Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

indy_man

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newly-found-document-holds-eyewitness-account-of-jesus-performing-miracle/

An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

newmug

There's one for "Christian" supporters of abortion.

Benny_Cake

Afraid it's a recent hoax: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/miraclewitness.asp

Manach

Agreeing with Benny cake.
Following the natural sceptic inclinations of my favourite Saint I'd be incline to doubt this.

First, from my knowledge of Roman Historians and history, the primary source author is fairly minor and would be not have specialised in that historical/geographical area.
Also whilst any type of primary source material is of importance, given the friable nature of scrolls and how they were stored (even the Eyptian paparii buried in excellent preservation conditions disintegrate over time), it is fairly certain this even if true is a nth generation copy of material and so errors might have crept into the transfer process.

martinedwards

first eyewitness account ever

gospels not withstanding of course.........

Peregrinus

None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts.

SeantheMan

But they're the word of God right ?...and sure he wouldn't lie to ye

RikuoAmero

Let' just pretend for a moment this wasn't an article from an Onion-esque website and these were real documents and they were dated to be from the 1st century.

There are serious issues that would have to be tackled before we could conclusively say "Yes, this is an actual account of an actual miracle".
For one, how do we know the historian isn't either lying or has himself been lied to or been misinformed? Historians go into regions and talk to people and more often than not, those people will tell the historians about all sorts of magical events. Why disbelieve the magical events told to a historian by some obscure Asian town...but believe the magical events told to a historian by some obscure Hebrew town? That to me is special pleading, in that skepticism is not applied to one account, but is to another.
The historian may have a reputation for accurate reporting, but does that hold true for everything he has ever written? Is it impossible for this historian to have at one point or another in his life to have fabricated something?
Second, the documents don't state exactly what condition the child was in. Okay they mention stillborn, but remember, this is a culture that didn't exactly have the greatest in medical knowledge. It could be that the child simply wasn't breathing, only to start doing so when this man picks him up.
Third, it raises questions about why the followers of this man hold this man's own resurrection to be so special when according to accounts such as this one, it happened quite a few times.
Fourth, it raises questions about why the supposed all knowing and all benevolent god touted by this man's followers would either not prevent the stillbirth (if it occurred at all) or wait until the man had a crowd around him before resurrecting the baby.

Peregrinus

SeantheMan wrote: »

But they're the word of God right ?...and sure he wouldn't lie to ye

As none of the gospels claims to be an eyewitness account the question of whether such a claim, if made, would be a lie is moot.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Let' just pretend for a moment this wasn't an article from an Onion-esque website and these were real documents and they were dated to be from the 1st century.

There are serious issues that would have to be tackled before we could conclusively say "Yes, this is an actual account of an actual miracle".

OK, you raise a few good questions here. Let’s take them one by one.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For one, how do we know the historian isn't either lying or has himself been lied to or been misinformed? Historians go into regions and talk to people and more often than not, those people will tell the historians about all sorts of magical events. Why disbelieve the magical events told to a historian by some obscure Asian town...but believe the magical events told to a historian by some obscure Hebrew town? That to me is special pleading, in that skepticism is not applied to one account, but is to another.

Well, hold on. In this case the claim is not that Vellius says “X happened”; it’s that he says “I saw X happen”. Given that he says this, there are three possibilities:

- He did see X happen.

- He didn’t see X happen, and he knows he didn’t. He’s lying.

- He didn’t see X happen, but he honestly thinks he did.

I don’t see that you can get to any of these by speculating that Vellius was told that X happened, and later convinced himself that he saw it. His account does not rely on him accepting uncritically a claim by Palestinian peasants that something happened before he arrived.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The historian may have a reputation for accurate reporting, but does that hold true for everything he has ever written? Is it impossible for this historian to have at one point or another in his life to have fabricated something?

Yes, it is, and one of the tasks of the historian is to form a judgment about how reliable the text is. So he would ask himself questions like, would Vellius have any reason to lie about this? (Vellius wasn’t a Christian, or otherwised noted as being sympathetic to or an advocate for Christians or Christianity.) For what audience was Vellius writing, and for what purpose? (Back in the day, nobody wrote books for the royalties.) And, depending on the answer to questions like this, the historian might form a view about how much weight to attach to the possibility that this was an outright fabrication.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Second, the documents don't state exactly what condition the child was in. Okay they mention stillborn, but remember, this is a culture that didn't exactly have the greatest in medical knowledge. It could be that the child simply wasn't breathing, only to start doing so when this man picks him up.

And this touches on what I think would be the greater possibility; Vellius’ story is honest but wrong. Perhaps Vellius was drunk. Perhaps he was delusional. Perhaps he was simply mistaken – the child was poorly, but never dead, the possibility you raise yourself. Perhaps he was the victim of a clever deception. The historian would have to make a judgment about all of these. I don’t see that you could realistically absolutely exclude all of them.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Third, it raises questions about why the followers of this man hold this man's own resurrection to be so special when according to accounts such as this one, it happened quite a few times.

