Where did Christianity come Frum?

[Jagella]

(No, that's not a typo in the title of this thread.)

Consider the mysterious and fascinating sect that's become known as the "Cult of John Frum." This sect originated on an island in the Pacific during World War II. The island had become "invaded" by American soldiers who were based there as they advanced west against the Japanese. The Americans brought with them much that seemed magical to the natives such as food that didn't appear to the natives to be gathered or grown. They had planes and trucks and bulldozers as well as as strange things that made strange sounds (phonographs and radios). And unlike some of the white men who had previously visited the island (the British and the French), the Americans soldiers treated the natives well.

So one day the Americans left the island. Suddenly all the marvels they brought with them were gone much of it dumped into the sea. But their memory was not forgotten as the natives began to "worship America." They fashioned effigies of the American planes, sang patriotic American songs as best they could remember them, and marched with wooden "rifles" as the American soldiers had done.

But perhaps the most fascinating belief of this sect involved some of the visions some of them started to have. Some of the natives started seeing a mysterious man at night on the beach. He looked like an American soldier, and he uttered prophecies that some day the Americans will return.

This man become known as "John Frum," and he is evidently based on a soldier named John who was from America.

Anyway, the story of the John-Frum sect demonstrates how religions like Christianity can originate. No real gods or miracles are needed. All you need are superstitious and primitive people who are quick to look for gods whom they hope will save them. Yes, the Cult of John Frum is based on real places, things, people, and events. However, these places, things, people, and events are embellished with magical properties by the people who may have witnessed them. I see no reason at all why Christianity need be any different from this sect in these ways.

Question for Debate: Why dismiss the Cult of John Frum as superstition while insisting that Christianity is "the truth"?

John 14:3:

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.

[Jagella]

Can you demonstrate that "citing the consensus of qualified experts on this topic meets that initial burden of proof"?

Sure. Careful readers of the thread will recall that I already cited Richard Carrier in support of this assertion...

That's interesting. So you accept Carrier's word on the "consensus" of scholars meeting the initial burden of proof. To be consistent you should go all the way and accept his word that Jesus probably didn't exist.

...scholars of rhetoric have long noted that the person looking to overturn the status quo bears the burden of proof.

It appears that my position is a bit different from that of Battersby and Jasinski. As I see it, whenever a claim is made, anybody making that claim has the burden of proof whether they are in the majority or not. So in the case of mythicism, both mythicists and real-Jesus apologists have the burden of proof. A falsehood is not made true regardless of how many people think it's true.

Critical to the historian's task is having sufficient background knowledge of the historical, cultural, political, and religious context for the evidence you are examining.

Assuming you are denying I have this background, how can you justify making this assertion about a person you have little knowledge of?

You would need to couple that with advanced skills in: (1) the relevant ancient languages, including Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin; (2) textual analysis, including textual criticism and paleography, and finally (3) historical analysis that has been honed under the guidance of other experts, as Carrier helpfully noted in the quote from...

Understood, but how does any of that help a person know whether or not Jesus existed? You have yet to make a case for how anybody can tell if Jesus existed or not. It appears to me that the best anyone can do is make a case for or against historicity that they hope most people will agree with. Hence "the consensus."

By the way, I have read at least two books espousing a real Jesus. They are scholars you seem to agree with on that issue. The first is Maurice Casey, and the other is Bart Ehrman. Casey's "case" is that since Jesus spoke Aramaic, and there are bits of Aramaic in the gospels, then we can see a real Jesus being quoted! Ehrman argues that we can be "virtually certain" Jesus existed because the New Testament says so. Paul, in particular, knew James, Jesus' brother.

And if that's the kind of "scholarship" that convinces you that Jesus existed, then it is an understatement to say that I am skeptical that scholars are really qualified to tell us that Jesus existed. They look like con artists to me.

[Goose]

John Frum is just a name that has been used for the demigod behind the religion. You need to seek the god, not John Frum.

No I don’t. I’ve been very clear from the beginning. The reason I can dismiss the John Frum cult as superstition is because there is no historical John Frum.

