As for us, I will provide my own guide to the film below. And otherwise, if Flemming wants a war on Easter, I have someone who will take him further to that mat -- but for that, you'll have to go to my OTHER site. You can be sure though that Flemming will never take on anything on this site or the other that rebuts his bankrupt thesis.

The film comes in 22 chapters, which seems a convenient way to address it as well.

1 -- The Earth and the Sun. The message: Christianity was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth (heliocentrism). Maybe it's wrong about other things too.

This is exceptionally childish logic, which boils down to:

• X group was wrong about Y.
• Thus X group is also wrong about A, B, C, etc.

• It will do no good to say that Flemming does not say explicity, "Because Christianity was wrong about heliocentrism/geocentrism, it is also wrong about Jesus, salvation," or whatever else. The lack of explicit statement is only a manipulative cover to make the same point obliquely and plant the same suggestion. The same goes for his use of the word "maybe" which has all the power of erasing the fallacy as, "Maybe Flemming boings with goats" has on erasing the associations that that brings up.
• There is no logical connection to say that if X is wrong about Y, X may also be wrong about Z, where Y and Z are matters of entirely different subjects. (Here, astronomy -- a science accessible to very few for the vast majority of history -- versus historical issues; though Flemming never makes it clear what exactly he is trying to establish Christian ignorance of).
• Flemming fails to realize or mention that geocentrism was the belief that was also held by pre-Christian pagan writers and scientists. As noted here, an academic source:

  Indeed, the Greek astronomer Heracleides (c.390-310 BC) was one of the first to propose that the Earth rotates on its axis. He was a pupil and assistant at Plato's Academy in Athens, later opening his own school in Pontus. He also put Earth in the center of the universe, proposing that the Sun revolves about the Earth and the planets Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun.

  Aristotle, as we have seen, systematized the geocentric world system was the Earth-centered view of the universe systematized by in the 4th century BC. This was further elaborated by Ptolemy (Latin name, Claudius Ptolemaeus) in the 2d century A.D. The idea was universally accepted and prevailed for 14 centuries, until the time of Copernicus in the 16th century.

  Geocentrism was the belief as well of people in all classes and levels of education in lands that had never heard of Christianity (China, for example). Not only that, but heliocentrists like Copernicus and Galileo were Christians!

By this token, one may as well forge the same chain of logic, thusly:

• X group (scientists before the Copernican revolution, including non-Christian scientists) were wrong about Y (geocentrism).
• Thus X group is also wrong about A, B, C, etc. (the theory of evolution, the cause of AIDS, etc.)

Or even:

• X group (Chinese peasants prior to the first century AD) were wrong about Y (geocentrism).
• Thus X group is also wrong about A, B, C, etc. (their own village's history, crop cycles, etc.)

Or how about:

• X person (Flemming) was wrong about Y (Christianity being true, by his view).
• Thus X person is also wrong about A, B. C, etc. (you name the topic).

Is this acceptable logic? No, it is not. Flemming is using a cheap rhetorical ploy, and in gross ignorance at that. (For more about the background of the debate re Galileo, see here. The use of this analogy shows that Flemming is either ignorant, dishonest, unable to think clearly, or all three. Toon version.

2 - The Faces of Christianity. Mike Licona's retort here is sufficient:

.... one may answer Flemming by noting that a philosophy should not be judged by its abuse. One could make a similar apologetic against atheism by naming atheists like Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge who were responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia. Every one of these despots and brutal governments embraced atheism and oppressed people. One could easily produce a “documentary” showing Flemming and his guests smiling and happy with their atheism, then turn to photographs of Stalin who killed 7 million, Pol Pot who killed 1.2 million, and of course Mao who killed more than 70 million. This is certainly a mixed bag. However, this would do nothing to prove atheism wrong.

Tellingly, this most critical point made by Licona is virtually ignored by Doherty in his response, where he says:

If the representatives of that Deity, whether priest, televangelist or faith healer, can regularly be found guilty of child abuse, avarice or fraud, then one can hardly tout Christianity as the one effective guide and guarantor of proper moral behavior. Any philosophy, no matter what it may claim for itself in principle, is only as good as it works in practice. Christianity's track record gives us no reason to regard it as occupying a privileged position in regard to divine benefaction, and in that respect Licona's implication (if inadvertent) that we should regard it as part of a level playing-field is entirely correct.