Well, of course, Jesus’ followers already believed he was special well before his resurrection. Plus, they seem to have understood Jesus’ resurrection as something effected by himself, whereas every other claimed resurrection was the result of an external power – usually Jesus’s own power, in fact. You don’t have to accept that all (or any) of these beliefs are true to see how Jesus’ own followers might view his resurrection differently. Plus, from the NT accounts, it does appear that they experienced his resurrection differently.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Fourth, it raises questions about why the supposed all knowing and all benevolent god touted by this man's followers would either not prevent the stillbirth (if it occurred at all) or wait until the man had a crowd around him before resurrecting the baby.

And that, I think, is a question for the theologians, not the historians. And it’s a question that arises anyway, even if we don’t hypothesise the account of Vellius, because of course we do have other first-century accounts of Jesus working wonders of this kind. The theological problems they raise don’t depend on whether the accounts are first-hand accounts like Vellius’s would be, or second-hand accounts, like the ones we have actually are.

But theological problems have no bearing on the historical judgment. If, by the criteria applied by academic historians, the hypothetical account of Vellius was found to be well-established, authentic, reliable, etc, we couldn’t then dismiss it because we found it theologically troubling. If we are convinced that Jesus did X and this surprises us because this doesn’t fit with our expectations of Jesus, the proper conclusion is not that Jesus didn’t do X; it’s that we have to review our expectations of Jesus.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

Snip

Okay thanks for the correction. I'll try in the future to separate theological issues when considering the historicity of a document.
I do have one bone to pick. You disagree with the possibility that this hypothetical historian could have willingly fabricated this story. I would disagree, in that everybody has the potential to lie. Yes we would have to examine the historian's works and try to come to a conclusion, but we should not ever rule out the possibility of willing fabrication. Such a thing becomes very unlikely, yes, but impossible? No.

Peregrinus

I didn't intend a criticism; both the theological and historical questions you raise are valid ones. I just think it's worth noting that theological concerns have no implications for historicity.

As for outright lies, yes, any claim can be an outright lie. We can'd dismiss this possibility, but historians do have techniques for assessing how likely it is. For instance, there's the "criterion of embarrassment". If a particular fact-claim is embarrassing to the author, having regard to his purpose in writing and/or his purpose in writing, then it's not likely to be something he invented; it's much more likely to be a truth that he can't avoid.

For example, the gospel writers are at pains to link Jesus to Bethlehem, and to locate his birth there, for theological reasons. (It strengthens the case that he can be identified with the Messiah prophesied in earlier texts.) But they also record that he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene, etc. It would suit them much better if he was known as Jesus of Bethlehem, so the likely explanation for the fact that they call him Jesus of Nazareth is not that they made this detail up; it's that he was indeed from Nazareth, and was widely known to be so.

Obviously, in the case of the hypothetical text from Vellius that we're discussing here, we can't meaningfully apply the criterion of embarrassment. Since the text doesn't actually exist, we'd have to make up its purpose, its audience, etc. All I'm saying is that faced with an actual claim made in an actual text, there are methods that historians can use to assess its credibility and reliability, including the likelihood that it is a deliberate fiction. If they couldn't do this, we wouldn't actually have any ancient or classical history at all.

belgian blue

The Gospels, acts and letters were written within the lifetimes of the witnesses, and most likely before the destruction of the temple in 70AD as there is no mention of such a massive event in any of the new testament. They could be all lies and you can believe all those who gave up their lives and families to follow Christ did it to preserve a lie. That's the choice between faith/trust. Faith is a gift, if you want it, keep asking for it. If you don't, don't.

RikuoAmero

belgian blue wrote: »

The Gospels, acts and letters were written within the lifetimes of the witnesses, and most likely before the destruction of the temple in 70AD as there is no mention of such a massive event in any of the new testament. They could be all lies and you can believe all those who gave up their lives and families to follow Christ did it to preserve a lie. That's the choice between faith/trust. Faith is a gift, if you want it, keep asking for it. If you don't, don't.

The fact that people died for something they believed to be true is no indicator to me as to whether or not that thing is actually true. Plenty of people have died for religious reasons that have nothing to do with chrisitianity - Branch Davidians rings a bell here, as does Heaven's Gate, not to mention martyrs for all the major world religions. If early christians dying for their religion is supposedly enough to convince you that their religious claims are true, why is it you don't believe the Branch Davidians or the Heaven's Gaters? You're doing special pleading here, in that you are naturally skeptical of the extraordinary claims of other religions (precisely because you see no evidence of their claims being true), but for some reason, exempt christianity from that logical requirement.
You conflate faith with trust, so I will be using that definition. You say the Gospels, Acts and letters were written within the lifetimes of the witnesses. The earliest of the gospels (Mark) can be dated reliably to about 60-70AD. However, you can't believe it simply because its author was more than likely alive during the 30AD period. That is a huge gap of time between the events described in the gospel and their actually being written down. Memories can get fuzzy during that time period or the author can either intentionally or unintentionally remember things wrong, or make the whole thing up. There is such a thing as senility in old age.
I do not trust these writings, simply because they are the only evidence for extraordinary claims. One reason I don't trust anything Jesus is claimed to have said (notice what I said there) is that he mentions Moses on more than one occasion as if he were a real historical figure, and yet, he wasn't. If Jesus really were a supremely intelligent god in flesh, he wouldn't have uttered this falsehood.

