Christian Dilemmas

Christian Dilemmas

2012, Religion  -    -  Playlist 271 Comments
Ratings: 7.02/10 from 188 users.

The authentic beliefs, customs and concepts of Christianity were immensely different from what they're today. The Christian Dilemmas, a three part series, discerns the changes and analyzes the disagreements that have caused anxiety among religious scholars and advocates of the faith.

The dictionary says that faith is a belief without any evidence to support it. And blind faith is a belief not only without evidence but in spite of evidence to the contrary. "God made men but, men made religions. And all religions are mythology, except mine which is history." - this arrogance caused so much human misery from recorded history to present.

It seems there is no good definition of a biblical scholar because they come in one of two forms. One is the apologist and the other is neutral scholar, one without an agenda. The apologist is the one who can take almost anything that comes up in any aspect of life and turn it into such a way that suits his agenda, his beliefs.

A critical scholar without an institutional axe to grind very likely began as an apologist. That happened with many people. You get interested in the Bible because you're an avid Christian and you just can't know that Bible well enough. But the further you delve into it you begin to realize that it would make a lot more sense without the creed behind it. Because the more you understand the Bible more of a clash you see and you may have to make a choice. Eventually you follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The neutral scholar is somebody without any axe to grind, somebody without an agenda, somebody that can painstakingly rid himself of the previous biases and prejudices and just try to get out the truth for what it is.

More great documentaries

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 month ago

Your questions that you put forth regarding Exodus: 21-24 were circumvented from the path of enlightenment or answer. Your intent like your path was crooked. You were meant to stay clueless. Like those Pharisees and Sadducee's of old and new, your intent was known by God before you uttered a word. This is evident with the publicated documentary that I am watching. To mislead those who are not a challenge to conform to this view is simple stupidity. There is no need for futher persuasions, like a dog returning to his vomitt. Thus you only reinforce to those already persuaded, what they are truely eating which really saddens me. Then there are those who are searching for answers. This is something you cannot give, since you do not obtain any form of receiving it regarding the contextual subject, or any valid spiritual truth taught. This also saddens me. There are to many people in this world who have been under false spiritual teaching like yourself. They pass it down from generation to gereration. Wide is the road and narrow is the path and few find it. This is the truth.
Not anything new, remarkable or distinguishable, can be found in your presentational content. It is just the same old ego, arrogance, false pride and lack of educational experience that you project, to the contrary of your personal view of yourselfs knowledge and understanding. My ego finds this to amusing, though through my lifes personal experience, it is out of alignment with who I truely am. For I also have the same natural human characteristics everyone on this earth has. It is the measure of these that differenciates us. You have not proven the immaturity of those you questioned, or refuded their religion and beliefs as lies.
You have only proven that you and those in this documentary are immature. Those who should never be teaching on the subject matter, until you are.

2 years ago

amazing that all the things christian's claim such as virgin birth rising from the dead can be found in older religions . My dad said on the way to church god sure needs a lot of money it was then I notice as poor as we and the congregation was the preacher bills were all paid

Linda Best
3 years ago

The only thing the Bible did for me was generate confusion. My relationship with God is personal and powerful. When I was 12 years old, I called desperately to God: "Jesus! Help me. Its irrelevant that Jesus was not God. Even so, Immediately , I was given Love that changed me. This Love was a treasure to me. Many years after my experience, in 2015, I found a website "". For the first time a man who claimed to be Jesus, (as the world's first reincarnation), stated that his mission, as Messiah, was to tell people that God was now giving God's Love to whomever desired it. Another website is "". Through the medium, Dr. Samuels, Jesus (from the spirit world, corrects the Old and New Testaments, which had created much confusion. Also in 1914 to 1920, a medium, chosen by Jesus, tells crucial truths through James Padgett. This is on the same web. The proof of God's love is in the experience. God's Love is available to anyone who genuinely desires it from their soul. Asking from one's brain is merely intellectualism.

