Easter as a festival was poached from the pagan observance of Ēostre, see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter. The date is determined according to the lunar cycle, not the Gregorian calendar.

StroppyChops wrote:

Kampong Spooner wrote:Was watching a 'documentary'last night on the apostles and shit, and it reminded me that THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS AND HIS CREW. Anecdotal, third hand Chinese whispers at best.

That is singularly the most ignorant, uneducated statement I have read on CEO, or on 440 for that matter, and I can only hope you're attention-whoring. There is close to no doubt among secular scholars of the historicity of Jesus Christ, and the non-Biblical accounts of his life are plentiful and from varied sources. Typically those who claim otherwise fall into the same category as holocaust deniers. Given the stupidity of your statements here I doubt you'd believe anything you were told, but here's what REAL atheists say on the matter:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... -the-bible

Edit: for clarity, 'close to no doubt' means that the very large majority of secular (that is, non-believing) historians and scholars completely accept the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Wow, a bit rich...

Virtually, virtually.... no evidence (2 bits, of 1st & 2nd century writings). Yeah, I'm quoting wikipedia as a source......

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[57][59][60][nb 10][77] There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.[78][79] Geoffrey Blainey notes that "a few scholars argue that Jesus... did not even exist," and that they "rightly point out that contemporary references to him were extremely rare."[80] There is however widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[2] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[12][90]

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
He called disciples.
He had a controversy at the Temple.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[12][90]
Jesus was a Galilean.
His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
After his death his disciples continued.
Some of his disciples were persecuted.[12][90]
Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal

Some scholars have made the case that there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, that there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that more research is needed on this topic

So most people can agree that some bloke was baptized and crucified, but everything else is purely down to what you believe. Admitting that pagan feasts got pinched by the church kinda suggests that there may be other holes in the dogmatic theory..... but whatever floats your boat.....

Now the Pro'Mo (PBUH) left a pretty good record and his version of the Misogynist Desert Dweller's Handbook (for good or bad) hasn't been repeatedly translated and mis-translated by those attempting to woo and control a bunch of fairy worshipping, goat sacrificing Thor lovers (who kinda liked eating bacon).

However, as a baptized CofE, and a product of church schooling, I hope that the big G (the Henry VIII/King James version) will forgive my mortal sins and let me in, if I'm wrong. Otherwise, we'll both be down there with all the other Kaffirs, Cathars, Buddhists and Papua New Guinean dead granny mummy worshipers.

Kampong Spooner wrote:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Well, the end of that in a nutshell.

Kampong Spooner wrote:Admitting that pagan feasts got pinched by the church kinda suggests that there may be other holes in the dogmatic theory...

You should see where most Christmas tradition comes from... that'll knock some holes in 'dogmatic theory'.

Samouth wrote:

Soi Dog wrote:I don't see what the big deal was. Crucifixion was a very common occurrence back in Jesus' day. Why was his special? Because his was voluntary?

This is what i have learned and been told. The reason that his Crucifixion was special, because he died for us (sinner). He had been crucified to save us from sin. His father (God) sent him to save us. His blood flow by being crucified saved us.

Then, when i had been told that Jesus is God. I was immediately confusing.

You didn't need to wait to be told that Jesus is God to get confused. Even if he isn't, it still means that his father (who is God) decided that the only way he could forgive our sins (which he knew we would commit) was to have a son, and for that son to be brutally murdered on a cross. He planned the entire thing, right down to his own son's gruesome death. This is what makes the Christian God so demonstrably less forgiving than the Gods of the other two Abrahamic religions. He could choose to forgive us without having his son tortured to death, but that wouldn't be any fun would it?

Also consider that it isn't like you or I dying for other people, because being God, he already knew that he would be resurrected a few days later. It's not really dying, it's just taking a break for a few days.

To quote the great God of radio chat, Mr Alan Partridge... 'Aha'

Points;

1. Is my refusal to believe in JC despite the underwhelming evidence make me more of an attention-whore than someone who makes the OP (a picture of JC, on the cross with blood spattered font, attention, much?). It's that Life of Brian Sketch with the juniper bushes 'Persecute the heretic'.

2. Denying Jesus does not make one akin to a holocaust denier (didn't my namesake supposingly deny his lord?). Hitler and his ilk killed Jews, homos, retards and gyppos- 1m-6m, who's counting? It happened. Tutankhamen, Julius Ceasar, Charlemagne, Mohammed (PMBUH) Genghis Khan, Churchill- I believe they once walked this earth.

3. Using 'evidence' and 'reason', which I'd personally question.... as an evangelist??? 'Well, citing Josephus' (91CE), rewritten in C324 CE by Eusebuis and the musings of Tactius c116 CE as the ONLY reliable sources, when refuting a shed load of other 'evidence', such as dinosaurs, evolution, the non-Christian world, Noah not really being 500 years old etc etc. Now that's brilliant. Evidence is occasionally truth (when it suits).

3. 31.5% of the world identifies themselves as Christian (granted another 23.2$% are Mohammedans, who recognize Jesus as a prophet, who SC disdain). Yes this is most of the world, by a whopping 5%, although a fair few of them, I'd wager really don't really give too much of a shit/chop off the heads of those of the 31.5% who do). At worst 45% of the 7bn people alive don't. Go figure.

I'm not a theologian, and, respect your right to believe in codswallop, Maybe I'm a loony for not believing in the historical being of 'Jesus', but, c'mon, don't bigger loonies believe in UFOs, ghosts and the holy trinity, among other loony things?

And if 'evidence' or even 'faith is your thing, how have those 1970 or so years been doing in that regard? Ah well, keep telling us how we're wrong, that, I suppose, is your job.

jesus from Nazareth may have lived, I think the historian tacitus mentioned him (?)

the "problem" is: he wasn't the messiah...

the messiah is e.g. said to be from the house of david and to come/emerge from Jerusalem.

all not true for jesus...

potty wrote:the sin comes from the apple-incident in garden eden.

Playboy wrote:

Really a lot of truth in that.

What does true love look like?