Talk:The God Who Wasn't There

message: Paul_of_Tarsus#Paul and Jesus iterates a message of this film, that "little can be deduced about the earthly life of Jesus from St. Paul's letters. He mentions specifically only the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff), his death by crucifixion (1 Cor :2:2; Phil. 2:8), and his resurrection (Phil. 2:9)." 
Should this film be mentioned in some form in such articles as reference to point out some's (eg. Flemming's) secular interpretation regarding Paul's lack of details on Jesus? Shawnc 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul of Tarsus 

message: Comments at the AfD are requested from the editors of this page  as I'm sure it will end up being referenced here if not deleted.  Sophia 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antagonistic atheism]] 

message: In response to the RfC, I would say that it is inappropriate to put this into the "propaganda" category.  The fact is, if you construe the definition of propaganda wide enough, it could include any and every documentary as they all advance a theory -- indeed, by the widest definitions any movie about the Gospels and the Gospels themselves could be considered propaganda.
However, I think it is a bad idea to start down that road of the broader definition of propaganda.  We have a connotation of propagada that is largely (1) negative, and (2) political.  This is evidenced by the :Category:Propaganda films, which are all political propaganda.  Further, our understanding of propaganda often assumes that it uses deceptive and misleading info.  As far as I can tell, the facts presented in this film are niether.  I may disagree with the interpretation of those facts and the conclusions drawn; but my disagreement about the conclusions does not mean that the facts are lies/deceptions.  
Based on the standard of what is in the category now, I would say do not put this in :Category:Propaganda films --- and if you do, then be prepared to also put the Jesus Film, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and many other religious films into the category. -- Pastordavid 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In respose to the edit summary of "the film is being left in churchs with the intent of promoting an idea. That's propaganda".  Yes, under the broad definition of propaganda, it is.  But so is most Christian evangelism, and indeed, any attempt at proslytizing by any religion -- indeed, any academic advancing a theory is guilty of "propaganda" by the broadest definition.  Please do not re-add the category, the consensus on this talk page -- including the opinions of 2 editors brought in by the request for comment -  is that it is inappropriate.  -- Pastordavid 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Alicewr - you have been reverted by 4 separate editors - please stop trying to force your view on the article. Wikipedia works as a collaborative effort which is why I lodged the request for comment - to get other unconnected views on the subject. So far one has kindly taken the time to comment but lets wait to see what others think. At the moment there is no support for that category on this article so please stop adding it.  Sophia 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with other editors from the RfC. Controvercial, certainly... "propaganda" no. It may be being used by some people for propaganda purposes, but the film was not created for propaganda purposes.  Blueboar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's only propaganda if every other documentry ever made is also propaganda. Elmo 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to RfC 

message: Not sure who else has seen this entertaining work but I must say calling it a Documentary is a bit of a stretch. No?  20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaaa!!! Not another category argument! Laurence Boyce 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a documentary.  --MattShepherd 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary? "[[Mockumentary]]" 

message: Perhaps this film has a mix of fiction and history.
The hardest part is that the already proven and established part of biblical history by historians just makes this movie's theoretical contradictions invalid.
I have not seen it, but only assume their theory contradicting already established facts.
Seeing this, I think it can better be classified as 'fictive documentary', rather than 'documentary' or 'historical documentary'.
Open for debate though...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.246.29 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary? [[Fiction]] 

message: In support of verifiability, the 16 states (from the official film web site) are: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cat Whisperer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 States 

message: :Image:TGWWT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Svetovid 10:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:TGWWT.jpg 

