IIRC this is part of an interview that Brian Flemming did for The God Who Wasn't There. Some good interviews in that flick.

Well, it certainly seems that our friend Brian Flemming, while putting together an excellent presentation, has not done his research. Ready? Ok!

The statement about the solar system has already been refuted to my approval by a commenter above so I wont waste any time on it.

The next matter would be the statement about Hebrews 8:4... Brian quotes it as saying it was written by Paul as though Jesus never existed... he took this verse for one, out of context and we will find he does this quite often for the rest of his documentary when he refers to scripture... but he also chose ONE out of TEN translations of this verse. And the ONE he chose was the only ONE that said this. So rather than ignore it as a minority, he chose the verse that fit his position. http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B58C008.htm Check out all the versions at the above link and come to your own conclusion.

Next, Brian has someone saying that it is entirely improbable that the Jewish Council would meet on Passover to deal with Jesus... or that Barabbas would be set free by Pilate. Why? You have someone who the Jewish leadership thinks is going to start a rebellion and take away their power at any moment, any day. So why is it so hard to believe they would take drastic measures to prevent this? Why is it hard to believe Pontius Pilate would release a prisoner to the Jewish MOB that already had a history of rebellion and violence in order to placate them and avoid conflict?

Next Brian states that Peter in "The Gospel of Peter" says that Jesus was killed by Herod Antipas... The Gospel of Peter isn't even Canonical, meaning, it is not thought by scholars to be part of the Bible, it's not included in the Bible you will find the world reading.... go pick up something other than the Apocrypha when you quote Christian beliefs Brian.

Next, this Hero factor scoring system that some random Author employs in his interview as they try to show that other literary figures share some characteristics with Christ is made up by the Author in the interview. How does it have any bearing on the discussion of Jesus as a historical figure? We could make up the same system for past and present world leaders and probably find a lot of the same features, histories, beginnings etc. That doesn't mean anything relevant to the existence of Jesus. Also, something that separates mythical figures from Jesus would be the 1st and later century historians APART from the Apostles that record his existence.

Brian also quotes Justin Martyr... one of the first Apologists... someone who argues for Christ and the Gospels... as saying that Christians are not asking the Romans to believe in anything much different than what they already believe. This is taken out of context horribly. Justin was merely showing the Romans that Christ is similar to what they already believe but goes on to show some key differences.

Brian also lists many features and attributes and circumstances about Jesus that Roman and Greek figures or Gods did as well... but after listing these features and attributes.. he doesn't say who had what so we are taking his word for it. Also, as in a previous statement I made, Jesus was cited as a Historical figure by historians of the time... Hercules and the rest ARE NOT.

Brian states that Christians are obsessed with "Blood Sacrifice" because they chose the "Passion of the Christ" as their favorite Christian movie due to all of the blood in this movie. By this logic people are obsessed by whatever is depicted in their favorite movies.

Brian also makes it a point to make the statement that Mel Gibson went out of his way to emphasize the blood and violence associated with the trial and crucifixion of Christ. So what? Film makers, by definition, are going "Out of their way" by making a film about anything with anything in it because films are not exactly part of everyday life. Mel Gibson did his best to depict the way it really was when someone was Crucified, drawing upon Biblical and other Historical texts and accounts to keep the process accurate... and this, according to Brian, is bad. To be accurate is bad. He would rather have had Jesus bleed gum drops and instead of, as the Bible says, "Blood and water flow" when the side of Jesus was pierced, he would like for puppies to come out of his flesh. When you make a movie.. you try to make it as real as possible... that's what makes a good movie.. nobody got onto the makers of "Gladiator" for depicting the bloody Roman gladiatorial battles.
Brian said that "Mel Gibson could have made the movie any way he wanted, but he chose to make it this way". What way exactly is he talking about? The way it was? Because... well, that is the way it was according to what we know. This is like getting angry with the Director of "Saving Private Ryan" because he depicts the storming of the beaches as gory and as bloodily as he did because, well, that's the way it was. Sounds like Brian just doesn't like Mel Gibson.

Next Brian begins a tirade about how Christians hate gays and want to kill people and cause violence. He then, again out of context, cites Luke 19:27 "19:27 But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This is a Parable Jesus is speaking, not something Jesus said directly. It is most probable that Jesus is talking about the Jews of HIS time that KILL Jesus unjustly... because, as history shows... they were destroyed soon after when they rebelled against Rome causing Jerusalem to be sacked... and they had to watch Christianity.. which accepted the, as the Parable calls them, "pounds", prosper. Read the chapter yourself to get the full meaning, don't take Brian's misquoted, out of context slide-show for fact.

Brian also constantly shows far right radical leaders OF THE PAST in his footage as they make statements most Christians would refuse to back. Why is he not showing current footage as of the making of his documentary?

Brian makes the statement that the Inquisition was an "Expression" of the Bible. Meaning that what people did in the Inquisition with the Bible as their backup was actually what the Bible indicated they should do. This is again out of context in reference to the Bible. Brian himself makes the same mistakes the Inquisition made when he takes verses from here and there and uses them for his own purposes. The Bible has to be taken as a whole work, not just one book or verse. To do other wise is non contextual and very common fallacy. Brian asks "What is Moderate Christianity then?, if the Inquisition is what real Christianity is supposed to be according to the Bible." Well, moderate Christianity is when people, as I just stated, take the Bible for it's whole, not it's parts.

Next Brian attacks the "Left Behind" series as though all Christians believe that series to be factual... they are NOVELS, not fact... and even though some Christians think that Christ will return in their lifetimes... that is a HOPE, not fact. For even Christ says that he does not know the time of his own return.. only the Father, God. So if even JESUS, the SON OF GOD, doesn't know... how can a human know? We can't... so these Christians that claim they do.. well, they are just wrong. That's okay.. we are human, it's OK to be wrong from time to time. Sorry Brian.

Next Brian talks about the "unforgivable sin" which is to Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Brian, instead of letting us come to a conclusion as to what that means, goes ahead and assumes we accept his views as fact. He believes that to doubt the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme against it... well, I have a better explanation. "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" can be understood as a continued and persistently stubborn rejection of the gospel of salvation. This would be an "unpardonable sin" because as long as a person remains in unbelief, he voluntarily excludes himself from forgiveness of sin. Therefore it would not be a one time admission (as Brian makes at the end of the film) of "I doubt the Holy Spirit" or something like it, but rather a lifelong unto death denial of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel of salvation. If we study anything about Jewish history (the majority of the Bible) we see that to doubt God at times is often done, and is considered OK. Go read the book of Job and then read some books by Eli Weasel, the Jewish Holocaust survivor...he has a particularly enlightening one called "Messengers of God".

Next Brian misrepresents himself to a school administrator in order to gain an interview. In the interview he puts the man to the test with the question "What hard Scientific Evidence do you have that the World Works this way?". Well, with the same Historical evidence that Jesus existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus, and if he existed we come to a fork in the roads. Either what he said was true or false. Either he was the Son of God and what he said stands... or he wasn't and what he said was the ravings of a lunatic. There is no middle ground as some would like where Jesus was just a great teacher, or his teachings are good things to live by, or he was a good man. If he existed, you go down one road or the other, what he said was true, or what he said was false.

In his interview with the school administrator Brian makes the statement that the Bible is from the First Century and before and is "Symbolic literature"... says Brian, the Documentary maker, not historians.

Finally, Brian WAS dishonest or at least misleading and manipulative in the way in which he got his interview with the administrator, showing a lot about his character.

I am sorry for my terrible punctuation in the above statements, but it is late and I write these paragraphs in a hurry for some sleep. Thanks for reading!