Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Document Recently Found Has Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle (Hoax)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://guardianlv.com/2014/10/docum ... t-of-jesus-performing-miracle/
Published: Oct 17, 2014
Author: Kimberly Ruble
Post Date: 2014-10-17 22:53:49 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 43386
Comments: 96
In Rome, a document recently found has an eyewitness account of Jesus performing a miracle. An Italian professional was examining the paper written in the first century by the Roman historian Marcus Paterculus. It has only been recently found inside the annals of the Vatican and on it there was written what appears to be the very first eyewitness account ever documented of one of the miracles performed by Jesus. The author told of a scene that he supposedly observed, in which a prophet who he named Isous de Nazarenus, revived a baby who had been stillborn and gave him back to his mother.
Historian Ignazio Perrucci was employed by authorities of the Vatican in 2012 to go through and analyze over 6,000 antique documents that had been found in massive archive crypts. Perrucci had already been excited when he detected that the writer of the text was the celebrated Roman historian Paterculus, but he was totally shocked after he read the content of the document.
Professor Perrucci discovered the text in the collections of the Vatican, while he was looking through a packet of personal letters and other minor documents that dated back to the Roman period. The writing, when looked at as a complete narrative tells of the writer’s departing journey from Parthia to Rome, which happened in 31 AD. It was recorded on four pieces of parchment. He speaks of various events happening during his journey, like an intense sandstorm in Mesopotamia and when he visits a temple in Melitta which is now called Mdina in modern day Malta.
Yet the piece of text that really got the historian’s attention was when he read about an event occurring in the town of Sebaste. That would be close to the city of Nablus in the modern day, which is in the West Bank. The writer talked about the coming of a great leader into the city with his assembly of disciples. He also had many followers and this meant that a lot of the lower class people from nearby villages were gathering around the group. Paterculus stated that the great man’s name was Isous de Nazarenus, which was a Greco Latin translation of Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua haNotzri.
The document stated that when he entered the town, it was written that Jesus had gone to the home of a woman by the name of Elisheba. She had just had a stillborn baby. Jesus reportedly picked up the dead infant and said a prayer in Aramaic. The writer stated that it was “immensus”, which meant that it was unintelligible. Next, right in front of the crown, to their wonder and astonishment, the baby returned to life crying and fidgeting like a vigorous newborn.
Marcus Paterculus, was a Roman officer of Campanian heritage, and it appears that he saw Jesus as some sort of great man who could perform miracles. He did not appear to associate him with the Christian idea of him being the Messiah.
There have been numerous tests and examinations done in the past few weeks to try and determine the manuscripts authenticity. The make-up of the parchment and the ink used to write on it, the literary panache and even the handwriting have been cautiously inspected and are believed to legitimate. The dating investigation also showed that the parchment on which the text was penned, did date from the 1st century, precisely from between 20-40 AD.
This text written by an author, who has always been known for his dependability, has brought a new viewpoint on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. An official translation of the manuscript is planned to be released and made available online in numerous different languages over the next couple of months. However, the effect of the discovery has already been felt in the scientific community. Numerous researchers believe this to be one of the greatest developments ever found toward the study of the life of Jesus, while many others think it is nothing but a fraud and have uttered doubts about the conclusions of all the tests and want many more done before they declare this to be any sign of that Jesus really lived. They do not trust the document.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 61.