4 years ago

The fish symbol has nothing to do with the zodiac sign of Pisces. To begin with it is only speculation about the birth date of Jesus. The fish symbol was a coded symbol specific to Christians to seek out other followers of Jesus Christ without risking detection by the
authorities that were out to imprison Christians. the fish symbol links closely to the words of Christ when he addressed Peter at the shores of the sea of Galilee..“Come, follow Me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

Pedro Morales
5 years ago

The following is a critique of the exegetical work presented in the videos concerning Paul's alleged personal gospel vis-à-vis that of Jesus.
The presentation of Paul against Jesus in terms of the significance of the Torah does not hold if we are to include other parts the Bible. When Prof. Price and Payn both say that Paul's ideas about the significance of Jesus' live, death and resurrection stand in contradiction to what Jesus himself taught they are extremely selective and do not give enough contextual evidence. Payn may be excused but a liberal scholar of the level of Price should have been more careful.
They do two things: First, they point out that Jesus wanted to fulfill the Jewish law not break it and not even a small dot of the law shall ever be altered. Second, they observe that Peter should be regarded as more important than Paul as if Peter's views did not change concerning the Law and its extent and application after the resurrection of Jesus.

1. First the citation they give of Jesus' words about fulfilling the law, which as they say is in Matthew 5:17 appears in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount. Interestingly that someone like Price with an expert knowledge of the gospels he should interpret a verse so out of context when one of the principles of critical exegesis is precisely to first of all take into consideration the context of the verse. If we look at the entire contents of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is dispelling and some instances doing away with what the law had allowed the Jewish people before him to do. The lex talionis or eye for an eye law was done away by Jesus by not only telling people to be merciful but to Jesus even called upon people to not resist evil. This is what Jesus would have had replacing that law for the Jews: 39 but I -- I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;

40 and whoever is willing to take thee to law, and thy coat to take -- suffer to him also the cloak.

41 `And whoever shall impress thee one mile, go with him two,

42 to him who is asking of thee be giving, and him who is willing to borrow from thee thou mayest not turn away.

I dont know how anyone can read those commands of Jesus and dont see how they contradict the law of retaliation.

A lot more could be said about the meaning of Matthew 5:17 in reference to the context of the entire Sermon on the Mount. I only want to make one final observation. The whole idea with the insistence that Jesus said would not be broken and how that made Jesus a person that completely respected Jewish traditions contradicts the point Payn makes when he talks about the identity of the Messiah according to Jewish traditions. He says that the Jewish people were expecting a warrior king, and then says that Jesus said that he did called people to love their enemies which is not in accordance with Jewish tradition concerning the coming messiah. Interestingly the command of Jesus for people to love their enemies appears also in the Sermon on the Mountain. Haha, so Payn and Price and the other professors making this video failed to see the incoherence in an argument that says that Jesus was not against Jewish Law while calling people to do the opposite to what the law requires and even proclaiming a messiah that goes against the dominant expectation of the Jewish people.

Wow, I guess we can talk about blind faith being very bad, but definitely Payn and the people making this video are blind as to the context and meaning of Matthew 5:17. Jesus said something about the blind leading the blind.

2. According to their argument Peter should be regarded as of more value in terms of a relationship with Jesus for Peter met Jesus whereas Paul only met the resurrected Jesus he should also add that the book of Acts contains a special episode in which Peter has a vision on top of a house. If we take that episode as historical then we have to conclude that even Peter should have understood that after Jesus' resurrection things concerning upholding the law had changed.
In chapter 10 of Acts Peter had a vision of big sheet being lowered from heaven descending upon him full of animals (Acts 10:11). A voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but since the sheet contained unclean animals according to Jewish law, Peter declined.
Right before the vision Acts says that Peter was desiring to eat, but at first Peter refused. Then the voice tells Peter thatb“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Peter must have been very reluctant since the narrative tells us that the scene happened three times. Peter was left perplexed as to the meaning of such a vision. In other words, he was still holding to the idea that he must not eat those animals that he saw in the vision. He could not accept what the voice clearly told him that he should not consider those animals unholy. Later Peter realizes that more than simply he being more free as to his dietary choices he must understand that God has embraced people of other nations who have been righteous in terms of giving charity to the people and have been prayerful. This is important but Peter then was of the understanding that he should not have personal dealings with people of other nations, as he says in verse 10:28 `Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;" Because of this vision Peter did not hesitate to go meet with Cornelius, a centurion of the Roman army, yet one who had been prayerful and giving alms to the people. Peter was so surprised that God had sent him to speak to this gentile that he begins to share the gospel with Cornelius and his family with these words: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons,
but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him;"
This story means that after Jesus' resurrection there is a new dispensation in which just as one may be able to enjoy other foods, anyone can go to witness to the gentiles without worries. For Paul this was not a problem but for Peter it seems that he needed a special vision to understand it.
The idea that Paul was some type of anti-Christ who somehow managed to impose his ideas upon the early Christians through some type of deception does not consider another important incident that we find in Acts 21, but I live those interested to read it on their own.