But this merely dodges the issue of whether X philosophy IS being practiced in fact. We do not even need to go into the issue of the moral values that result from atheism in depth to know that Flemming's presentation in this section is dishonest and manipulative. Tellingly, Doherty does not quote this point by Licona (which is really the only criticism directed to the film itself), much less rebut it. It is Flemming's burden to show that eg, David Koresh was a viable exegete of the texts he used; that he used texts authoritatively, and so on. He does not do this, because his only interest is in making a cheap rhetorical point.

3 - The Story of Jesus -- Not much here to comment on; Flemming offers mostly description, and no argument as such (beyond the implied anamoly of a lack of description of Jesus' life between 12 and 30, answered by the point that ancient biographies usually covered little or none of a person's childhood or life for that period). Flemming apparently thinks the "three" magi are in the Bible (it nowhere says there were three). Otherwise, the reworking of antiquated films on Jesus reminds us of Flemming's film a great deal, inasmuch it is accurate only as far as the costuming goes.

4 - What Happened Next? -- This begins the case of the film, and it should be noted in fairness that not too much may be expected from a case made in summary (versus detailed interviews also on the DVD, though even those end up lacking depth). Nevertheless it is apparent that there is plenty of manipulation and obfuscation afoot.

Flemming offers "man on the street" interviews that ask Christians how Christianity spread and poses astonishment at the explanations lacking in substance. One wonders why it didn't occur to him to interview credible scholars like Witherington or Wright, especially since he deigned to interview scholars (to some extent!) for support of his view. The setup is manipulative and disingenuous. Toon version.

It is, that said, only "hard" to answer the questions posed, if only because the questions asked were far from specific. What does Flemming want? An account of the social factors that accompanied the mission work of Christianity? A method guide to how preaching and teaching was done? Flemming apparently doesn't know how to ask good questions, because after this the subject turns to the matter of the NT record (so why isn't Flemming asking people what the dates of the Gospels were, for example?). And here it is simply a summary case offered, claims without backup (as noted, not necessarily unfair for a film with time limits imposed), and so all we offer is our reply material:

• Gospel dates and authorship
• Marcan priority
• glimmerings of Doherty's case -- Doherty has a larger interview on the DVD that will be treated separately as needed

In close, it is disingenuous as well for Flemming to claim that Christians don't "talk about" what he alleges to be problems. If he had any familiarity at all with the range of scholarship available (our links above give examples in the bibliographies) he would not say such foolish things.

5 - Fact vs. Fiction -- This portion offers three interviews. Only the third approaches what could be called "argument" stage.

• Richard Carrier -- Carrier insists that Mark was not intending to write history. This is opposed by Mark's use of the genre of bioi. Licona's reply linked above goes into much greater detail on this, and what arguments Licona believes (probably correctly) Carrier would use to support his points. (See some points in out reply to Doherty re Doherty's reply to Licona on this subject.)
• Alan Dundes -- this interview seems largely out of place, beginning as a discussion of apocryphal literature, and ending with only one germane statement, in which Dundes implies that the Bible is filled with "folklore" -- however that is defined (which it is not) or defended (which it is also not).
• Robert Price -- This is the only one of the three interviews in this section that comes close to an argument stage, and in it, Price aims in two directions. The first is to dismiss the Gospel records as unreliable, and he chooses to highlight the slaughter of the innocents and alleged anamolies in the trial of Jesus. Price is hauling up canards that have been answered time and time again. He also makes a very strange statement about "ancient Jews and Jewish-Christians" who believed that Jesus lived 100 years before the first century, in the time of Alexander Janneus. What in the world is this about? This view does not come from Jewish-Christian, or even from ancient Jews, but from a VERY late Jewish document called the Toledeth Yeshu (see here. Price is apparently mixed up here. Toon version.