#16. To: pinguinite (#0)
ping
Well, satire or not, the theological model I subscribe to does not mean Jesus never lived and performed miracles. There may well have been a man named Jesus (or whatever the ancient version of his name was as it certainly wouldn't have been spelled in our present day alphabet), walking the earth, performing miracles and spreading a message of good will, and upsetting the establishment in the process. Supernatural events (aka miracles) can and do occur. The issue I have with Christianity is only that A) Reincarnation does occur, in almost certain contradiction of Hebrews 9:27. B) The bible, therefore, cannot be the "Word of God". At least in the sense of perfect divine inspiration. The original message could have been divinely true but then corrupted as passed from that point into written form (i.e. present day bible). C) In my personal view, because we are souls born in the spirit world that can and do exist independently of our human bodies, we are not *primarily* human beings. Our human identity is only a secondary identity. Because of that, the core of Christian theology, which holds that Jesus took human form to indentify with us, and died as one of us, for the salvation of our non-human souls, breaks down. That because some souls never incarnate, and others incarnate from time to time as non-humans, on alien worlds. IOW, our human identity is merely incidental. That being the case, a human sacrifice (Jesus dying on the cross for the salvation of us "humans") no longer makes sense. Again, that's my personal view. I'm sure there are others who do believe in reincarnation but also subscribe to that element of Christian theology. I understand the Gnostic Christians of the first few centuries AD did subscribe to reincarnation until Constantine declared it a heresy (for the purposes of political control of the masses). There is much is the gospels I do agree with. The golden rule for one, and that love is the greatest commandment (though not a commandment, per se). While the theological reasons for the death of Jesus I find erroneous, the message behind the story of his sacrifice is correct -- namely that we are all loved enormously, far more than we can humanly comprehend. Though in my view, the love is greater than that portrayed by Christian theology because I say we are never overtly judged or condemned to hell for all eternity. There will be judgement, but we will judge ourselves, and judge soundly, without the distraction of our human mind, and lovingly encouraged to grow and do better next time. Whether a soul can condemn itself to annihilation, I do not know, but free will is perfect in the spirit world. This theological model is, in my view, superior because we are loved more perfectly. God never gives up on us, as opposed to giving up on an unrepentant sinner when he dies, young or old. All of us are here because we chose to be here, knowing in advance (at the subconsciously/spiritual level) what our lives would be like, so life is in fact, fair. None of us suffers pain without a reason. Life has a real, practical purpose, and that is for us to grow and advance spiritually. In short, there are far more sound answers with this model than with the Christian model. But back on the subject of Jesus performing miracles, it's very possible. Souls do have that capability. The stronger, more advanced the souls, the more powerful, though most of us walking the earth are pretty weak (or we wouldn't be here). Best...
Did you obtain your understanding of the life between life from personal hypnosis or a trained Newton hypnosis? How different are Newton's beliefs and methods to those practiced by Hollywood actress Shirley MacLaine? I read some of Newton's website. Frankly it is nothing new from the New Age era of the 70s and 80s. What he has done was marry the beliefs of human reincarnation, New Age mysticism and use hypnosis as a method to access past experiences. Again frankly not new as mediums have existed since the beginning of civilization. I also offer a concern of hypnosis. People voluntarily submit to hypnosis to stop smoking, lose weight etc. In such cases a person is willingly allowing someone to alter their behavior or thoughts whether it be to not pick up a pack of smokes or not eat that donut at midnight. Aren't you concerned someone you don't know is "getting inside" your head and has you in a vulnerable suggestive state? The testimonials of those who were personally under Newton for hypnosis or one of his many assistants boast similar or completely identical experiences and understanding. This might shock some but it is most obvious as those who are hypnotized not to smoke have similar testimonials. Why? The suggestive nature of hypnosis. This is akin to brain washing and very cultic. Also, what evidence can you provide the canonical scriptures are not the Word of God. You used "cannot be" which is an assertion and not based on evidence.