"John Frum religion didn't come out of nowhere, and we have believers willing to testify and even suffer for their beliefs."

Modern day Frum followers don’t suffer for their beliefs. And we’ve already established that when followers in the past were persecuted and relocated by Europeans the cult died out in the relocated areas.

And I then argue that the John Frum followers wouldn't knowingly be persecuted or give up their money for a lie.

Irrelevant. They weren’t witnesses to an historical John Frum. Witnesses, Clownboat. Witnesses.

Acts 9:9 New International Version
For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

Think what you want, but he was dehydrated in a desert climate to boot. (According to the story)

The account doesn’t say he was dehydrated. You made that bit up.

Oh and while we are on this. You do understand that in the Jewish context of how they counted days, three days doesn’t mean three 24 hour periods, right? How many days do the Gospels say Jesus was dead, Clownboat? That’s right, three days. The Gospels say Jesus died Friday around sunset and rose early in the morning on Sunday, the third day. But that’s only about 36 hours give or take, not 72. So your reading of Acts 9:9 is built off an anachronism. It doesn’t necessarily mean what you want it to mean.

I get that and have no hopes of you seeing the argument here.

You didn’t make an argument, Clownbaot. End of story. Stop trying to make it sound like you did.

Now you are misrepresenting them. Some followers Goose... Some...

Some, yes. The ones who have the spirit vision of John Frum. They have to take kava to induce the experience.

Another striking similarity! Amazing how rituals form no!

Striking similarity that rituals form? Rituals forming isn’t a phenomena exclusive to religions, Clownboat. Ever been to a professional sporting event? What is the one ritual most of them do only moments before they officially begin? Hint: it involves standing for about 2 minutes and a little singing.

Just like it is possible that it formed just like all other religions out there formed. Frum included.

Nah. Virtually every scholar, from the critical ones to the devout Christian ones, holds that Christianity formed around an actual historical person Jesus. Not a single historian/scholar who has studied the John Frum cult has argued that there was an actual historical person John Frum.

I point to the believers and make comparisons to other religions.

Oh yes, we are very familiar with your “comparisons.� Like the one where you pointed out there is a John Frum day and then pointed out there is an Easter and Christmas for Christianity. And then you were like, “Coincidence?�

That one like totally blew my mind, man.

There was no John Frum. On that we agree.

Good.

Now nothing. My point has been made.

Oh, so all that to make the point that stuff’s like totally possible?

First off, I'm not arguing.

You don’t say. But wait, you just said above you hope I see your argument. You said, “I get that and have no hopes of you seeing the argument here.� Now you’re saying you aren’t arguing. How can I see your argument if you aren’t arguing anything?

I'm making comparisons and noting how religions form.

Oh, well if that's all you are doing then carry on. Don't let me get in the way.

Acknowledge this and you will understand better where I'm coming from.

Okay I acknowledge you are trying to compare stuff. Like John Frum day, Easter, ritual formation, and other superficial stuff like that. I also acknowledge you have noted how the John Frum cult has formed.

Now go ahead and acknowledge for me that you are in fact trying to argue:

1. John Frum
2. Therefore, Jesus.

Do people get persecuted for false beliefs?

Not if the people being persecuted know they are false beliefs.

Perhaps they aren't.
Tell me, if Christianity was persecuted from existence, would it make the religion false?

No, but you missed my point. When someone who claims X retracts that claim (or otherwise abandons pursuit of claim X, etc) when faced with persecution we have good reason to think the claim X may not be true. Conversely, when someone claims X and holds to claim X despite facing persecution over the claim X we have reason to think claim X may be true. This is justified intuitionally. Intuition tells us sane people don’t usually hold to what they know to be a lie when faced with persecution, threat of death, etc.

[Goose]

Actually, it looks like Tacitus did accept a historical Christ.

Okay good. We can put that one to bed finally.

If we don't know his source, then we don't know if that source was accurate.

Okay so it just boils down to Tacitus’ source.