message: I added content to the description section, to include some information about the claims of other gods with similarities to Jesus, and some of the attributes. The full list is as follows:
Gods with one or more similarities: Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hercules, Dionysus, Deva tat, Beddru, Balder, Bacchus, Baal, Attis, Adonis
Similarities listed in the movie:
* Born of a virgin on December 25 
* Stars Appeared at Their Births 
* Visited by Magi from the East
* Turned Water into Wine
* Healed the Sick
* Cast out Demons
* Performed Miracles
* Transfigured Before Followers
* Rode Donkeys into the City
* Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver
* Celebrated Communal Meal with Bread and Wine
* Which (Celebrated Communal Meal) Represented the Savior’s Flesh and Blood
* Killed on a Cross or Tree, Descended into Hell
* Resurrected on Third Day
* Ascended into Heaven
* To Forever Sit beside Father God And Become Divine Judge 
This information appears about 22 min 15 secs into the movie
163.166.137.10 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my changes disappeared in one minute! That must be some kind of record. And for the record, you will see that the above is really part of the movie. The talking ceases while the information is displayed on the screen. I know that the "Beddru" issue is embarrassing to Flemming, but it is fair comment.
163.166.137.10 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you were picked up by someone doing vandal patrol as as you were an IP and they obviously didn't understand the article they just reverted you. I'll drop them a note.  Sophia 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about other gods and similarities to Jesus 

message: When it comes to controversial films such as this one and the Lost Tomb of Jesus, whatever valid criticism the film has attracted is usually also reported. For this reason I have taken the liberty to post various references made by Paul regarding Jesus' life as found in Pauls epistles recorded in the New Testament. Itsadiel 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not a place for discussion of the rights and wrongs of the "evidence" presented. Any response needs to be referenced as being directly connected with this film.  Sophia 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What is wrong is that it is your argument. You are not notable and have not published this argument in reliable sources. I'm not being difficult but this is the only way to build a verifiable encyclopedia. If we all could get away with opinions and our own arguments I'd start with the "why is there nothing written in external sources about Jesus despite the major things he is claimed to have done?" one. You will have your own counter to that and I have mine but the wikipedia article is no place for it.  Sophia 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also meant to say "thank you" for discussing it here and being patient for my reply rather than just putting it back. If you have any other questions on how to add information or what information is suitable then please ask here or drop me a note on my talk page.  Sophia06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that you meant well and to balance the article but hopefully by reading the policies you can see why I removed it.  Sophia 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On reflection and having read the archive discussions (a fascinating and informative read), my only problem with this article is it’s inclusion in the philosophy section.  I cannot see why this is the case.  The item is a bald list of what the documentary is and the claims it makes. There's no room for a discussion on the page, which I guess is Sofia's point.  So I suggest that it is only listed in the “Films” category. Does anyone object? Hamilti 08:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed - it really only should be in the 'films" category plus any ones about religion and controversy. I didn't realise it was in the philosophy section so go ahead and remove it. Thanks for noticing that.  Sophia 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also puzzled by its inclusion in Philo'. Having seen this discussion and agreed with its conclusions I have removed it from the Philosophy portal. Should be added to to some appropriate 'religious' portal? Dunno which one though. Mercury543210 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that direct reference to Paul's writings would, in this instance, qualify as original research. However, I think an effort should be made to find references to criticisms (and their respective rebuttals) of this film from verifiable sources. For instance, there are several Christian philosophers and historians who make regular efforts to engage popular works in their areas. If one could find such arguments from such people, I don't see any problem with putting them here. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Response 

message: Analysis
Found it quickly with a Google search. If this isn't good, [tektonics.org] should also be helpful, though it more addresses the specific claims with separate articles - it doesn't really do counter-arguments for rants like this movie that have no new questions.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usable source for criticism 

