Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.
Unlikely. The Romans were pretty skilled at such things, and their ultimate objective was for the condemned to die slowly. Still, I suppose it's possible.

As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.
I haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't caused by a flying saucer, either. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does bring the subject into doubt. And if, as you claimed in your earlier posts, the Romans looked upon these signs as auguries, they would have to have been something more than a small quake and a thunderstorm.

The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.
Well we certainly agree about that! I'm just not willing to put my faith in people who gleefully admit that they are little more than evil sinners in the eyes of their gods! Especially when they are trying to convince me that I'm just like them.

All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.
Well, since the celebration of Easter, for Christians at least, is all about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think that questioning the validity of the stories to be beside the point.