It is true that Tacitus does not directly reveal his source here at 15.44. But that’s not unusual for Tacitus or other reputable historians from antiquity. Although Tacitus (and other ancient historians) does reveal his sources at times, he doesn’t reveal them at all times. So the question becomes what do we know about Tacitus’ sources and how did he use them?

Throughout the Annals Tacitus mentions various sources. He mentions the works of other historians (Annals 1.81), the Emperors speeches (1.81), Imperial letters (5.2,3), the urban gazette (13.31), a bronze inscription still visible in his day (11.14), other authors (12.67) , memoirs/reports of Corbulo (15.16), research others have done (15.41), physical evidence (15.42), Nero’s public edicts and collection of writings (15.73).

Tacitus consulted other historians and official publications.

“I fail to discover, either in the historians or in the government journals...� – Annals 3.3

These government journals were something like an official daily newspaper which began, like the acta senatus, from around the time of Julius Caesar. It’s cited again by Tacitus in Annals 16.22

Tacitus also had access to and researched official records.

�I find in the records of the senate that Anicius Cerialis, consul designate, gave it as his opinion that a temple should be built to Nero the Divine, as early as possible and out of public funds.� – Annals 15.74

Remember the passage about Jesus in relation to Nero and the fire in Rome comes just before this in 15.44.

When Tacitus is reporting what was a rumour he goes out of his way to make sure the reader knows.

�While these topics and the like were under discussion, the malady of Augustus began to take a graver turn; and some suspected foul play on the part of his wife. For a rumour had gone the round that, a few months earlier, the emperor, confiding in a chosen few, and attended only by Fabius Maximus, had sailed for Planasia on a visit to Agrippa.� – Annals 1.5

Tacitus reports Pliny’s statement but is careful to do so with the caveat that it seems “absurd.�

�This is the statement of Pliny. For my own part, whatever his assertion may be worth, I was not inclined to suppress it, absurd as it may seem that either Antonia should have staked her name and safety on an empty expectation, or Piso, notoriously devoted to his wife, should have pledged himself to another marriage — unless, indeed, the lust of power burns more fiercely than all emotions combined.� – 15:53

If Tacitus is reluctant to give credence to what Pliny reports, what on earth makes you think Tacitus would take the word of Christians? Surely their claims would have seemed absurd to Tacitus as well don’t you think?

Good historical work always involves citing one's sources if one has not had direct contact with the people and places reported on. So Tacitus is not doing good historical work here.

Good historical work is researching and sifting through sources. Citing sources is a modern convention. Ancient historians were under no obligation to follow this modern expectation. This is an unreasonable standard to expect of ancient historians. All one need do is read the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius and other historians of the period and it becomes self evident that they did not always cite their sources for every given point. If we were to erect a standard that ancient historians who do not always cite their sources at every given point are not good historians we would have no good ancient historians. Once again we would be in the absurd position of throwing out most of what we know about antiquity with this kind of criterion.

Also, it's easy to see how Tacitus might have been been more explicit here--and we have yet more problems then. Contrary to what you claim, Tacitus never mentioned a Jesus in this passage--but only a "Christus."

It’s inferred from the context “...called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin...� If that’s not Jesus the Christ, then who is it?

And this only helps solidify Tacitus’ source was not merely the word of Christians living in his time. Christian tradition does not refer to Jesus as Christus. Surely Christians in Tacitus’ time would not refer to Jesus in this manner.

Aside from the crucifixion under Pilate, he says nothing about the life of Christ--when he lived,

�... during the reign of Tiberius...�

where he lived,

That’s implied by “...at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...� and “...again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil...�

or how he lived.

There’s no reason to expect this kind of detailed information from Tacitus and every reason not to. Jesus is an incidental mention as part of the greater story Tacitus was reporting regarding Nero, Christians, and the fire in Rome. No reason to go into great detail here about some trouble making Jew that started the cult which Nero tried to blame for the fire. In fact, it’s quite probable that Tacitus knew very little about Jesus other than what was in Roman records. That’s what makes Tacitus such a strong piece of evidence.

He doesn't say why Christ was crucified either.

Why would we expect him to? It’s irrelevant to the context of the greater story Tacitus is reporting.

Now on the other hand, imagine if Tacitus had praised Jesus and gone into great detail about his history, teachings, ministry, miracles, etc. Well I’m quite sure the sceptics would take that as evidence this was an interpolation by Christians or that Tacitus was a secret Christian and therefore biased.

It seems likely to me that as Christianity gained prominence, many people besides Christians became familiar with Christian beliefs. They may have heard the gospel accepting Jesus as a real man but not as the expected Messiah. So non-Christian belief in Christ may have been rooted in Christian evangelism. Tacitus may well have been one of these people who heard the gospel proclaimed and believed some of that gospel including the existence of "Christus." If so, the Tacitus' mention of Christ is not independent evidence for the historicity of Christ and gets us nowhere beyond what Christians were saying.

You are back to trying to argue that Tacitus would have taken the word of Christians. A group of people “hated for their abominations� who Tacitus thought was a “most mischievous superstition,� a “source of evil,� and to be lumped in a pile with “all things hideous and shameful.�

Look, you clearly do not believe the word of Christians and Christians sources and yet you try to argue that’s what Tacitus would have done.

Finally, if you're going to accept the word of Tacitus involving a real Christ, then to be consistent you need to accept that Christianity was a "sinister belief," it was hated for its "abominations," and was a "mischievous superstition."

I’m under no obligation to accept his cynical views about Christianity. The irony of course is that you want to argue that despite Tacitus’ obvious distrust and disdain for Christians he would risk his reputation as an historian and just take the word of these “most mischievous� people.

[Goose]

That’s quite the scroll when we consider that of all the thousands of documents written in the first century, as far as I’m aware, not a single original autograph has come down to us.

That's essentially correct, but we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are "the originals," of course.

Let's be a little more precise here.

The Dead Sea Scrolls mostly consist of manuscript copies of the Hebrew Bible, which are decidedly not "the originals" of those texts.

There is also some unique sectarian literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Damascus Document and several pesharim (commentaries), including 1QpHab, 1QpMic, 4QpPs(a), 4QpPs(b), and 4Q172, mention the Teacher of Righteousness, which we'll come back to presently.

Only small fragments of the Damascus Document were found at Qumran, however. Most of the text as we know it today comes from two 11th and 12th century manuscripts that were found in Cairo prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only these later Medieval manuscripts contain the references to the Teacher of Righteousness. Clearly these are not "the originals."

Likewise, the pesharim show clear signs of being copies, as they contain a number of obvious scribal errors, including omissions through homoioteleuton and parablepsis, repetition through dittography, as well as a change in handwriting in at least one case. Clearly these are not "the originals" either.

Can you name even a single historical person from the first century that has evidence like that?

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls mention a "teacher of righteousness."

They do. The Damascus Document even gives a rough date for when the Teacher became the leader of the community, which is about 175-150 BC (which, incidentally, puts him outside of the time frame set by Goose above, but let's press on).

However, the extant Qumran manuscripts that mention the Teacher have all been dated from about 50 BC to 50 AD, well after the Teacher would have died, so we don't have contemporaneous copies. Moreover, the texts themselves appear to have been written after the Teacher died, as they refer to him as a figure of the past, while the Damascus Document even calculates a timetable for the coming of the Messiah based on the date of his death.

For all of the above, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, "The Legacy of the Teacher of Righteousness" in New Perspectives on Old Texts (2015), pgs. 26-45.

Nobody knows for sure who the "teacher of righteousness" was. It's entirely possible that he was made up, but he probably was a real person.

So let's review the evidence you offered to support this conclusion in the light of the criteria summarized above (see post 70):

1. It's, at best, unclear if the relevant Qumran texts were written by eyewitnesses to the Teacher.
2. They are all written by the Teacher's followers, so are not neutral.
3. They are not free from bias, for that same reason.
4. They were not likely written during his life.
5. We almost certainly don't have the original autographs.

Clearly, this evidence fails most, if not all, of the criteria you are looking for in supposedly "good evidence."

Anyway, are you saying I'm being too demanding?

As Goose already mentioned, it's more that your demands are unreasonable. If even the people you think were likely historical can't meet your own criteria for "good evidence", then clearly the criteria themselves are irrational.

It's also more than a little ironic that the historical figure you offered up as having the kind of "good evidence" you're looking for is an unnamed religious leader (known only from his sobriquet) who is cryptically referenced in anonymous, fragmentary documents written by his religious followers after his death.

That guy you think probably existed, but this Jesus fellow on the other hand . . .

I'm bumping this post for you Jag. Just in case you missed it.

[Clownboat]

John Frum is just a name that has been used for the demigod behind the religion. You need to seek the god, not John Frum.

No I don’t. I’ve been very clear from the beginning. The reason I can dismiss the John Frum cult as superstition is because there is no historical John Frum.

Yes you do. In fact, what you are doing is comparable to looking for Allah while you should be seeking Yahweh (or vice a versa).
Obviously this religion didn't spring up out of nowhere. Perhaps you should be seeking Keraperamun and not this fabled John Frum.

"John Frum religion didn't come out of nowhere, and we have believers willing to testify and even suffer for their beliefs."

Modern day Frum followers don’t suffer for their beliefs. And we’ve already established that when followers in the past were persecuted and relocated by Europeans the cult died out in the relocated areas.

Please see the bold and then see how you failed to address what I said.

And I then argue that the John Frum followers wouldn't knowingly be persecuted or give up their money for a lie.

Irrelevant. They weren’t witnesses to an historical John Frum. Witnesses, Clownboat. Witnesses.

I didn't say that they were. That is a straw man. I am arguing that they would not knowingly be persecuted, nor give up their money for a lie.

The account doesn’t say he was dehydrated. You made that bit up.

I in fact did not. It is easily inferred. I even supplied the the evidence from your holy book.

Oh and while we are on this. You do understand that in the Jewish context of how they counted days, three days doesn’t mean three 24 hour periods, right?

Please explain how many hours passed with Paul not eating or drinking and kindly explain how you arrived at your number.

How many days do the Gospels say Jesus was dead, Clownboat? That’s right, three days. The Gospels say Jesus died Friday around sunset and rose early in the morning on Sunday, the third day. But that’s only about 36 hours give or take, not 72.

Neato! Please provide the verses that describe the hour that Paul stopped eating and drinking and the hour he began again.
Say what you want, but anyone spending near 3 days in the desert without water is nearing death.

"In a very hot environment, "an adult can lose between 1 and 1.5 liters [2.1 to 3.2 pints] of sweat an hour, Randall Packer, a biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., wrote for Scientific American. "A child left in a hot car or an athlete exercising hard in hot weather can dehydrate, overheat and die in a period of a few hours."
https://www.livescience.com/32320-how-l ... water.html

So your reading of Acts 9:9 is built off an anachronism. It doesn’t necessarily mean what you want it to mean.

Who knows what is actually meant for much of the Bible. Don't blame me for why your Holy Book cannot be trusted.

You didn’t make an argument, Clownbaot. End of story. Stop trying to make it sound like you did.

I am terribly surprised you have not caught on yet to what I am doing...

Some, yes. The ones who have the spirit vision of John Frum. They have to take kava to induce the experience.

Beats dehydrating to hallucinate, no?
No matter, to hallucinate is to hallucinate.

Another striking similarity! Amazing how rituals form no!

Striking similarity that rituals form? Rituals forming isn’t a phenomena exclusive to religions, Clownboat.

I never said they were, that is another straw man, but I believe we may have stumbled on to how rituals can form for religions.

Just like it is possible that it formed just like all other religions out there formed. Frum included.

Nah. Virtually every scholar, from the critical ones to the devout Christian ones, holds that Christianity formed around an actual historical person Jesus. Not a single historian/scholar who has studied the John Frum cult has argued that there was an actual historical person John Frum.

I have conceded that there was not an actual John Frum from the beginning.
I can accept that the Christian religion formed because of real people. It happened for Islam as well, same with Mormon's and Heavens Gate. I'm open to a real Jesus character of sorts. Even find it likely myself.