message: === Validity: Criticism section ===
I think the movie is a load of crap, but I don't think that a criticism section should be in there. Best to let people make up their own mind. Most people won't spend the 10 min research that Flemming also didn't spend to see if the facts presented in the movie stand up, so best to leave it out in my opinion.
GDon (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are found on countless articles about controversial films, so long as they are based on reliable sources, Sicko and Expelled being two examples. Having them does not preclude readers from making up their own minds. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's certainly reasonable, but the content of such a section is limited by material that can be found for it. If you find supportive material for it, I'd encourage you to implement those changes. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added some more neutral reviews. --neon white talk 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I think the movie is a load of crap, but I don't think that a criticism section should be in there. Best to let people make up their own mind. Most people won't spend the 10 min research that Flemming also didn't spend to see if the facts presented in the movie stand up, so best to leave it out in my opinion.
GDon (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections are found on countless articles about controversial films, so long as they are based on reliable sources, Sicko and Expelled being two examples. Having them does not preclude readers from making up their own minds. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity: Criticism section 

message: The Criticism section is extremely one-sided. It should be changed to "Reception" will both supporters and critics represented.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly reasonable, but the content of such a section is limited by material that can be found for it. If you find supportive material for it, I'd encourage you to implement those changes. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added some more neutral reviews. --neon white talk 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality: Criticism section 

message: Is Richard Carrier a historian?  If he is not, he should not be referred to as a historian in this article.  This issue has recently come up in discussion of another article.  User:Andrew_c claims that Richard Carrier is not a historian nor known as a historian, on the basis that he has no professional qualifications as a historian.  Since there is apparently no evidence to the contrary (a quote from the LA Times referring to Carrier as a 'historian' doesn't count), I have removed a reference to Carrier as a 'historian' in the article on the census of Quirinius.  I originally included that reference, on the basis of my personal understanding that he is a historian, but I have been told I am wrong.  I realise that he claims to be 'an historian with a good knowledge of Greek', but apparently there is no independent evidence for this.  If anyone can provide such evidence I will be more than willing to contest the removal of the reference.  If no such evidence can be provided, then he should not be referred to in this article as 'a historian'.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know what you think qualifies a person as a historian, but he does claim to have a PhD in Ancient history.  Is that not all that is required?  If not he also belongs to the Association of Ancient Historians and is certainly claimed to be a historian in many more places than "the LA times", has lectured many times at prestigious universities, and published a lot of papers on the topic. 24.138.5.16 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  His CV, which you are free to dispute with evidence to the contrary:  Mrrealtime (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Richard Carrier a historian? 

message: I asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and based on their response that tektonics is a self-published source, I remove the material based on it. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda is designed to influence behaviour for the direct benefit for the propagandist. Even if this film does change some people's minds, it's hard to see how that alone benefits the film maker. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition given by Mojo above is incomplete. Propaganda is also typically regarded as deceptive, usually deliberately so. I see no evidence that this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources as being deceptive. Whether something is propaganda is not something for Wikipedia editors to determine, but for reliable sources to report on. We must avoid making non-neutral, original research-type judgments. Nick Graves (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to make sure I understand the consensus here as the discussion has drifted a little.  The only source I have seen that uses the term propaganda, does not refer to the film itself as propaganda, but says at times it drifts into a propagandistic style.  This is an important distinction and we would need multiple reliable sources referring to the film specifically as propaganda and few arguing against this status before we label something like that. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. However, if a significant minority labels the film propaganda, even though we should not add the category, we should discuss the allegation as appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence that for the most part this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources at all. here's another source though that describes the film as propaganda  --Palming (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to respond to Palmings addition of another source.  This source does not describe the film as propaganda either.  Once again it says "like propaganda" we are not going to begin the article saying "...is a propaganda film" just because two sources say that it is a little like propaganda. Also I am unclear why Palming posted out of order, it makes the discussion hard to follow for other editors. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello. I am inclined to ask, must a consensus fall on whether or not to call it propaganda or not? This would seem rather unimportant, and is only a category; so long as the article clearly produces the message of the film being critical towards Christiandom's teachings of the life of Jesus, and this is well-referenced (preferably film's website, interviews, so forth), whether or not it falls under the label of propaganda can be a case of nuance, to the point of not being significant enough for lengthy debate. I have to ask therefore, if consent can not be reached that producing a clear introduction is paramount, and can take the place of a mere categorical placing. Consent can be reached through voting on the talkpage about this, where agreement can be that the propaganda category will be avoided. My personal take on this, without having seen the movie, is that nobody seems to regard it as a pure piece of propaganda. On the other hand, some state this is what the producer intended. Surely if the latter can be provided in writing, that should end the debate. Unless we then say he is wrong in his assertion. Which I am sure we are fully capable of, dedicated Wikipedians the lot of us :) (Imdb does not use the word "propaganda", by the way) Scaller (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Tektonics criticism 