6 - Urban Legends The point of this section is apparently to vaguely instill doubts about the nature of the story of Jesus by saying, "Look, here is proof urban legends happen. So this could be one too." In essence this is the same childish logic and smokescreen used in part 1. Flemming makes no effort to look at Christianity in its social context (as we do here) or to actually prove that any part of the story is an "urban legend" or to show that such legends in particular would be easily accepted (they would not be). Notably he couldn't (apparently) get the masters of snopes.com to say such a thing about Christianity. Perhaps Flemming would also like not to mention that snopes.com often confirms stories as well as debunking them. So is it sufficient answer for us to point to their examples of verified stories and say, "therefore this is what Christianity is"?

7 - Hero Pattern -- Licona addresses this in some detail (see also our reply to Doherty) so we'll leave it at that, other than pointing also to an item here by a scholar of classics who explains why Raglan is out of date.

8 - Pagan Saviors/ 9- Satan Did It/ 10 -- Christians Don't Know -- This is the most embarrassing part of the film for Flemming as he makes use of Graves' "16 Crucified Saviors" list (toon point) and the crucified Orpheus icon (toon point). On Justin Martyr see GDon's comments here. Please note how badly Justin's comments are misused in the context of his entire arguments.

And no, contrary to Flemming, "Satan did it" is not "the explanation to this day". See our series on each "pagan savior" here. Flemming also plays his dishonest game of interviewing everyday Christians again -- why not scholars instead? Why not indeed, we at this site? Flemming lists characteristics of "savior gods" in the foreground and shows Graves' list in the background, but does not connect any names and deeds together. We'd like to see him try. Toon version.

11 - It's About Blood/ 12 - The Passion -- The one bit of serious data that needs to be pointed out here is related to the (rather bigoted) description of humanity as "obsessed" with blood sacrifice. It is illicit to collapse down all varieties of ritual with their meaning and lump them into a broad category of "blood sacrifice." Are the meanings and modes of all of these rituals the same? Flemming makes no effort to show that this is the case, but merely counterposes a depiction of what appears to be an Aztec sacrifice with the crucifixion. Maybe we should get a pic of his next birthday party and counterpose it with a hypothetical picture of the Duke lacrosse team, and say, "Humanity is obsessed with having parties."

The reason blood plays such an important role in so many varied rituals is likely because it is the one thing (other than skin) that best represents the whole of the human body and the life within it as a totality. One may as well reply that it is the likes of Flemming who are "obsessed" with blood, in the sense of being afraid of it. Why should anything be different simply because of a spoiled .01% of persons who have ever lived like Flemming are scared of blood?

Complaints about The Passion are little more than yet more childishness. Let it be said for the record that I was not impressed by it myself (blood is not the true focus of the historical event anyway; see here), but the film was reasonably accurate historically in terms of what crucifixion victims actually went through, and if Flemming has an issue with that, why isn't he crusading against gory Hollywood endeavors as well? At least The Passion was graphic out of a reasonable attempt at faithful representation to history and what a crucifixion was like. I have a hint for Flemming: The older Jesus movies he uses, such as the one with Jesus having his face whipped with what look to be large drinking straws, aren't realistic portrayals of the ways Romans handled prisoners. Maybe Flemming would also like for movies on the Holocaust to show Jews entering perfume chambers. To say that Gibson "could have made it any way he wanted to" is beside the point (though it does reflect well Flemming's obvious inclination to "make what he wants" of his own film, including errors).

13 - Soldiers for God -- This rather peculiar section amused me as someone who is a registered independent and whose political views match no party that I know of. Flemming had to reach way back to James Robison and Jerry Falwell in the 80s to invoke the spectre of the Religious Right (also amusing to me, since the strongest Republican I have known personally is an atheist, and there do exist politically conservative atheists; Flemming even interviews "the Raving Atheist" and finds that where abortion is concerned, he is "pro-life"!). The random montage of shots doesn't count for much in the way of "argument". The pictured book burning is not contextualized, so it is hard to say what the point is, but it seems to me that in a free country people should be allowed to express their freedom of speech by burning their own books, if that is what they are.

Richard Carrier is invoked for a view that religion is dangerous; the available crop of books like For the Glory of God and Christianity on Trial are good antidotes for a simplistic view like Carrier's, and let's always recall that the same game can be played (with as much validity) upon atheism, if we wish to keep the issue that simple. (In other words, it's as fallacious to use Stalin against atheism as it is for Flemming to do what he has done here).

