The movie opens with a computer animated Earth revolving around a computer animated Sun, after a few seconds, however, the Sun starts revolving around the Earth. Brian says:”The Earth revolves around the Sun. But it wasn’t always that way. The Sun used to revolve around the Earth. It was like that for hundreds of years, until it was discovered to be otherwise, and even for a few hundred years after that.” The computer-generated Earth once again starts to revolve around the computer-generated Sun, while Brian says,”But ultimately, after much kicking and screaming, the Earth did begin to revolve around the Sun. Christianity was wrong about the solar system.” Slowly the camera descends down through the atmosphere of the computer-generated Earth, down to Israel. “What if it’s wrong about something else too?” Then we are shown a picture of Jesus Christ.
Less than a minute out of the gate, and we’re already presented with a rhetorical ploy. Yes, the church was wrong about the solar system, so were most other scientists of Galileo’s day. Geocentrism was a belief held by most scientists for over 1400 years before, as noted here:http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/aquinas.html
"The faces of Christianity" - Brian talks to some Christians after they've just left a Billy Graham Crusade, and comments about their happy faces. Then we are shown faces of other Christians: Charles Manson, Pat Robertson (who at one time suggested bombing the U.S. State Department), Dena Schlosser (who cut her baby's arms off for God), and Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, authors of the "Left Behind" Series. Under LaHaye and Jenkins' picture is the quote "Look forward to the day when all Non-Christians are thrown into a lake of fire, 'howling and screeching'".
Ok, if this is Brian's next argument against Christianity, then here's an argument against atheism:
Hmmm...Chairman Mao who ordered the killing of 26.5 million people, and Pol Pot who orchestrated the Killing Fields in Cambodia. They were both atheists.
This section is topped off by a tasteless comment, a picture of the burning Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas:"86 crispy fans of similar apocalyptic literature".
Next up is the story of Jesus told in less than six minutes, not much to say here. At the age of 12, according to Brian, Jesus went missing. They even show him on a milk carton! (How droll!) Brian says that Jesus went missing because the Gospels don't record anything of his life between the ages of 12 and 30. Of course most ancient biographies recorded only a person's public life, not their childhood, nor any other part of their lives that weren't noteworthy. I guess Julius Caesar was missing until he became emperor of Rome too.
Brian then asks these same Christians on the street (just after a Billy Graham crusade) about how Christianity spread after Jesus' ascension. Now it is quite sad that these Christians really don't know much about what happened after Jesus' ascension, but why not ask scholars? The information is out there and available. Heck, read the Book of Acts.
Next up is Brian's version of early Christian history. Jesus lived from around 4 BC to around 33 AD. According to Brian, Mark was the first Gospel written, the other three are derived from Mark. Now Brian says that Mark was written after 70 AD. Why? Because it mentions the destruction of the temple which happened in 70. Although, to be specific, Mark mentions a prophesy by Jesus about the destruction of the temple. As in something that is going to happen in the future. But you see, Brian thinks the whole life of Jesus was made up, so this prophesy was made up after the actual event. Let me see if I can clearly show you Brian's line of thinking:
Q: Why do you think that Jesus didn't exist?
A: Part of the reason I think he didn't exist is because there was almost a four decade gap in between his purported life and the time the first biography about him, Mark, was written.
Q: Why do you say Mark was written after 70?
A: Because it mentions the destruction of the temple.
Q: How does it mention the destruction of the temple?
A: It mentions the destruction of the temple in a prophesy by Jesus.
Q: But isn't a prophesy talking about something that's happening in the future?
A: Normally it is. But in this case, this was something written by Mark after the actual event.
Q: Why do you say that?
A: Since Jesus didn't exist, any supposed prophesy he made must have been written about after the fact as part of a fictional story, to make him look godlike.
To sum up, Mark was written after 70 because it was fictional, and part of the reason that Jesus is fictional is because Mark was written after 70! *ahem*circular logic*ahem*
His contention about the three other gospels is also quite suspect. Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a source, among other sources. But to imply that Matthew, Luke and John simply reworded Mark is quite silly. As far as the date of authorship goes, well this is a very long process for which I do not have the time for in this blog post. I'll only say that Mr. Flemming does nothing to refute Colin Hemer's work on the Book of Acts, which you can purchase here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931464587/sr=8-1/qid=1153968450/ref=sr_1_1/104-3264189-1090345?ie=UTF8. In this book, Hemer lays out a pretty good case that Acts must have been written sometime between 62-64 AD, and since the Book of Acts refers to the Gospel of Luke in it's preamble, Luke's Gospel must have existed before that. If Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source, then Mark's Gospel is even earlier than that.
I shall continue on with my review tomorrow.
Sources:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/87/53/
No comments:
Post a Comment