message: It doesn't seem like any sources explicitly call the film propaganda. Even if a small handful did, it would not be sufficient to add such an inflammatory category to the film. Categories should be based on at least a majority, or preferably a supermajority or consensus, of sources in relation to the topic. Vassyana (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda is designed to influence behaviour for the direct benefit for the propagandist. Even if this film does change some people's minds, it's hard to see how that alone benefits the film maker. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition given by Mojo above is incomplete. Propaganda is also typically regarded as deceptive, usually deliberately so. I see no evidence that this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources as being deceptive. Whether something is propaganda is not something for Wikipedia editors to determine, but for reliable sources to report on. We must avoid making non-neutral, original research-type judgments. Nick Graves (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to make sure I understand the consensus here as the discussion has drifted a little.  The only source I have seen that uses the term propaganda, does not refer to the film itself as propaganda, but says at times it drifts into a propagandistic style.  This is an important distinction and we would need multiple reliable sources referring to the film specifically as propaganda and few arguing against this status before we label something like that. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. However, if a significant minority labels the film propaganda, even though we should not add the category, we should discuss the allegation as appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence that for the most part this film has been generally evaluated by reliable sources at all. here's another source though that describes the film as propaganda  --Palming (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to respond to Palmings addition of another source.  This source does not describe the film as propaganda either.  Once again it says "like propaganda" we are not going to begin the article saying "...is a propaganda film" just because two sources say that it is a little like propaganda. Also I am unclear why Palming posted out of order, it makes the discussion hard to follow for other editors. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello. I am inclined to ask, must a consensus fall on whether or not to call it propaganda or not? This would seem rather unimportant, and is only a category; so long as the article clearly produces the message of the film being critical towards Christiandom's teachings of the life of Jesus, and this is well-referenced (preferably film's website, interviews, so forth), whether or not it falls under the label of propaganda can be a case of nuance, to the point of not being significant enough for lengthy debate. I have to ask therefore, if consent can not be reached that producing a clear introduction is paramount, and can take the place of a mere categorical placing. Consent can be reached through voting on the talkpage about this, where agreement can be that the propaganda category will be avoided. My personal take on this, without having seen the movie, is that nobody seems to regard it as a pure piece of propaganda. On the other hand, some state this is what the producer intended. Surely if the latter can be provided in writing, that should end the debate. Unless we then say he is wrong in his assertion. Which I am sure we are fully capable of, dedicated Wikipedians the lot of us :) (Imdb does not use the word "propaganda", by the way) Scaller (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: They challenged people on youtube to deny the holy spirit and "forsake their soul" and in return they'd get a free DVD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE
Kind of interesting. Should we mention it?--Mithcoriel (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Because we don't add or remove material based on whether or not it gives visibility to a clown or a fraud. It's relevant and sourced, so it is reasonable to mention it. Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blasphemy challenge 

message: In the Criticism area, it states a bunch of criticisms then posts a rebuttal "Flemming has responded to this criticism by claiming that Jesus often used parables to illustrate his own beliefs, and that in the parable in question, the King is obviously meant to be a stand-in for Jesus himself, in order to illustrate his view of those who disagree with him. Flemming has responded to some of his criticisms on the FAQ page of the film's official website.[8]"
Which isn't neutral. To post a reply to the criticism is to continue the debate. I motion that it should be removed because it's a NON-NEUTRAL statement/paragraph.
--Monkey225 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reply is attributed to someone considered a relevant figure in the article's subject (in this case, its director), and properly sourced, then it's not a question of neutrality. Neutrality has nothing to do with continuing a debate. It merely refers to wording that conveys an opinion on the part of the article, or the editor who added it. Saying "this movie is awful" is a violation of NPOV. Saying "Roger Ebert called the movie awful, at this following link...", is not. Nightscream (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral position 