It is hard to see what the point is of using the Force Ministries website. Essentially, Force Ministries is a military version of the Power Team, not any sort of Inquisition group. What does Flemming think this proves? That our military is turning into a band of Crusaders?

14 - Moderate Christianity -- Flemming never clearly defines what he means by "moderate Christianity" other than by the point of the OT penalty on homosexuals (on that issue of the relevance of the OT law, see here). Otherwise this section is a random pastiche of bites with the apparent message of, "The Religious Right stinks!" Thrown in the mix: Pictures of Bush, Abu Ghirbab, Luke 19:27 (see GDon's comments on Flemming's misuse of that), the Inquisition (far more complex than Flemming realizes), Bailey Smith's "God does not hear a prayer of a Jew" (just as the Hebrew Bible says of those that are disobedient, after all...), and all about NT anti-Semitism (actually, the average Jewish peasant of the day would have felt much the same about the ruling class).

15 - Rapture Ready/16 - Left Behind/ 17- Crazy -- As a preterist (that is, one who doesn't accept the idea of a Rapture as portrayed, or an upcoming Tribulation) I have no defense to offer here, or a need to defend, but I do have some comments. Why does Flemming choose to interview the likes of Scott Butcher, when scholars like Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, Ben Witherington, or even John Walvoord are around? How does Harris' complaint about eschatological beliefs being "maladaptive" square with Flemming's admission that Butcher is a nice guy and a productive member of his community who provides for his family?

18 -- School Daze -- Mostly a personal account of Flemming's former beliefs, with little or no explanation for how he arrived at them, much less any question as to whether maybe he had the basics wrong in the first place. His Dante-view of hell was certainly wrong, as was his idea of what constituted blasphemyof the Holy Spirit.

19 -- The Superintendent/20 - Faith vs. Evidence/21 - We Need to Stop/ 22 - Chapel -- This is mostly the interview with Flemming's former school leader, Ronald Sipus; the fuller interview in the extras didn't add much, though I note that Flemming admits that he used it in spite of being told not to by Sipus. I do note that there is the usual false dichotomy between faith and evidence; not all Flemming's fault since he was taught wrongly. It is also hypocrtically ironic for Flemming to allege that the super is being "irresponsible" for teaching children Christian doctrines when his own film is full of so many irresponsible errors. In addition, why does he suggest a disclaimer ("we may be wrong") on the school's statement of faith, but not have such a disclaimer on his own film?

Full Interviews and Commentary Tracks.

