospel began.

At 14:21, This quote is displayed as significant; "If Jesus had been on Earth, he would not have even been priest." Hebrews 8:4

In one way this would have been true; most of his disciplines spoke of Jesus by using the honorific- 'Rabbi' which translates as 'teacher'. Jesus opposed the priests and would not have wanted that title. The full verse;

Hebrews 8:1-7 wrote:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Thus, so far.

[thestoat]

"If Jesus had been on Earth, he would not have even been priest."

Indeed - he'd have spent most of his life in prison for various transgressions

[loCAtek]

Old, tired joke




As they say in my country;


"T'aint funny, McGee!"

[thestoat]

1. Funny is a personal thing ... You for got the IMO
2. Maybe you don't understand the joke ... The Brits are known for their sense of humour
3. There is truth in it ... He'd be hounded for that sort of stuff

[loCAtek]

Damn it, that was a lot of research, timed out!

I'll try to remember it;

Upon searching further Christian History timelines, Paul began his ministry in 40AD, seven years after Pentecost and in 41AD the followers of Christ were first called Christians, which continues to debunk the '40 years of Everyone Forgot' theory.

From 14:40 to 25:00 Flemming disregards that Peter, the apostles, and John the Baptist et al were preaching about events they had witnessed first hand; and claims Mark was reporting 'allegories'. When in fact, Mark didn't write the Book of Mark;

Wiki

The Gospel of Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a companion of Peter,[9] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][10][11][12] The gospel was written in Greek around AD 64, possibly in Syria.[7] The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship,[13] and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

The director continues to assert that the gospels hinge on Paul, when in reality they hinge on Peter who was an eyewitness: Paul went to Peter to learn about Jesus' life before he began his ministry; the first gospels were based on Peter's accounts. Obviously, the gospels had to be written down, starting in 60AD {still not forty years) since the remaining apostles were either being martyred or couldn't physically go to all places that wanted to hear the word of Christ. Prior to that, Christianity was primarily an oral tradition, for its intended audiences were the average low-class men and women, who were largely illiterate.

TBC - before this post session times out, but I'm currently watching more of the film...

[loCAtek]

From 14:40 to 25:00 Flemming focuses on 'Glurge' or Fiction becomes fact, again despite the fact that Peter was there. Here I note that he first uses the Micheal Moore technique of interviewing experts or participants, and then editing or labeling their input to be more supportive of his view point. Barbara and David Mikkelson, founders of Urban Myths/snopes.com were filmed without being told their comments would be used out of context, as will others.

He also rushes through the 'monomyth theory' and you just have to trust that his 'hero point count' is accurate. Joseph Campbell is far more thorough, and according to his definitions Jesus barely fits the criteria.

[loCAtek]

I have been educated on the Mithraic Mysteries, and the reason some Christian ideas were/are confused or mingled with that old belief is because of the persecution fears of early Christians. As the Roman persecution began, Christians had to find safe, secret places to worship. The Mithra cult had since faded, but their cave temples remained behind. Early followers of Christ would meet in these abandoned grottoes decorated with Mithraic imagery and assume out of ignorance, that they pertained to their Christ. It would be a common mistake, but it is not proof that a historical Jesus, who was a close associate of Peter, did not exist.

[loCAtek]

After 25:00 Flemming claims that Christianity is based on blood-lust and cannibalism. His rational -The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson 2004.

At 29:25, we go back to dogmatic evangelicals; and a brief re-emergence of Richard Carrier, who supposed that Mark wrote his gospel wrong, without knowing that Mark didn't write it at all. Richard supports the myth that most conflict/war is based on religion, which is not so;




...and back to dogmatism, which Flemming says makes up modern Christianity = fundamentalist, conservative, and close minded

40:30 Begins Flemming-a-Thon, and at about 43:00 he gets kinda paranoid and frantic; and starts using 'I' statements a lot

44:20. his school Superintendent admits his position is dogmatic.

Further film interviews criticize DOGMA

51:10 One of his interviewees confronts him about being mislead and manipulated (re: Micheal Moore) and walks out. Some claim, it was because he couldn't answer the line of questioning, but I didn't see it that way.

Flemming-a-Thon continues intensely, all rational documentation about the historical Jesus gone.

...and the credits roll.

Final frame, doesn't prove that God wasn't there.

[Scooter]

After 25:00 Flemming claims that Christianity is based on blood-lust and cannibalism. His rational -The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson 2004.

All it takes to prove that is the Bible.

It is clearly stated in the NT that salvation required one and final blood sacrifice (of Jesus) to take the place of the sacrificial offerings of the OT.

And cannibalism - well, all Christians partaking of communion are said to be eating flesh and blood, to one degree or another.

[Crackpot]

Catholics maybe but most protestants don't believe in transubstantiation.

[Scooter]

That's why I said "to one degree or another" - symbolic or actual cannibalism, depending on what one believes.

[Crackpot]

Depends on the interpretation of the symbols I guess. I see it as a call to reflection on his sacrifice rather than a act of cannibalism. A metaphor for remembrance as often as you'd eat and drink not symbolic ingesting of Gods flesh. Though with any good metaphor it can be taken on many levels, including the consuming of the flesh of the sacrifice. That particular angle just seems to be more pragmatic functionalism than profound spiritual insight to me.

[loCAtek]

FWIW I thought Christianity was based on the Golden Rule: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.




If there are no objections, I'm going back and correcting my ugly grammar?

[loCAtek]

At the end, Flemming does answer his own question, "Why am I not a happy Christian?'.
With: He doubts the Holy Spirit.

The final minute has come to be known as 'The blasphemy challenge" from Flemming posting Luke 12:10 at the beginning of Flemming-a-Thon;

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

The point of his biography, was to demonstrate that his Christian education was very dogmatic and so he 'denys' the Holy Spirit. When in fact, all along he has been denying the dogma.

Interestingly, the full verse in context, is a warning against adhering to dogma/hypocrisy.

A Warning against Hypocrisy
1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, Mt. 16.6 · Mk. 8.15 which is hypocrisy.
2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Mk. 4.22 · Lk. 8.17
3 Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

Whom to Fear
Mt. 10.26-31
4 ¶ And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Confessing Christ before Men
8 ¶ Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9 but he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Mt. 12.32 · Mk. 3.29
11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
12 for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. Mt. 10.19, 20 · Mk. 13.11 · Lk. 21.14, 15

Lastly, he doesn't say it, but he posts a scrawl that says he's not afraid [of saying he denies the Holy Spirit] However, in his last close up, those blown pupils kinda give away his real emotional state.

[Andrew D]

Catholics maybe but most protestants don't believe in transubstantiation.

Theology point:

The (asserted) fact that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus is not transubstantiation. That (asserted) fact is The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation is the means by which, according to the Roman Catholic Church, the change is effected. There are Protestant denominations, perhaps most notably Episcopalians and Lutherans, which do believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus but which do not accept the doctrine that transubstantiation is how that change occurs.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming ....