Those who say that they need proof that Jesus is real?

So you believe in movies too?

Is it proof the Jesus existed?

Proving that a person is gullible doesn't prove anything other than the fact that a person is gullible.

If I showed you a movie in which a person willingly became a Scientologist, would you accept that as proof that L Ron Hubbard was the greatest genius in history? Course you wouldn't. You'd assume the whole thing was set up...like your movie is.

A made up scenario in a made up movie isn't proof that a made up mythical character wasn't just made up.

That fact that the people who think he's real are forced to rely on things like that because they can't come up with anything credible rather suggests that he really is just made up.

Oh wow. Unbelievable. Then again, it's not so shocking that brainwashed morons watch fictional stories to prove their fictional stories.

Seriously, do you even hear yourself or do you really think you're onto something here?

It’s a movie . I can post movies for the other side. I don’t bother. Because arguing over ones beliefs with others ya only brings out trolls.

You are desperately trying to convince yourself that you've chosen the right path here. That's what this post above seems like. You're not trying to convince everyone else that Jesus is real, but yourself. That's what this appears to be.

The problem with the entirety of Strobel’s book. He that the wild use of appeals to authority, but only to the authority of those who are believers. I work in a newspaper and this approach to journalism or investigative reporting is hardly objective, but totally circular and just dripping with special pleading.

The book should come with a warning of the logical fallacies galore it contain,
Circular Reasoning
Assuming Facts not in evidence
Argument from Hearsay
Argument from Antiquity
Special Pleading
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Emotion
False Cause Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy
I just honestly don't believe in invisible entities that some people call gods and about Jesus I remember that he was accused of blasphemy by religious conservative people of his times when he calls out in the open the usual and traditionally religious people hypocrisy...

For me, the books always are better than any movie adaptation... the tradition continues, the movie The case for Christ was not better.

I don't need to watch it. Jesus is not real.

Just tell me the actual hard evidence presented and where we can find the historical records (not the New Testament which was written AFTER the alleged events and after the Jesus cult was invented).

You obviously don t understand how athee-evo intellectual dishonesty works; you can t be an atheist without it.

We ve got more ancient historical documentation that Jesus existed than other ancients such as Aristotle. Of course they have no problem believing that Aristotle existed, but struggle with Jesus existence. Because of that, some movie, no matter how well done would have little influence on them.

You said proof, there is no proof. Only assumptions and beliefs.

Movie? Are you serious?

It RIDICULES your religion!

Christianity is a faith and those that need or claim proof LACK FAITH and ridicule youe relgion!

Try a little reality!

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100
Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120
Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD
Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD
Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD
Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.
Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD
Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD
Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

" journalist are all about facts"

Obviously you have never heard of Fox News or The Sun.

I've seen it, and it is not at all convincing. He calls himself a journalist, but is certainly no historian. He misses critical pieces of evidence, discounts explanations other than the one which is the premise of the movie, and rushes to judgment.

In all, about what you would expect from an apologist.

A movie is not proof of anything.

Why don't you just summarize the movie here for us? What persuasive (to a nonbeliever) 'proof' did it offer? Josephus? Tacitus? Neither of them were born until decades after Jesus was (supposedly) sacrificed. Personal testimony? That's far from persuasive--we understand that you really, really believe. The Bible? Scriptures aren't evidence of supernatural claims. Archaeology? No one denies the geographical place names mention in the Bible aren't real.
.
And speaking of movies, have you watched Religulous? When's the last time you really took a step backwards and tried to objectively evaluate what you profess to believe? Have you ever?
.
.

As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

Part of the popular confusion around the historicity of Jesus may be caused by peculiar archaeological arguments raised in relation to him. Recently there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”.
It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence.
These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived.
osephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[47] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[48] and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.
There is only one classical writer who refers positively to Jesus and that is Mara bar Serapion, a Syrian Stoic, who wrote a letter to his son who was also named Serapion from a Roman prison. He speaks of Jesus as ‘the wise king’ and compares his death at the hand of the Jews to that of Socrates at the hands of the Athenians. He links the death of the ‘wise king’ to the Jews being driven from their kingdom. He also states that the ‘wise king’ lives on because of the “new laws he laid down.” The dating of the letter is disputed but was probably soon after 73AD. <t><

No one "gets saved" in this world. What's your question?

Oh, kool.. I didn't know that it was a movie, but thought it was an old documentary.. Of the same name, if I remember right, which is probably very interesting too. I will have to look up the movie, thanks.