• Butcher -- not interested, since I don't defend his view.
• Mikkelsons -- they say nothing about Jesus not existing; Mrs. Mikkelson offers a brief theodicy sort of argument based on a view of prayer I don't endorse
• Sam Harris -- not much here within our purview, though as a neuroscientist Harris is plainly speaking out of his expertise on most of the subjects he addresses. Much time is spent on Islam and feelgood Christianity, which we do not defend.
• Alan Dundes -- Dundes says a few extra things of note here. He makes a distinction between what folklorists study (what people think happened) and what historians study (what actually happened), which is as close as he gets to what Flemming missed in his misleading use of Dundes (see below). It is apparent that Dundes has browsed some lowbrow apologetics material (where did he get the explanation for the color of Jesus' robe as being "the lighting was different"??) and it is also apparent that he was an odd bird, as he elsewhere refers to ideas that football is a "homosexual ritual". Wha?
• Richard Carrier -- oddly, Carrier spends most of the time here discussing things far outside his expertise (eg, how humans having a large brain proves atheism!) and away from the subject of Jesus' historicity; on that, he declares himself otherwise "agnostic" in terms of Doherty's thesis vs. historicity. I did find it appropriate that at one point in the interview there was the clear sound in the background of a garbage truck's backup siren; but at any rate, unlike Carrier, we won't talk about things beyond our knowledge.
• Robert Price -- nothing new here either; Price performs all the usual half-informed gyrations (eg, he appeals to Apollonius of Tyana, but fails to mention how late the evidence for him is; appeal to the outdated "messianic secret" motif). I do resonate with much of what he says about the modern notion of a "personal relationship with Jesus" but wonder why he thinks, if Jesus does talk to people today, it would have to be in Aramaic.
• Ronald Sipus -- the super of Flemming's old school. Sipus talks about messages in advertising that I suspect even many atheists would agree with him on. It is also interesting that Sipus did not wholesale dismiss public schools but said there was good work being done in them.
• Earl Doherty -- commentary track. There was nothing here not addressed in our answer to Doherty, and what was offered was usually highly summarized (eg, the "brother of Jesus" reference to James in Josephus is merely waved off as having unspecific "problems"). I do find it rather hypocritical and curious that when Doherty fumbles about trying to remember what the Council of Nicea was about (he gets it wrong, mixing its purpose with that of canon councils and the later Council of Chalcedon!), Flemming rushes for a save by pointing out that the matter of church councils is outside Doherty's expertise. This is the same Flemming that made an issue of the ignorance of Christians he picked off the street, but apparently on-the-street Christians are supposed to be well informed about things like Mithra while it is perfectly fine for Doherty to not know diddly-squat about what happened at church councils. It is also interesting that when Flemming says there have been NO rebuttals to Doherty, Doherty slyly modifies the question and replies that there have been none by scholars.
• Richard Dawkins/Raving Atheist -- actually, these two are only a part of the track; Carrier, Price, and Harris all pop in as well. Most of what is said is outside our scope, though I did find it interesting that the RA's approach to someone questioning the film's content is essentially the old David Hume canard of reliance on one's own experience as the proper epistemic test. Well, in that case....my experience is that atheists become ruthless dictators. That's how easy it is to play games with this kind of "test".

  I also found it curious that on the one hand, Carrier offered a series of paranoid ravings to the effect that atheists would become the next "Jews" to be treated to a Holocaust, while on the other hand Harris indicated that people who held what he called "irrational" beliefs should be shut out of public discourse.

PowerPoint extra. This is a slide show extra. It covers much the same ground as the film, but here are some added points that show that Flemming deserves no credibility as a commentator:

• One slide says of arguments for the resurrection: "Bizarre reasoning, low standards, and outright lying" are often needed to do them. Unfortunately no examples are given, much less refutations. And, the "same flaws are present in arguments for the historical view of Jesus."
• The Christians on the street all came from attendees of a Billy Graham crusade. It is claimed that they were not cherry-picked (ha!) and that they "found none who had any better handle on the subject then those presented" in the film. Maybe Flemming should try here and not be such a roaring hypocrite. Or how about Biola U. -- a seminary in Flemming's own hometownm that has an apologetics program?
• A tip of the hat to Maccoby and Crossan, for the point that the name "Judas" means "Jew". Surely that implies anti-Semitism, huh? Sure must have been a load of anti-Semites back then, since "Judas" (a variant of "Judah", one of the original 12 sons of Jacob) was one of the five top names given to Jewish boys of that day. It was also the same of one of Jesus' other 12 Apostles who didn't betray him. Next thing you know, Flemming will uncover a conspiracy to name boys "Bob" and discover that Robert Price has a vendetta against him.
• The canard appears, "There are no Roman records of Pontius Pilate ordering the execution of Jesus." Um hm. There are no Roman records of Pontius Pilate or ANY Roman provincial governor ordering ANYTHING, not even lunch, thank you very much. All such records have completely disappeared. It is therefore dishonest to use this point.
• Vague complaint about differences in the Gospels; see the series here.
• Butt coverage central here, as a disclaimer is issued that the use of the list from Graves "should not be considered an endorsement of some of the wilder claims about previous savior figures." Uh, well, which "wilder claims"? And then why is the list even used? So media presentation is again what it is all about; deceiving by appearance.
• The closing pics counterposing NAE's logo with the WTC burning is a cute touch. Let's see -- I'll try this: Some people argue against Christianity.

  Yeah, that's the ticket.....

• Finally, the list of atheist groups at the end is kind of funny, given that the first (American Atheists) wants to take tax exemption from churches, while the last (Secular Web) is a 501(c)(3) with tax-exempt status, as is FFRF. We can have it, but you can't?