No. I'm not particularly familiar with Shirley MacLaine's beliefs. My take is that Newton has not "married beliefs". What I like about his approach is that he has taken more of the scientific avenue. He has mentioned in interviews how he had purposely avoided conferences, books and outside information about the subject of reincarnation and such so as to not be biased. His effort was to restrict all his learning from his clients, and querying them in open ended fashion, not asking yes/no questions of what they see, which explicitly plants images in their minds but rather questions such as "what do you see?" He further claims he began his career as an atheist, but was brought kicking and screaming to the prospect of reincarnation by what his clients have told him. He claims that a very convincing factor in upholding the credibility of his findings is the consistency of the things his thousands of clients have told him over the years, regardless of their cultural or (conscious) religious beliefs. Could Newton be a fraud? Maybe, but if he is, then in my view he's an excellent one for coming up with a portrait of a spirit world that answers just about every challenging question about who and what we are and why we are here, and does so better than Christianity does. And two: if he is a fraud, there's about no web sites out I've found that discredit him in any credible way. My understanding is that hypnosis cannot make someone do something that they are not ultimately willing to do, like jump off a cliff. A hypnotist cannot force someone to be hypnotized. A hypnotist is only a guide such that any success with it is due to the ability of the person being hypnotized. Hollywood has embellished this with vampire movies and such which has put some misinformation out to the public, but I understand that is fiction. Having said that, I have seen TV programs in which a self-proclaimed hypnotist can supposedly hypnotise people instantly and make them do crazy things. I'm not sure if that could be real or just staged, but it's certainly different from what is practised therapeutically. Well, if Hebrews 9:27 can be taken to only mean that reincarnation does NOT occur, and reincarnation in reality DOES occur, then I consider that evidence that the bible cannot be the infallible "Word of God". That is a logical proof. Would you not agree? But perhaps Hebrews 9:27 doesn't quite say that, or perhaps reincarnation does not occur. If either of those are the case, then the bible could still be the "Word of God". I'm of the mind, however, that the passage is indisputably saying we get one life. I'm also of the mind that reincarnation is a real phenomenon, ergo.... Of course it seems apparent on it's face that reincarnation would undermine the core of biblical teaching... i.e. what I already posted above, so it's not just this single verse. Where is the proof that the bible IS the "Word of God?" You've mentioned before evidence in the way of fulfilled prophecies, but ultimately, can we base a faith on something because one ancient text corroborates another ancient text? How much can we ultimately know about how much or little one writer knew of another writer? And in any event, does true faith come from the academic knowledge in one's head, or from the heart?
Newton in his videos and books states people attain the past and present soul world via hypnosis by Newton himself or a trained hypnotist. Am I to conclude you believe his beliefs and others based on testimony of others and not your own experiences?
That is not a correct conclusion. First, according to his books, Newton's "beliefs" stem from the things his clients have told him while under hypnosis. His first 2 books are written as "case studies" in which he has transcripts of discussions he's had with his clients while they are hypnotised. His approach is very scientific and that's one of the things I really like about him. His books are not simply musings about life that came to him while meditating on a mountaintop or whatever. But to your question, no, I've not been hypnotized myself. Still I do have my own experiences and observations with life in general, and Michael Newton's findings do the best job I've ever found of explaining them, and does so better that Christian theology ever has. That is why I am compelled to subscribe to it.
Might I add that you are giving Newton and his case studies the benefit of the doubt where you and many others hold the testimony of Jesus Christ and His apostles to a much higher if not unreasonable standard? For example most atheists and agnostics throw out the historical evidence for Christ because Christians are doing most of the writing. However Roman historians are taken at face value without flinching. Jesus Christ needs contemporaneous historical accounts about Him but Caesar, Homer, and Plato do not according to the relativistic standards of atheists today. They trust the copying of Julius Caesar's Gaulic Wars from 1st Century fragments in the 10th century by Catholic monks in a monastery, but not the Christian manuscripts of Matthew and 7 other separate authors. Everything we know of the early Caesars is lost to papyrus decaying. In fact the earliest and most copied manuscripts from the 1st century are from NT scriptures. So do you see the double standard? Newton comes no where close to the truth claims of Christianity. He or one of his therapists sits in a room with one person at a time. Newton collects the information, controls access to the data and concludes all the experiences are similar if not identical, and done with the aid of hypnosis. If Christians claimed such one on one experiences they would be laughed out of a room. Jesus did miracles in public in front of hundreds and in some cases thousands. Even doing miracles some rejected Him because they did not like what He had to say. They did not want to submit to The Son of God who came not only in the flesh, in the word but with power. Jesus Christ confirmed His truth claims with the Power of God. That is why people today deny the historicity of Scriptures. Because if they admit they are historical, they can't deny the attested to truth claims. And therefore will have to admit they are rejecting the Son of God as did those who denied Him no matter how many miracles they witnessed. So frankly Newton does not come close to validating his truth claims. Infomercial type testimonials may be convincing enough for Pharaohs magicians who could match some of Moses' miracles but not all of them. When Newton or any of those under his hypnosis can feed 5,000 with a few fish and a loaf of bread, calm a raging sea with a command, raise a man dead for four days to vibrant life (no walking dead zombie there) and after dying rise from the dead three days later the same person in a glorified body...let me know. It is up to us to figure these issues out. Do we put our trust in a fellow flawed human being or the Man from Galilee who proclaimed He was the Son of God and One with The Father? Your posts show me you are a seeker of truth with a kind heart. The very same type of heart Jesus plucked up to follow Him on earth.
