|
| The God Who Wasn't There | 
 enlarge | Director: Brian Flemming
Actor: Richard Carrier; Richard Dawkins; Alan Dundes; Sam Harris; Robert M. Price
Studio: Beyond Belief Media
Category: DVD
List Price: $24.94
Buy New: $15.67
You Save: $9.27 (37%)
New (14) Used (3) from $14.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  219 reviews
Sales Rank: 5499
Format: Ac-3, Color, Digital Sound, Dolby, Dvd-video, Full Length, Full Screen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Running Time: 320 minutes
Number Of Items: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 407
UPC: 837101074865
EAN: 0837101074865
ASIN: B000CAPZBC
Theatrical Release Date: June 6, 2005
Publication Date: June 6, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: BRAND NEW, Factory Sealed items direct from the Studios. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Quick International Airmail!
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Blasphemous and informative October 7, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This documentary is one of the best in this genre of religion questioning. It provides a basic timeline for the writing of the Bible and questions the sanity of believing in anything without logical reason. Mr. Flemming talks to many different people and tries to get them to explain why they believe in what religion teaches them, which by their answers help him bring his point forth. This movie will change the minds of those people that are sitting on the fence of doubt, but will probably be dismissed by the fervent believer for its irreverence. This is a movie to be collected because it doesn't get stale with time. I strongly recommend it to those who want to be informed about religion and atheism.
Right Message But Poor Quality Film Making October 7, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
The director, Brian Flemming, is a former fundamentalist Christian who apparently has tremendous bitterness towards his previous faith based belief system. The best part of this doc are the interviews with scholars such as folklore expert Alan Dundes and Jesus Seminar member Robert Price. These academics make a convincing case that the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, was based on previous mythological stories, such as those about Zeus and Dionysus, rather than actual historical events. None of this scholarly evidence is particularly new or groundbreaking. But it is still likely to confound and disturb fundamentalist Christians.
Unfortunately, Flemming's film making skills are way below those of such documentary directors as Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. Fleming's approach lacks humor and he goes off on way too many tangents, such as his "hatchet job" interview with his former Christian school principal, that tend to detract from the strong central thesis that the life of Jesus is based on mythological sources.
As an atheist I am definitely sympathetic to this film's point of view. But I wish the director had done a better job in presenting it.
 God Was There, Sound Research Was Not October 1, 2008
10 out of 22 found this review helpful
The search of the Historical Jesus is something that tends to dominate modern studies of the New Testament. There are some that believe that somewhere in the Gospels is the real Jesus. The only thing that is keeping us from seeing him is all of those imaginary stories like the virgin birth and being raised from the dead. After all, we know scientifically that people cannot do such silly things. By peeling back these mythic layers, one can find the Jesus of history and discover his secret message that has been buried all these years.
Don't get me wrong. I love history. I have loved history since my Dad took me to see the Magna Carta when I was in the 8th grade. My games of Trivia Pursuit basically consist of me racing from one yellow space to another.
History is important for studying the Gospels. It gives us insight into the context and culture that our Lord was born into. Serious Biblical scholarship demands a careful study of history.
Brian Flemming's film The God Who Wasn't There begins with the premise that Christianity is wrong. He asserts that when you peel away all of those mythic layers surrounding Jesus, nothing is left. This of course is a challenge not only to orthodox Christianity, but even to those who want to search for merely a historical Jesus.
Flemming begins his thesis by showing that the letters of St. Paul pre-date the writing of the Gospels. Most scholars would agree with this. He goes on to say that St. Paul did not believe that Jesus was a real person, but rather some mythic figure. The Gospels would then come along later to expand the myth. Most scholars would disagree with this.
Did St. Paul believe Jesus was a real person in human history or did he believe that he was writing an eloquent allegory to show humanity how to live the good life?
Let's review the facts.
-St. Paul was writing his letters to already established local Churches, some of which he did not establish himself. This means that others were spreading the Gospel.
-St. Paul himself acknowledges that there were others spreading the Gospel. (Col 1:5-7)
-St. Paul writes about his persecuting the early Church (Gal 1:13)
-St. Paul writes about the human nature of Christ being born (Romans 1:3)
-Although St. Paul didn't know Jesus before the ascension, he acknowledged that others did. (2 Cor 5:16)
-St. Paul does write about events that happened before the crucifixion (1 Cor 11:24)
Let's not forget that St. Paul died because of his faith in Jesus Christ. Even a cursory reading of his letters reveals that St. Paul did believe that Jesus was real and that he encountered many others that believed the same thing.
In this "information age" it's easy to forget that Christianity was born into a culture that transmitted information orally. Just because the Gospels weren't written until years after Jesus' resurrection, doesn't mean that people weren't talking about the events in Jesus' life. After all, St. Paul was writing his letters to someone right? The Gospel spread orally before St. Paul wrote his first letter.
Flemming then tries to disprove the existence of Christ by demonstrating his similarities to other mythic figures. I have always loved studying ancient mythology, so I was actually disappointed by the lack of depth on this topic in the film. Flemming's scholars provide a litany of Christ-like legends, but they never really try to explain their similarities (alien implants?) and make absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss their many differences. (Flemming dismisses early Christian apologists' belief that Satan planted mythic forgeries throughout history to make it difficult for pagans to accept Christ. Which...... kind of sounds like something Satan would do actually.....)