Special Appendix: Crocidile Dundes

We have an interesting investigation in process from one of our readers who was a student of the late Alan Dundes, who was featured in the film. We now have a full report here [Word document]. Otherwise here are some miscellaneous comments:

Some preliminary findings from my readings.

1. Alan Dundes was heavily misrepresented. There is no way that Dundes would try to show that Jesus was purely fabricated (I am intentionally avoiding the term "myth"). As a folklorist, his philosophy goes completely against the idea that folklore can be separated from history and thus he does not aim nor care whether Jesus was real or not. For Flemming to place Dundes in this position in the DVD to try to credit Jesus as a fabrication is outright scandalous and he should apologize to Dundes immediately... er... his family immedieately.

2. Dundes should not have tried to apply the Bible in a folklore motif because of his lack of scholarship in the Biblical records and Biblical studies. Reading over some of his comments showed large bits of ignorance of scripture. For the record, Dundes was a secular Jew, and in one of his other papers, he believes that the Jewish people were completely obsessed with feces and that anal-feces-fetish was a sign of their legalism. David Biale of UC Davis, in the journal American Jewish History, completely blasts him:

American Jewish History, David Baile -- ...After some hesitations about whether one can speak of a "Jewish national character," Dundes - following Freud and Ferenczi - ventures the following: ". . . can a case be made . . . that the Jews do exhibit the personality characteristics that . . . could conceivably be called anal erotic in nature?" (100). The answer, of course, is yes, and Dundes proceeds to assemble every example of excrement in the Bible and Talmud. Feces is his thesis. The alleged Jewish preoccupation with cleanliness and purity "which borders on obsession, would seem to suggest an anal erotic origin. . ." (115). The strange passage in Exodus 33:22-23, where God shows Moses his backside, "is not merely an example of divine 'mooning,' but it is rather an image totally consonant with an anal erotic pattern of behavior and thought" (125)© source where applicable

Needless to say, sometimes Dundes is a hoot and sometimes is hard to take seriously....

3. His choice of using the 22 traits to describe a hero is laughable on first sight and I will write you a detailed account of why this is so incredulous to me that it should be reasonably disregarded as anything worthwhile. This is my first impression, at least, and I will definitely take some careful notes for you. (Note: see Licona's treatment and our link to the essay of a classical scholar.)

4. From (a graduate student who more recently worked with Dundes): "I can tell you that AD was not concerned with whether Jesus was a real person or not -- I think we can safely say that we all agree he was an historical figure. As folklorists we are concerned with narrative development (among other things). Dundes was drawing on 'hero of tradition' scholarship and applying it to Jesus as it had been applied to Oedipus, Jason, Moses, Apollo, King Arthur etc. The hypothesis is that there are structural formulations that underlie heroic makeovers."

Some things in the responses I did not take account of, and I did not want to. One is the question of historicity, raised by Smith and Talbert. I have no position on historicity; structural analysis is irrelevent to history. Raglan had a different bias; he was interested in disproving the historicity of the lives of the heroes. The truth/falsehood issue concerned Murgia, among others. But to distinguish "true" heroes from "folk" heroes confirms my original point, that "folk" is always throught to be error. There is no way of knowing a priori whether a given individual is historical; that is a separate issue. Some people were concerned that I did not discuss the religiosity of the life of Jesus. Obviously, that is a very important issue, but again, here I take no position. Structural analysis per se says nothing about it, nor does psychoanalytic criticism. -- Alan Dundes, at the end of a booklet on a summit about one of his works

The final word for now -- it appears as of this date that Flemming isn't getting the attention he hoped to get. The mainstream media seems to have ignored him. His "War on Easter" is staffed by lowbrow persons of this sort:

We got an odd look from a police officer when we were sitting across the street from a playground in an old brown Chevy Celebrity with a bunch of easter eggs, flyers, and a lot of liquor in the back seat.

Thus for the present, we're content to leave this response as it stands. As one reader has put it, The God Who Wasn't There seems to be the Ishtar of atheism. However, in light of Flemming's continued cowardice in refusing to debate us we have a new item here. Go Home!