lots of stuff missing.

1. No scene where Mary is told by an angel that she will be giving birth to the son of God
2. No Angels proclaiming the good news of the saviors birth
3 no voice of heaven from God saying this is my son who I'm well pleased

so far 30 minutes in and none of the Jesus is Deity has been shown

Guess that is just Holly Woods way of obscuring the truth


Yeah, how dare they leave out stuff that never happened in a fictional story about the life of a man who never existed.


You're sure of that?


the guy is another loser who on his deathbed will beg the Lord for mercy

happens all the time

usually people that turn gay when the opposite sex ignores them or just big time zeros


YOU are the loser for projecting such a mean and irrational spirit.


No, he isn't, but he thinks he is. Obnoxious anti-theist fools are incredibly sure of themselves and never willing to consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

The point of the film was to show the life of Christ based upon scripture...the OP point is that he didn't feel it did this as effectively as it could've/should've.

The poster you're referring to is simply an ignorant troll.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++


The point of the film was to show the life of Christ based upon scripture

No, it certainly was not. The point was to weave an entertaining tale about the moral conflict between Jesus' pacifism and Barabbas's violent zealotry. And it succeded very well in telling that story. Apparently you came into the film with false expectations.


about the life of a man who never existed.

This is the ultimate comment on the intellectual vapidness of many atheist bigots who smugly presume themselves to be intellectually superior because they talk in condescending platitudes to put down the supposedly stupid people of faith. The only problem for these people is that they reveal that when it comes to being historians, they shouldn't be quitting their day jobs. The fact is that even skeptics with integrity have to acknowledge the historic reality of Jesus as a historic figure because to do otherwise means they would have to deny the existence of quite a few other historic figures in order to be consistent.

#1-Jesus is mentioned by the pagan Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in the Annals, when in a passage critical of Christianity, he notes that the founder "Christus was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius".

#2-Jesus is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, as is John the Baptist and Jesus half-brother, James the Just.

But let's take the idiot logic of this further. We have a LOT of competing arguments among authors for and against Christianity in these early centuries. Guess how many of them try to argue that "These idiot Christians follow a man who never existed?" (in other words, what present day atheist bigots like to argue). The answer is NONE. Nada. Zippo. These people of the day who were CLOSER to the time Jesus lived never bothered to put forth that argument because they at least didn't purposefully let their lack of belief in Jesus as the Son of God dull their critical faculties to the blind stupidity preferred by so many atheist bigots of the modern era.

And there is also the inconvenient fact that we have LESS scholarly documentation regarding the life of say, Alexander the Great than we do Jesus. Guess how many books written by those who knew Alexander survive in contrast to the Gospel accounts and the Letters of the NT? The answer is none. EVERYTHING we know about Alexander comes from second had summations by authors who lived centuries after Alexander when such texts existed in their day but no longer to us. Yet the NT Gospels were all copied and preserved in higher quantity giving their claims to historical authenticity much *greater* than that for which we use to learn about Alexander.

Moral of story to atheist bigots: Don't quit your day job and leave the job of being a historian to the grown-ups. There can be atheist grown-ups but the poster is not one of them.


You're quite right. There exist almost no scholars of note who would deny the historicity of Jesus. Your Tacitus example is considered almost indisputable evidence of His existence, the location of His existence, the time of His existence, and the manner of His death (Roman execution).