# Eyewitness accounts of Jesus, new MS



## reaganmarsh (Oct 12, 2014)

Greetings PB brethren,

I read an article this evening claiming that a newly discovered manuscript contains an eyewitness account of Jesus, dating to early 1st century: 
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/new...ewitness-account-of-Jesus-performing-miracle/

Interesting. I'll be curious for your thoughts on this article.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 12, 2014)

Assuming the document is legitimate and checks out using scientific protocols for dating such things, what the document says about Jesus is not impossible. Marcus Velleius Paterculus (ca. 20 BC - ca. AD 30) was a Roman historian who is generally regarded as reliable (see his Wiki page). As for the depiction of Jesus bringing a stillborn baby back to life, one can be reminded that there were many miracles performed by our Lord that were not recorded in the gospels (see the end of the Gospel of John, for example).

I'd wait until the English translation of the text becomes available to be able to comment more.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Oct 12, 2014)

The article is from a satire website - Disclaimer


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2014)

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Vindolanda tablets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## One Little Nail (Oct 13, 2014)

Sure pays to read the fine print!


----------



## Timotheos (Oct 13, 2014)

Christians can be gullible some times. That website has probably received more hits from facebook links and other links like the OP above w/ this hoax.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Oct 13, 2014)

Comments like these are why I ask here first. Thanks, y'all.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 14, 2014)

Sounds like I fell for it. (blush!) My bad...


----------



## johnny (Oct 14, 2014)

bookslover said:


> Sounds like I fell for it. (blush!) My bad...


On the Contrary, I believe your initial qualification saves you from any embarrassment. 

To reverse the situation, just grab any old rock out of your garden and tell an unregenerate scientist that its ten million years old
and you will have made a friend for life.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 14, 2014)

People in the West today seem to think the overwhelming evidence for Jesus' life and miracles would be more credible if it were confirmed by reports of an unbeliever. The Bible does give us such testimonies: the centurion at the cross, Gamaliel, Pilate (perhaps unwittingly). Yet, each of these testimonies comes through Scripture, written by believers appointed by God.

This says things about the importance of faith, and the trustworthiness of _God's_ Word rather than man's, that the world just doesn't understand. Faith and God's own testimony are central, though, to why and how we accept Jesus—which is why I suspect no legitimate documents from an unbeliever, like the one in that fake article, will ever be discovered. God has left us a far better record. Why would he also preserve anything lesser?


----------



## Jack K (Oct 14, 2014)

The more I thought about this, the more I decided that Reagan's curiosity over what we might think of this was a good response and makes an excellent question. So I expanded my thoughts a bit and ended up writing an quick article this morning that's centered on 1 John 5:9, “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.”

My article is here: Report: Secular Source Confirms Miracles of Jesus | Gospel Teacher.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Oct 15, 2014)

Non-Christians seem to be fascinated by this imagined 'historical Jesus', completely dismissing the best history we have as a mere fiction. There's even a plan for a film about this 'historical Jesus', who is ironically a fictional Jesus. The kind of Jesus for whom society at large has an appetite rather than the real Jesus revealed to us in God's Word.

People have also been very interested in Noah's Ark recently, with scholars writing books and making TV programmes about the 'real' Noah's Ark as opposed to that in the Bible. Of course (in the minds of the blind) the biblical account is nowhere near as trustworthy as Sumerian tablets!


----------