message: is the title alluding to old book titled: "the god who is there"? 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  title allusion 

message: shouldnt there be some kind of criticism section? I saw that a lot on other articles...Wrestlingdud09 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one, but it was removed because the only criticisms in it were supported by sources that were judged to fail WP:RS. Nightscream (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By what grounds? I remember there used to be a quotation from Michael Licona's review in the article, but the only rationale I see in the discussion for deleting it is someone declaring him a "nobody" without giving any actual reason for such a declaration. He's notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and as he has a Ph.D. in New Testament studies so he's clearly qualified to speak about the subject. How is he a "nobody" and if he isn't, what was the rationale for removing it? Lord Seth (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I was the one who removed it. You should determine from the edit history which editor removed it, and see if you two can come to an agreement about it. Nightscream (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Lord Seth. Mike Lichona is clearly qualified. Also, the comment above by the person who removed Lichona's criticism was unsigned, so there's little hope of contacting this person to resolve the issue. And just in case the typo confuses anyone, it wasn't Nightscream. I'll see if I can salvage the criticism section. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so I went burrowing into the edit history, and this is what I found. So the question now is how much of this should be put back, if any. I could really use the help of some veteran editors on this one. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: As a (like the maker of the movie) former devoted Christian I appreciate the effort to represent this movie and relevant critique accurately. The Jesus Christ in comparative mythology portions of the movie seem to be clearly under theological dispute or at least debate and I will read that page with interest. If it's not already, my impression is that that debate merits a link in the body text and not only a "See also" at the end. Thanks again for the effort, this movie is important for me and many others --- CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The notability of this article was questioned, but I have removed those tags. Please note that it has been reviewed by the New York Times,and is listed in IMDB with reviews from 14 external reviewers. There is no justification for questioning the notability of this article based on Wikipedia guidelines.
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/331933/The-God-Who-Wasn-t-There/overview
PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I'm inserting the following line at the end of the introduction.  "The overwhelming consensus among biblical scholars is that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is at least in part based on a real historical person, contrary to the films major premise."  I am then going to point to the "Counter Arguments" section of the "Christ Myth Theory" article. Feel free to tweak the wording if you like, but it is unacceptable not to include something like this in this article, and very early on.  If this were a movie espousing the view that the law of conservation of energy is false, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the theory of evolution is false, it would be irresponsible not to let the reader know right away that the vast majority of people who study this stuff for a living categorically deny it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.133.225 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the overwhelming consensus among non-biblical scholars is that the story about Jesus is less reliable than reports about "WMD in Iraq". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of Jesus 

message: A recent edit I will copy below and remove because it does not address the movie specifically.  The text was added previously and removed for lack of sources.  In response, it was re-added with a list of sources that was pulled directly out of the article Jesus myth theory.  The problem we can see with this is that two of the sources clearly do not address the movie at all; the other two may or may not, but they are not quoted in any way to bring criticism to The God Who Wasn't There.
Please note that the academic discussion of the existence of Jesus should be kept to pages such as Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory.  I am fine with including relevant criticisms of the movie's basis and premises, but again, this is an article about a movie, not about an academic theory.  Thanks for your understanding.
:The overwhelming consensus among biblical scholars is that the Jesus depicted in the New Testament is at least in part based on a real historical person, contrary to the film's major premise.Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 145 (first published 1989).
*Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of" Tom Flynn (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446.
*For a summary of the mainstream position, see Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27.
*Also see Dickson, March 21, 2008.
Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added  to above so references can be seen.—Telpardec  TALK  11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Only Address the Movie Specifically