Okay, now you're putting me on trial! :^) First, am I doing this? As opposed to accepting what the bible claims Jesus said as (quite literally) gospel without applying any critical review? I understand and accept that you have come to this table totally convinced that is the case, but the bible doesn't even claim to contain any of his direct writings. The gospels are, as I know you must concede, claimed to be "according to" Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, not Jesus himself. There are minor inconsistencies between them, such as whether Jesus served the bread or the wine first at the last supper. Matthew and Luke list them in opposite orders. Is not such a detail significant in considering today's bible divinely accurate? We're obviously starting from a different set of conceded facts. That may make discussion fruitless. A difference may be that no one considers alleged writings of Ceasar and other ancient non-Christians to be divinely inspired. It's accepted "as is", as a personal perception of things from an ancient time. Studying them exposes not just what may have happened but also bias on the part of the writer. I'm confident the ancient gospel versions, such as the dead sea scrolls, are given the same weight and considered for their historical value in the same way. They are just not considered divine by secular historians. What test or corroboration can we apply or find today to verify the events that took place back then, and/or the theology presented? Is there any, or is it correct to base faith only on the results of studying these documents, because one ancient writing corroborates the prophecies of a more ancient writing (frankly without knowing if the later writer was already aware of the more ancient writings when the more recent document was penned)? Honestly, not much beyond the writings themselves, in my view. And what test or corroboration applies to Newton's work? We have the video above of little James claim of reincarnation. We have people with unexplained phobias, which Newton (and other independent authors such as Brian Weiss) claim often stem from traumatic past-life events (and treatable in that context). We have accounts of child prodigies, young children who have remarkable, advanced abilities to play golf, shoot pool and play piano. And of course we have accounts of past life recall that are verified as accurate, granted to various degrees, not just by Newton but by numerous others. Weiss even cites a case of two independent clients corroborating each other's past life accounts dating back to the Roman empire age. So what we have is evidence that corroborates Newton's claims. And the reason I cite Newton more than others is because Newton's (claimed) speciality is not so much past life recall, but between life recall, which presents a spiritual/theological model that makes an incredible and in my view an ingenius amount of sense, quite frankly more sense (to me) than the bible does. It does that because we are loved MORE in this model. Because life and the universe now has a practical purpose beyond "glorifying God" through something akin to a wonderful divine painting, because people are not condemned to an eternity of indescribable suffering because they never heard of the gospel, or committed a single sin such as in the hypothetical example I gave earlier of a 3 or 4-year old girl who disobeys her mom by taking a cookie from a cookie jar 5 minutes before dying in a earthquake. This is God we're talking about! God for whom you even say there is nothing that is impossible. Except of course saving a soul who dies with sin. That is the one and only thing even the Almighty God cannot do!! That in spite of the fact that he loves this soul even more than the entire universe and he knew from the beginning what would happen?!?! So he arranged all this so that so many souls he loves dearly would not just perish but suffer? Wouldn't that mean that he really doesn't love the soul as much as he loves his own plan? Redleg, tell me where the logic is in this? The portrait of the spirit world given to us by Newton is *superior* than that given to us in the bible, by every logical reasoning, because everything falls into place so much better. I'm sure that's a hard thing for you and any devout Christian to consider. It was hard for me. But if we are indeed called to be strong in our honesty, which I believe we are regardless of whether the biblical or Newton model is correct, then it's something no honest man or woman can shirk from, even if its from fear of eternal damnation. Why? Because fear is NEVER a valid reason for faith. If it were, then converting to Islam when a knife is put to your throat would be acceptable. Even the bible calls us children, but what do children do? They GROW UP. And under Newton's model, that's what we are doing. Is that not more beautiful than the one life/one chance/no need to grow presentation given in the bible? As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, Newton's model does not mean supernatural events cannot occur, such as those cited in the bible. To the contrary, we as souls will develop supernatural powers (powers natural to the soul) as we develop and grow stronger, according to Newton. There are people with various strengths walking the earth today just as long ago, though generally, anyone walking the the earth is pretty dang weak or we wouldn't be here. Thank you! I do appreciate your taking the time to converse and consider my views. I am enjoying this challenging discussion.
You may be interested in the professed experiences of organ transplant recipients in this lengthy article featuring numerous examples. http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html Organ Transplants and Cellular Memories According to this study of patients who have received transplanted organs, particularly hearts, it is not uncommon for memories, behaviours, preferences and habits associated with the donor to be transferred to the recipient. Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 12, Number 3 (April - May 2005) If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black…it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white. INTRODUCTION It is generally assumed that learning involves primarily the nervous system and secondarily the immune system. Hence, patients receiving peripheral organ transplants should not experience personality changes that parallel the personalities of donors they have never met. When personality changes have been observed following transplants, the kinds of explanations entertained include effects of the immunosuppressant drugs, psychosocial stress, and pre-existing psychopathology of the recipients. 1,2,3 However, living systems theory explicitly posits that all living cells possess "memory" and "decider" functional subsystems within them.4 Moreover, the recent integration of systems theory with the concept of energy (termed dynamical energy systems theory) provides compelling logic that leads to the prediction that all dynamical systems store information and energy to various degrees.5,6,7 The systemic memory mechanism provides a plausible explanation for the evolution of emergent (novel) systemic properties through recurrent feedback interactions (i.e., the nonlinear circulation of information and energy that reflects the ongoing interactions of the components in a complex, dynamic network). Recurrent feedback loops exist in all atomic, molecular and cellular systems. Hence, evidence for atomic systemic memory, molecular systemic memory and cellular systemic memory should be found in these systems. The systemic memory mechanism has been applied to a variety of controversial and seemingly anomalous observations in complementary and alternative medicine, including homoeopathy.8 It also makes new predictions. One prediction is that sensitive recipients of transplanted organs can experience aspects of the donor's personal history stored in the transplanted tissues. In 1997, a book titled A Change of Heart was published that described the apparent personality changes experienced by Claire Sylvia.9 Sylvia received a heart and lung transplant at Yale–New Haven Hospital in 1988. She reported noticing that various attitudes, habits and tastes changed following her surgery. She had inexplicable cravings for foods she had previously disliked. For example, though she was a health-conscious dancer and choreographer, upon leaving the hospital she had an uncontrollable urge to go to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and order chicken nuggets, a food she never ate. Sylvia found herself drawn toward cool colours and no longer dressed in the bright reds and oranges she used to prefer. She began behaving in an aggressive and impetuous manner that was uncharacteristic of her but turned out to be similar to the personality of her donor. Interestingly, uneaten Kentucky Fried Chicken nuggets were found in the jacket of the young man (her donor) when he was killed. [...]
#69. To: nolu chan (#61)
Cravings could be explained by nutritional needs. It could be that the foreign cells had slightly different nutritional dependencies, and those dependencies caused the woman to seek the same foods as those cells were already adopted to. I suppose that could be considered "cellular memory" of sorts. But pregnant women have cravings due to a new, foreign DNA based cells growing in them. Certainly cellular memory wouldn't apply but differing nutritional needs of the fetus would. Of course, getting a transplant like that would certainly screw up one's physiology. I imagine she had far more change in her life than her choice of foods. Doubtless her brain would change too, if not because of the new body parts in her, but the immune suppression drugs she'd need to be taking after the surgery to prevent organ rejection.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
ping
#21. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Don, liberator, out damned spot (#20)
#22. To: redleghunter (#21)
Did you obtain your understanding of the life between life from personal hypnosis or a trained Newton hypnosis?