Pedro Morales
5 years ago

"What is the proof for God?", asks the atheist, putting often a tone of superior intelligence. First of all according to science no person perceives all of that is available to be perceived through the senses. Billions of bits of information enter our senses yet our brain only processes about 2,000. Our peripheral vision is not as great as each of us think it is, if you dont believe me just watch episode 1 of season 2 of Brain Games, "Focus Pocus". Our limited capacity of perception does not restrain itself to the realm of sensory data. When we read any document we also get from it different ideas based on many factors as varied as socio-economic class, level of education, emotional state and many others.

In this regard, perhaps those who believe in a God may be perceiving something that those who don't believe in a God and are somewhat belligerent in their atheism may be indisposed to perceive. All the arguments that have been brought against the existence of God remain in the realm of arguments and have not proved that God is just a creation of human beings. Yet atheist insist that the believers demonstrate God's existence.

That is an impossible task!

There cannot be a proof of His existence that comes through the scientific method since that would limit God to being simply another being within this universe. Asking for such a proof may indicate that atheists do not understand what the definition of at least the God worshiped by the Jews, Christians and Muslims means.

I guess for that reason Michio Kaku once said that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved through science.

The best religion has to offer is its own methodology. What is that? Prayer, and all the other elements that constitute a religious way of life. Sadly many atheists include in that list all the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion and do not want to hear what many millions of religious people say about those things not being the practicing of the principles of their faith. Once again the principle of limited perception comes into play since we only see what we want to see. The practitioners of the faith say that in examining a religion we have to look at the actual teachings of the faith and not necessarily at how people lived their lives since we are all humans or sinners. Those who only look at science for guidance insist in including the atrocities as some inevitable aspect of holding a belief in God.

In conclusion believers do not have to proof that God exist through arguments for the most they will get to be is great orators experts in the art of rhetorical presentation of ideas. Strong arguments in favor of the existence of a Superior Intelligence exist but they of necessity cannot demonstrate or proof God's existence. The proof demanded by atheist is practically that we have God materialize so that they can see Him or that we pray and have God end all human suffering instantaneously, and that peace and blessings is part of the lives of each individual. The first is impossible since by definition God is infinitesimal and God is a Spirit beyond any physical limitations. The second would transform God into precisely that which the atheist criticize: a despotic, tyrannical ruler. For were God to create the ultimate utopia for mankind that would mean that he would have to make people be good towards one another. He would have to control them as a Puppet Master. Human responsibility would be gone and we would be diminished to be less than we can be. Holding to the Epicurean Paradox, many atheist ridicule the idea of the existence of a good and loving God while there is cruel atrocities occurring in our the world on a daily basis. They don't stop to consider for one moment that God could exist but that he placed us in this universe, or at least in this earth to be the ones in control not Him. God may be hoping that we use our freedom and our conscience to act in the best interest of others and not back-stab others to get what we want. He may be respecting the freedom he endowed us with in order for us to be more than mere animals driven just by instincts. When I see atheist spending time putting pictures of starving children for the sole purpose of ridiculing the idea of the existence of God I question is the person who placed the photo is not actually misusing the photo. Using the suffering of graphic depiction of children dying of hunger for the sole purpose of ridiculing a belief in a superior being? Sorry but for me that does not make sense. I have written where I see those photos that perhaps God placed us in here to be in charge of things so it is up to us. I add that there are many religious organizations doing a lot of work to feed those children as well as do a lot of other service projects that benefit people. I have not gotten one single response from anyone "oh ok let's do something" Mostly I get silence. (I am not saying that there are no atheist organizations that may be doing that kind of work.)