Flemming wants to show that the story of Jesus is simply a retelling of the old pattern of hero myths, with elements that are present in everything from Hercules legends to Superman comics, but only provides enough content for the most disgruntled of viewers to "connect the dots." It gives the feel of style over substance. Which of course forces the question, is there enough content to begin with?
Instead, Flemming relies on Michael Moore-style "ambush interviews" with evangelicals as they arrived for a worship service. He asks them if they ever heard of Osiris (most haven't) to show that Christians are ignorant of the origins of their faith. I think the director meant this to be entertaining, but it really doesn't contribute to his theories about Christians. There are plenty of atheists that are not familiar with the story of Osiris either.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the film is Flemming's view of Christians in general. This flaw stems from Flemming's own background as an evangelical Protestant.
For Flemming, the only real Christians are those that adhere to Sola Scriptura. He shares the evangelical's disdain for "moderate Christians" as not taking the Bible (and therefore Jesus) seriously. He seems to have no idea about the role of Sacred Tradition in Catholicism or the founding of various local Churches by the apostles (those folks St. Paul was writing his letters to.)
This is why I think he so easily ignores the oral transmission of the Gospel and the importance of the early Church councils on orthodox Christology. For him, if it's not in the Bible, it doesn't count. Never mind the fact that most Christians are not evangelical Protestants. He only loosely refers to Catholicism in the film by mentioning the crusades, the place of the sun in the solar system, and the inquisition. Given his background, it wouldn't surprise me if this was all he ever heard about Catholics while he was growing up.
Flemming uses the film the Passion of the Christ to show that Christians are obsessed with blood, something they inherited from pagan rituals. He points out that the Passion outsold both Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ. What he doesn't point out is that modern filmgoers, for better or worse, are looking for realism in film and television. This is evident in everything from the spectacular special effects in Revenge of the Sith to the success of shows like Survivor. He also fails to point out that the Passion appealed to conservative Christians who were tired of films like Temptation, and the likelihood that a more traditional film would have made a lot of money no matter how much or little blood appeared on the screen.
Flemming also tries to drive home the point that the Judeo-Christian religions are harmful to the human race. He forgets about the 20th century conflicts waged by regimes that rejected religion. Could you imagine what would happen to our society if all the Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities disappeared? I am confident that Christians provided more relief to Hurricane Katrina victims than all other groups, including atheists, combined. Have there been times when Christians failed to act with charity? Sure. But the light always outshines the darkness. (It just doesn't make the news as often.)
Viewers of the film will immediately realize that the commentators featured in the film represent only one opinion and other opinions (from Christian historians and Scripture scholars) are not included. I don't count the principal of Flemming's grade school alma mater, the [...] webmaster or the parking lot evangelicals.
The film itself is pretty fast paced although the use of older (public domain) films loses its novelty almost immediately. The soundtrack, featuring clips of praise and worship songs, is an interesting selection but their volume drowns out Flemming's narration at times.
As someone who has rejected his evangelical upbringing, Flemming presents nothing less than a flawed assault on Christianity. Some of Flemming's challenges to Christianity are old, ancient really. It does drive home a point that quests for merely a historical Jesus will always come up short. The Christian faith is a living faith informed by history (Jesus is the Lord of human history) and guided by the Holy Spirit. How many councils were convened to settle the question of Dionysus' divinity? How many people worship at temples dedicated to Mithras? Flemming does not try to explain why Christianity still thrives. I don't think he would like the answer.
Was there a historical Jesus Christ? Yes. He is the one Lord, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
What a waste of thought! September 27, 2008
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
If you are a rational atheist, you would do well to avoid this film.
If you are a thinking Christian, this film is a waste of your valuable time. Counting dust motes will be more enriching for you.
This film is an exercise in rhetorical stupidity, as Flemming evidently has less respect for his audience than he does for Christians. If Flemming were to do actual research for a Christ-bashing film, then perhaps it would be worthwhile. But he is too afraid to interview knowledgeable Christians who'd be able to answer him. He is fearful of exploring his own background, and finding out if he truly professed faith in Christ as a child, and exploring what Christianity is all about. Instead, he imbibes deeply at the well of critical, skeptical biblical scholarship, and seem to do little thinking for himself, and becomes angrier and angrier, and less and less coherent and rational in his views, much less his expression of them.
 Nothing New to Offer September 19, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
The movie has been promoted as offering a reasoned theory that Jesus (the savior guy) never existed, and as a devout atheist I was really excited to hear that argument. Unfortunately, the movie does not do a good job of making that argument; or any other argument for that matter. What it does is attempt to indict Christianity (and religion in general) by equating it with mythology, and pointing out the evils that religion has led to. The problem is that the arguments are well known, and rehashed poorly. By that I mean that these legitimate arguments aren't fleshed out well, and end up being a bit limp. The movie does bring up a good point, and hopefully another documentary will actually do some real investigation, but this movie just didn't. Also, it sort of came off as a guy whining about his christian school education at the end.
|
|
|
 | |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.