How different are Newton's beliefs and methods to those practiced by Hollywood actress Shirley MacLaine?
I read some of Newton's website. Frankly it is nothing new from the New Age era of the 70s and 80s. What he has done was marry the beliefs of human reincarnation, New Age mysticism and use hypnosis as a method to access past experiences.
I also offer a concern of hypnosis. People voluntarily submit to hypnosis to stop smoking, lose weight etc. In such cases a person is willingly allowing someone to alter their behavior or thoughts whether it be to not pick up a pack of smokes or not eat that donut at midnight. Aren't you concerned someone you don't know is "getting inside" your head and has you in a vulnerable suggestive state?
Also, what evidence can you provide the canonical scriptures are not the Word of God. You used "cannot be" which is an assertion and not based on evidence.
#27. To: Pinguinite (#22)
#36. To: redleghunter (#27)
Newton in his videos and books states people attain the past and present soul world via hypnosis by Newton himself or a trained hypnotist. Am I to conclude you believe his beliefs and others based on testimony of others and not your own experiences?
#41. To: Pinguinite, liberator, A K A Stone (#36)
First, according to his books, Newton's "beliefs" stem from the things his clients have told him while under hypnosis. His first 2 books are written as "case studies" in which he has transcripts of discussions he's had with his clients while they are hypnotised. His approach is very scientific and that's one of the things I really like about him. His books are not simply musings about life that came to him while meditating on a mountaintop or whatever.
#47. To: redleghunter (#41)
Might I add that you are giving Newton and his case studies the benefit of the doubt where you and many others hold the testimony of Jesus Christ and His apostles to a much higher if not unreasonable standard?
For example most atheists and agnostics throw out the historical evidence for Christ because Christians are doing most of the writing. However Roman historians are taken at face value without flinching. Jesus Christ needs contemporaneous historical accounts about Him but Caesar, Homer, and Plato do not according to the relativistic standards of atheists today. They trust the copying of Julius Caesar's Gaulic Wars from 1st Century fragments in the 10th century by Catholic monks in a monastery, but not the Christian manuscripts of Matthew and 7 other separate authors. Everything we know of the early Caesars is lost to papyrus decaying. In fact the earliest and most copied manuscripts from the 1st century are from NT scriptures.
So do you see the double standard? Newton comes no where close to the truth claims of Christianity. He or one of his therapists sits in a room with one person at a time. Newton collects the information, controls access to the data and concludes all the experiences are similar if not identical, and done with the aid of hypnosis. If Christians claimed such one on one experiences they would be laughed out of a room. Jesus did miracles in public in front of hundreds and in some cases thousands. Even doing miracles some rejected Him because they did not like what He had to say. They did not want to submit to The Son of God who came not only in the flesh, in the word but with power. Jesus Christ confirmed His truth claims with the Power of God.
That is why people today deny the historicity of Scriptures. Because if they admit they are historical, they can't deny the attested to truth claims. And therefore will have to admit they are rejecting the Son of God as did those who denied Him no matter how many miracles they witnessed.
So frankly Newton does not come close to validating his truth claims. Infomercial type testimonials may be convincing enough for Pharaohs magicians who could match some of Moses' miracles but not all of them. When Newton or any of those under his hypnosis can feed 5,000 with a few fish and a loaf of bread, calm a raging sea with a command, raise a man dead for four days to vibrant life (no walking dead zombie there) and after dying rise from the dead three days later the same person in a glorified body...let me know.
Your posts show me you are a seeker of truth with a kind heart. The very same type of heart Jesus plucked up to follow Him on earth.
#61. To: Pinguinite (#47)
by Paul Pearsall, PhD
Gary E. Schwartz, PhD
Linda G. Russek, PhD
— William James, MD
Replies to Comment # 61. You may be interested in the professed experiences of organ transplant recipients in this lengthy article featuring numerous examples.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 61.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]