|
The first part is decent. It raises some strong objections to claim's of Jesus' historicity, but it would be stronger if it demonstrated, or at least examined, the anthropological phenomena that explain not just that but why and how there are so many different religious figures with such similar characteristics originating within a relatively short period of time. It would have been more powerful, too, if they were set out in more clear geographic terms, and a timeline of sorts were presented.
But certainly, I think it was sufficient to demonstrate that a historical Jesus is less plausible than the absence of one. I'm not really sold on some of the attempts to draw parallels between astrology and Christianity, but I don't think they're really necessary.
The second part was, unfortunately, a horrendous trainwreck. It regurgitates painfully implausible conspiracy theories, with the sort of selective skepticism that I think the first part suffers from too, albeit to a vastly lesser degree. Regrettably, the lack of intellectual integrity in part two really serves to discredit the "good" ideas presented in part one.
The claims made in the third part are "less implausible" than those in the second, though that's not to say they aren't still implausible. A few of them are outright false, and others generally seem to misinterpret the law, or even what law "is." That said, it wouldn't shock me if there's a degree of truth to at least some of the claims made in the third part (as opposed to the second part).
It's been some time since I watched it, so I apologize for the lack of specific examples, but I don't recall it well enough for that; I'm just giving my general impression of how I remember it. In any case, I don't view having watched it as a complete waste of time, but I wouldn't expect a person with rigorous intellectual standards to take it too seriously.
|
