[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

we know who edited it , smarty.
and u cant be arsed with "lulz, fully edited by man doesnt countzz, NOB"

the autheniticty of Josephus is usually challenged simply because the surviving scraps of his text have down to us from church hands - thus in our times of conspiracy theories everyone immediately assumes it is a fake. Yes, many copies were made from 1100 onwards and the wording is similar to that given above. But the validity of his work seems to be only questioned in relation to his reference to Jesus.

A further problem with Josephus is that early Christians make no mention of it. Except that is for one in-direct reference by Origen in 240 AD which interestingly predates all known Josephus manuscripts. Origen make two references to Josephus. First he mentions the lesser known reference by Josephus as Jesus being the Brother of James but significantly goes on to note that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. It is important here to remember that Christians were still seen as enemies of Rome at that time so wouldn't have the resouces needed to undertake such widespred forgery of an existing work. Therefore, it is clear that even if the church later embellished copies (perhaps converting Josephus to a christian) there must have been two references to Jesus in the original work by Josephus - how else could Origen have referred to them?

Next, we need to go even further back to consider the one of the earliest Christian documents - the Didache. This contains the early basic instructions, teaching and practice of the Christians. It is generally believed to be authentic, possibly written by the original Apostles and is usually dated between 50 - 120AD. This remarkable document not only mentions Jesus but states that baptism must be "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." And remember that this is quite possibly a first generation christian document.

Also, consider the accounts of the apologists. Take the case of Tertullian born 155/160 AD. Tertullian is widely accepted as being a Roman citizen, well educated and well versed in the law and his text is considered genuine. In a written defense of his faith to the senate he stated, ' At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.

But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty....

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.'

Tertullian is clearly identifying Jesus, His death, His resurrection and the darkness that fell upon the earth, and stating that a written report was submitted to the emperor by Pilate. It should also be pointed that there is not (as far as I'm aware)not one single early Roman document or reference to one in which Rome ever denied it had crucified Jesus - given the problems it faced with Christians had there been no Jesus and no crucifixion Rome would have certainly have said so.

In this regard Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman Emperor to oppose Christianity, referred to the records of Jesus' being put to death. These records must have still been available in his day. He was a firm and thorough opponent of the faith he once professed to follow and had every interest in refuting and defeating the spread of the Christian faith. Had there been no knowledge or record of Jesus' existence or execution, he undoubtedly would have mentioned this. In fact, the reverse is the case.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_real_...ly_existed  quoted all the info there, read it all and understood it all. i can make it shorter just for you, mr. "debater"

"we're the ones not believing in what a stupid books tells us to believe" - who said my belifs are based on Holy Book only? brainz pls.

ORCH - OR. Brainwashed INDEED.