Another thing I haven't gotten response from is a challenge I made once. Since the methodology of religious practices is not that of science then those who want to proof if God exists should submit themselves its methodology. Prayer, fasting, meditation, church attendance (any church that they choose: but remember do not go there to judge people, even believers do that, but all religious book condemn that behavior. Each and every church has people with emotional problems, and different levels of maturity). How much of it. I think if the person is serious he/she has to invest time seriously. Each person can decide what that means.

That approach is like using the scientific method to proof if God exists. Still for many that type of investment will not proof God's existence if what they are looking for is to see God in human form.

Now some atheists have said that to presume that God will listen to one's very personal concerns and demonstrate his presence to a person simply because of a short time of prayer and religious discipline is arrogant when there are so many worse problems in the world. But what if God wants you to do your part in resolving those problems. It is amazing the power that one individual can have, the reach of an individual's influence and how much one person can contribute to the betterment of society if one is motivated strongly.

For me if no one is willing to undergo such a test then they should understand that their importunate demand for a proof of God only demonstrates their lack of perception and failure to grasp what the idea of God entails.

7 years ago

never argue with a fool.
those watching may have trouble deciding which is which

7 years ago

this is an example of wrong identification... the catholic church and their belief, tho they are big and have been there for almost 2000 years old, is not the same and true Christians that existed in the time the new testament was written... as it is clearly tackled on this documentary, we can see the evidence on how they changed what is written into what they claim to teach which is the opposite of what the Bible and Jesus is teaching... this contradiction by catholic teachings and true Christian teaching means that the catholic church is the ANTI-CHRIST written in revelation, because it is ANTI or against Christ, it is the representation of the devil himself, dressed as white as if innocent but in truth, it teaches the devil's teaching... get it?

7 years ago

I just found a great show on Hulu that took 6 episodes before introducing a fantastic loving homosexual couple and then introduced Christians as hateful. With Hollywood setting the modern compass of societies, it is amazing that anyone is still a Christian because Hollywood hates them - not to mention colleges filled with anti-God rhetoric. It turns out that God has never proven himself to someone without faith.....instead, He rewards faithfulness with supernatural events. So while the world confuses the media with science, several of us are seeing supernatural intervention that our pragmatism cannot write-off as coincidence.

7 years ago

what is god..simple god is what created all this(read the cause of the big bang).. what is religion..also simple ..mans feeble attempt to find some way to understand the first event or in other words mans interpretation of god that interpretation correct or witch one is right.. you geuse is as good as mine.. find the one you are comfortable with and live and let live guys it is not up to or anyone to judge the thoughts and actions or motivations of anyone but ourselfs.. peace and light to you all may your path be just and your actions noble

Ronald Biggans
9 years ago

Book is far from perfect. As for "angels" lol please, don't insult my intelligence. You can't prove anything in the bible happened by pointing to these scripts and saying " see! You're a liar-it happened for the bible tells me so!' Excuse me but I have a very nice bridge to sell you

Ronald Biggans
9 years ago

Lol so dudes nam was "messiah of Nazareth ' lol first , Nazareth didn't exist at the supposed times of Jesus birth. Which the bible dates all over the place, so god the father who wrote this rediculous piece of literary nonsense , couldn't get date and place right! The Constantine makes up the phony story about a census. They didn't have that-period. The list goes on people . The perfect b

Fabien L'Amour
9 years ago

Here are a few contradicting descriptions of events by the Apostles directly from the Bible :

Did Jesus bear his own cross?
Yes (John 19:17)
No (Matthew 27:31-32)

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?
Yes (Mark 6:8)
No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?
Yes (Matthew 8:5)
No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?
Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
No (John 1:32,33)

Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
No. (John 12:27)

These men were chosen by Jesus to bear witness of him to mankind yet he couldn't pick men that would report the same events???

Ronald Biggans
9 years ago

Please provide the tiniest bit of proof of that . Anything at all. Anytimg . The earth is 4.56 billion years old . Example. Gold, silver etc can only be made inside of stars, that's it. A pile of dirt can't create heavy metals. You can sit there forever and it won't happen. Heavy metals exists in stars like the one that exploded that created our sun, the planets and life. Your body has the same composition as a star. Same elements . Although your breath is prob only worse

9 years ago

False on all levels, faith is not religion and religion is not belief without evidence.. God made man, and God made religion as a path to man. All religions are not mythology. Different religions have different level of truth and history in them.