Now I ask you three questions - why do you conflate faith with trust (when they are two different things); why do you say faith is a gift; and why is it you are skeptical of the religious claims of other religions, but not of christianity?

belgian blue

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The fact that people died for something they believed to be true is no indicator to me as to whether or not that thing is actually true. Plenty of people have died for religious reasons that have nothing to do with chrisitianity - Branch Davidians rings a bell here, as does Heaven's Gate, not to mention martyrs for all the major world religions. If early Christians dying for their religion is supposedly enough to convince you that their religious claims are true, why is it you don't believe the Branch Davidians or the Heaven's Gaters? You're doing special pleading here, in that you are naturally skeptical of the extraordinary claims of other religions (precisely because you see no evidence of their claims being true), but for some reason, exempt christianity from that logical requirement.
You conflate faith with trust, so I will be using that definition. You say the Gospels, Acts and letters were written within the lifetimes of the witnesses. The earliest of the gospels (Mark) can be dated reliably to about 60-70AD. However, you can't believe it simply because its author was more than likely alive during the 30AD period. That is a huge gap of time between the events described in the gospel and their actually being written down. Memories can get fuzzy during that time period or the author can either intentionally or unintentionally remember things wrong, or make the whole thing up. There is such a thing as senility in old age.

Your attempt to equivocate Jesus, the apostles, and the Gospels to Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate does indeed ring lots of bells with me, but not the bells you think.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You're doing special pleading here, in that you are naturally skeptical of the extraordinary claims of other religions (precisely because you see no evidence of their claims being true), but for some reason, exempt christianity from that logical requirement.

What "special pleading", I have zero interest in what you or anyone else believes or doesn't believe in, so the only I see doing any "special pleading" is yourself. I will however continue to reply to any attempted straw manning and attempted trolling and misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I do not trust these writings, simply because they are the only evidence for extraordinary claims. One reason I don't trust anything Jesus is claimed to have said (notice what I said there) is that he mentions Moses on more than one occasion as if he were a real historical figure, and yet, he wasn't. If Jesus really were a supremely intelligent god in flesh, he wouldn't have uttered this falsehood.

But sure I thought, according to you, when it suits, we must believe that the Gospels are false and what Christ said, was never said and is fabricated ? Then you turn round and quote the same document to claim what Jesus said about Moses ? Hmmm, lol. You can post a thousand strawmen, and keep soap boxing to your hearts content, but you won't fool a single committed Christian who has heard them a thousand times before. If you can historically prove Moses didn't exist, we're all ears, we await your proof, because even the most ardent anti theist historian has failed to do so. Oh sure, you'll be able to selectively link to lots of speculation among historians, for and against, if Moses existed or not, if Alexander the Great existed or not, if Socrates existed or not, but that's all you be able to link to. There is no academic historical proof of existence for the vast majority of historical figures from these ages, that does not mean they did, or did not exist, as any historical scholar will clearly explain this very basic academic historical principle that you're now trying to straw man.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now I ask you three questions - why do you conflate faith with trust (when they are two different things); why do you say faith is a gift; and why is it you are skeptical of the religious claims of other religions, but not of Christianity?

Faith in God means trusting God and is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as the New Testament you disbelieve says, while you to use the same new testament to claim what Jesus said about Moses. lol. Why do I believe in Christianity ? Because I find no other religion or teacher like Christ, and I get to decide that for myself, not what you dictate I should believe.

The forum charter states for this forum : "Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack " but sure troll on, it won't get you anywhere with me or any other Christian.

RikuoAmero

belgian blue wrote: »

The forum charter states for this forum : "Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack " but sure troll on, it won't get you anywhere with me or any other Christian.

Whoops, sorry. Forgot about that. How about you and I continue this via PM then?

Turtwig

belgian blue wrote: »

The forum charter states for this forum : "Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack " but sure troll on, it won't get you anywhere with me or any other Christian.

Mod:

Please don't back seat moderate. If you have an issue with a post or poster report the posts. Definitely don't make accusations of trolling.

Thanks.

MrPudding

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The fact that people died for something they believed to be true is no indicator to me as to whether or not that thing is actually true. Plenty of people have died for religious reasons that have nothing to do with chrisitianity - Branch Davidians rings a bell here, as does Heaven's Gate, not to mention martyrs for all the major world religions.

I am sure I have read somewhere that people have died for something even when they suspected it was false. On the phone now, so my searching is a bit limited, I will try to find of tomorrow. I recall it being brought up before to counter the oft used argument that christianity must be true because people died for it. The gist of it was some members of a cult were known to believe that it was all a lie, but still drank the koolaid.

MrP

Manach

Converse of which being sending people to their deaths for causes they know are clearly false. Offhand that was mentioned in the book "Bloodlands" were commissioners were responsible for policies which caused deliberate widespread famine in the name of a political credo.

As for not believing evidence gathered contemporaneous in that era, best we inform the classics depts. worldwide and let them know the ditch most of their primary source works, at least most of ones I've read :rolleyes: