This Doc...is hilarious. Not smart. Doesn't make any sense to use it for a base of his rejection of something and then try to paint what he rejected as wrong. A director is trying to spend time debating where Christianity originated, Christ's validity, and argue with the principles of Christianity...and uses this context a lot: "The way the world operates" when he questions the leader of the school he attended about Christianity. Does the whole world operation on one belief. Right there it is realized he was just a someone who didn't agree with Christianity...now he wants to make it seem like it is wrong..but his argument is so stupid and dumb as he is...that laughter is all that can be applied to his premise. Christianity is about faith...using the context The World...operating this way makes no logical contextual sense...since there is more than one spiritual premise that people believe..Christianity is one. And like the Priest said when receiving that dumb question: Its a matter of Faith. Flemming is as dumb and as disgruntled as he sounds...no doubt about it. He didn't want to conform (which was HIS choice), now he spends his money and time trying to paint the opposite as bad. That is so funny. If one doesn't believe in God or Christianity...nothing about Christianity will apply to him anyway. Is he really that much of a cry-baby that he had to make a documentary?

When Christians are asked how Christianity is spread, many cite "Pentacost" because (if you will take time to read it) Jesus bestowed His power on them to go forth, preach, and heal.A central component to Christ's ministry was faith. The concept is mentioned numerous times from Jesus telling his Disciples during a storm they had little faith, to the woman "in red" who touched his clothes and became healed... "Woman, your faith has healed you."So here we are again, when did the spread of Christianity start. I agree with most: by sending out his Disciples to the public, Jesus was empowering them to spread the good news. It is in that same fashion that a Christian seeks to discover their unbelieving brother, and help them realize the glory of God.

The film isn't the worst in the world, but really posits itself as serious scholarship; which it is not. Unfortunately the fanaticism that film's creator uses to mock the Christian faith, is the same fanaticism he uses attempting to disprove the existence of Jesus. It lacks authentic scholarship by using sensationalism and an unfocused message.The focus is somewhat confusing. What is the goal of the film to disprove the historical Jesus or the Christian Messiah Jesus? Also, he starts many diatribes not related to the premise (e.g. his criticism of The Passion of the Christ, current Christian religious fanaticism). He uses the behavior of fundamentalist Christians to disprove the existence of a historical figure or a religious one????? Ultimately it seems that the same amount of faith to believe that a historical Jesus didn't exist is the same amount needed to believe he did exist.The film presents irresponsible scholarship cloaked in clichéd dance music, sound bites, and movie clips. It amounts to about 10 minutes of barely scholarly criticism of the Jesus Myth with the remaining time focused on mocking (sometimes deserving it) the behavior of fundamentalist Christians. Unfortunately the film's creator comes off as an angry former believer who feels duped by Christianity.

The notion that there never existed a personage known as or modeled after a "Jesus Christ" is intriguing to say the least and deserves a better made "documentary" than this. I, too, have come to believe there never was such a person and have read some of Earl Doherty's discussion on the matter at his website so I was all gung-ho to see a film presentation of all the evidence, spliced in with commentary from the many great thinkers that agree with the premise. Boy, was I let down! This film is poorly made and -to put it bluntly - boring! The director clearly did not do his homework. Interviewing people on the street about Jesus was pointless, too. Why not talk to theologians? for example. There is so much ground to cover and so many, many talking points to explore but the director wastes precious minutes by, among other things, visiting the Christian school he attended as a youth followed by a poor imitation of ambush-style journalism in an interview with the schools director. This is a subject that deserves serious consideration and I await the filmmaker that deals with it as such.