The reality is the religion hating secularist are actually the religious one who worship themself and false idols like sex, drugs and money.

Ronald Biggans
9 years ago

That's the point. There is no debate at all. And no one "knows " theology because it doesn't exist . Show me one. It starts and end between your ears and doesn't exists in the natural world. You can discuss interpretations but again , unless the 200 or so authors of the bible s that have existed were to materialize , both sides are wrong . The whole thing is conjecture at best. That's it

9 years ago

I understand where this documentary is coming from but my question is this. If Christianity is a forgery, falsehood, and a hoax then why did the disciples continue to spread the message unto persecution and death?

Ronald Biggans
9 years ago

Actually Jesus never said that. Apparently written by an illiterate fisherman from a dream. Hmm. And eternity is what? And measured by what ? 5,000 trillion years? A septillion trillion trillion years! No-much longer. The Universe in 13.7billion. Drop in the bucket. So, to even start to believe that consciousness can exists that long and for what reason? The human mind and the neo cortex that has evolved makes sense of abstract notions that don't exist. Love, envy. sloth, are manifestations of the mind and given a name and nothing more. They don't exist in the real world. So to assume a Roman made up literary figure who never mentioned the human genome, why abiogenesis came about, bacteria, and knew no more than anybody else at the time is the creator of the universe is absurd. Insulting to a rational person that has somewhat realistic world views. Even the guys name Jesus=Messiah Christ=Savior. Who would name their kid that? All savior gods are clearly works of fiction. Even the early church knew this. That's why Constantine "created" the myth into history. And his friend/bishop Leonard actually made up the trinity! Look it up-the church even knows it. People! It's all a myth-1st century turned to 4th century theocracy. For a church state and money! If anyone has any proof to the contrary-the world is waiting. And please don't tell me you can feel Jesus in your heart. That story about cardiac tissue having neurons has worn thin! All in all when your dissect the Bible and its 900 contradictions, there's nothing there. Except what you interpret said god to mean and believe in, which coincidently, believes the exact same things as you. Which, is no coincidence.

Alv V
9 years ago

Jesus himself said that scriptures (the bible, with or without apocryphas included) is not what gives eternal life, and so evidentely not such an important thing when it comes to the big questions of life and death. Instead He is the one who is vital to understand, and there won't be any wisdom to find, no matter if any of you become old and grey and have studied all the books that these theologians have, if the wisdom is not gained by faith it is not about Christianity at all.

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
41I do not receive glory from people.

9 years ago

This was a terrific documentary that asks some tough questions that most Christian fundamentalists refuse to address. The notion of a documentary of this nature existing even 50 years ago for public consumption, would not have been tolerated, with very little air time even today.
Not surprisingly, reading many of the comments below exposes the stupidity of any extreme nature. (no thought of action, just thoughtless reaction) Those who have 'blind faith', without critical thinking, equally to those who have none at all. (devoid of spirit - faithless) Those who fall in the latter category, need to ask themselves how they can accept the notion of universal creation from nothingness without intent, as much as those they chastise for not questioning that which they are being told.
This epitomizes the nature of ignorance for those who think only in terms of black and white, (extremes) closing their minds to the possibilities of potentiality. (the truth of everything) Since I am no better or worse than those around me, I can only be thankful that I have been privileged to live a life where I can ponder the 'truth of existence' without the need to imply disparity where none exists! Take care, and best wishes everyone.

9 years ago

In their own spelling, this is a 'completly' weak attempt to have watchers dismiss biblical Christianity.

Chad Butler
9 years ago

Its funny to read all the comments and debates going on here, c'mon guys don't take it all so literally! Its as if we haven't changed from thousands of years before us, when all they might of done is debated there knowledge. I think it was a well put together docu, by a small but relevant group of scholars, giving us something we haven't always had before - The other side of Religion-What might 'not' have been the truth handed down! Since we've always had the other version while growing up in the west. Today we are almost at dead odds, 'for' and 'against' religion. I love this saying and I try to always live by this, 'Man know yourself, then you will know the universe and all it's truths'. I forget whom said it and where it comes from, Sorry..Maybe knowing ourselves could always start with spending 40 days alone in the desert!

9 years ago

Watched the first 10 minutes.... error after error after error... this doco is rubbish. First it starts off with the idea of "neutral schollar" as if there is a human being out there that has no position to take but "reports the facts as they are" and then not reveal that all facts require interpretation. Then it misquotes the bible time and time again... its not the tree of knowledge!!!.... its the tree of "good and evil" it misquotes and misrepresent jesus's use of the word sword... SWORD in the bible can mean TRUTH and WISDOM....

jake bosch
9 years ago

: Just Two Trees

Two trees of created time when awareness began as human prime time

in the simple timeless symbol of two trees

One you receive with open arms and go hand in hand for a down to earth walk with the creator of time

The other standing tall in arrogance and pride using time to create beliefs of all kinds

"Be still and know" or a tempest of human means to squeeze our time in created time

A broken blessing filled with hope or control with a painful dreadful curse

Waiting to be redeemed in the fullness of time already clear in the ancient story of created time

When discernment was given like daily bread in the simple timeless symbol of two powerful trees

Despite the great fact that we are ruled by a believing dark side in human prime time at the present time.

9 years ago

All had to do was read some of the crazy comments to change my mind. By the way could someone just tell me if its good or not.

9 years ago

There is no "dilemma". Faith is choosing to believe something that empirical evidence does not indicate to us. Believe whatever you choose to believe but don't expect others to make the same choices. Science and religion are not in conflict with each other. They are by definition two separate things that cannot prove or disprove the validity of the other.

happy riches
9 years ago

This documentary is shoddy. The scholarship is poor. The problem with historical facts is they cannot be verified, just interpreted.

Religion is "the quest for the truth". True religion is true science.

Science can be tested. For instance, if the evolution of the peppered moth is real, then the moth would not lay eggs that produce caterpillars that morph into chrysalises to emerge as a peppered moth. If the moth becomes a bird then we have proven evolution. Since it is yet to happen, there is no evidence!!!

For instance, the Bible states, Jesus said that the scriptures do not impart life, but He will give life to those who come to Him.

If you do not genuinely apply a genuine test and makes claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you are false to yourself and a liar.

If Jesus rose rode from the dead, then He is alive! If Jesus is alive and you give Him opportunity to prove Himself and He doesn't then, you know that there is not resurrection from the dead. Do what ever you like, there is no judgment for what you do with your life on Earth. Eat, drink, root, loot, shoot, and executive whatever you like and have no fear, you put God to the test and He did prove Himself.

If God proves Himself and Jesus really did rise from the dead, you have found out the truth about the resurrection of the dead.

You are not promoting a belief.You are a true scientist!!!

9 years ago

Yes it is perhaps worth watching but documentary has errors in it. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in or teach the trinity. Jews and Christians were not to drink blood. The Kingdom of God is a government by God. Jesus is the King of that government. Constantine was not a good example of a Christian he was more interested in keeping the Roman Empire unified and he used religion to do it. The Bible does not teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, so it is not anti scientific. The loving God did not create evil. All Christians should read the Bible to make sure they adhere to its teachings.

Gregory Curtis
9 years ago

This documentary primarily provides the views of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations not mainline fundamental protestant views. I agree that most Christians are biblically illiterate; this documentary only uses the views of the illiterate Christians from all denominations as their premise without clarifying the true Christian position. The experts in this film ignore the time texts, cultural, and traditional views to pretext their views. Scripture is taken out of context and used as a pretext. This is just another documentary to sway skeptics and biblically illiterate Christians away from really reading and studying the Holy Scriptures for all their worth and the truth claims within it's pages. In the end each human being is accountable for their sins and disbelief and each one better be 100% accurate (no room for error) on the day of judgment or there will be hell to pay (literally).

Sieben Stern
9 years ago

OMG i love the 3D animated stuff... i want to play this docu like a game. Achievement unlocked: Reason and logic! XDc

9 years ago

religion... so ridiculous.. every one of them.

they should all be forced to pay their back taxes.

9 years ago

Neutral scholars? Any fundamentalist will assure you there are none. If you don't agree with them, you are hostile, and persecuting them.

9 years ago

I happened to watch this just a few days ago on YouTube and it is pretty good, IMO. I'll let the rest of you battle about its content. :)

Michael Spinler
9 years ago

it was interesting until the end. that comment that it had to be intelligence? can you say argument from ignorance?