I also recognize that religions can form out of nothing other than hallucinations. Yup, Goose, that is all it takes and a religion can form. Perhaps it helps to be believed if the hallucinations are based off of real people? What do you think?

Oh, so all that to make the point that stuff’s like totally possible?

My comparisons show more than just that things are possible.
For example, entire religions can form based on nothing more than hallucinations. Whether they are hallucinating about a real person or not means nothing to me.

I can't believe that you would take the John Frum religion seriously if there was a historical John Frum. You catching my drift yet?

Now go ahead and acknowledge for me that you are in fact trying to argue:

1. John Frum
2. Therefore, Jesus.

Sorry Goose, not my point.
Religions can form based on nothing more than a hallucination. Hallucinating about a person that actually existed probably would help provide credibility. Do you think the John Frum religion would have taken off better if there was an actual John Frum? What if European colonial authorities embraced the John Frum religion. Do you think that might help preserve it?

[Goose]

Yes you do. In fact, what you are doing is comparable to looking for Allah while you should be seeking Yahweh (or vice a versa).

Nope. The question for debate is “Why dismiss the Cult of John Frum as superstition while insisting that Christianity is "the truth?" I’ve answered that question in my first post in this thread. I can dismiss the John Frum cult as superstition because John Frum never existed as a real historical person. Your only options to challenge my reasoning are to either establish that John Frum was a real historical person or show that Jesus never existed. Everything else is irrelevant.

However, since most of your argument seems to hinge on Paul being dehydrated and hallucinating, I will address this part...

Please explain how many hours passed with Paul not eating or drinking and kindly explain how you arrived at your number.

There are a number of points to be made.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Secondly, this three days without food and water that Paul underwent appears to be an intentional fast. This was not unprecedented.

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" - Esther 4:16

Incidentally, in Esther we again see that three days isn't necessarily a full three 24 hour periods.

"On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall." - Esther 5:1

Thirdly, we don’t know the number of hours that may have passed as the text doesn’t say. The point is that “three days� is not necessarily three full 24 hour periods. In Jewish understanding a day begins and ends around sunset. Jews also sometimes count part of day as one “day.�

�In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day� - Jewish Encyclopedia

So in the context of how Jews reckoned time “three days� could mean part of a day (regardless of how little of that day), plus one whole day (a full 24 hour period from sunset to sunset), plus part of day (regardless of how little of that day).

We see this in the accounts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Sir, we remember that when [Jesus] was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day,� – Matthew 27:63-64

Jesus dies sometime between the “ninth hour� (this is around 3 P.M. by our time reckoning) and sunset. This is the first “day� although it is only a partial “day.�

The Sabbath then begins Friday at sunset and continues until Saturday at sunset. This is a full day (a full 24 hour period) and is the second day.

The third day begins at sunset on Saturday. Jesus’ tomb is discovered empty after the Sabbath early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1). This is another partial “day� but nonetheless counts as the third “day.�

Now let’s apply this to Paul. So what this means is that, in theory, Paul may have had his last meal and drink on, say, a Saturday only, say, an hour before sunset and then eaten and drank again, say, an hour after sunset on Sunday and this, in Jewish time reckoning, could be counted as “three days.� Yet in our sense of time reckoning this may have been as little as around, say, 26 hrs give or take an hour or two.

Say what you want, but anyone spending near 3 days in the desert without water is nearing death.

Paul didn’t spend three days in the desert without water. Do you really think Paul and his travelling companions would be stupid enough to do that? Do you think this was the first time Paul had travelled? Paul spent his three days without water at the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight street in Damascus (acts 9:11).

But let’s be a little more precise here. You’ve argued here that Paul was “in the desert.� That’s only partially correct. The climate of Damascus is considered to be a cold desert climate. Damascus’ daily mean temperatures range from, in the coolest month of January, 6.1 degrees C (43 F) to, in the warmest month of July, 27.3 C (81.1 F). The average daily high in the coolest month being 12.6 C (54.7 F). It can get hot in the summer months to be sure with an average daily high of 37 C (98.6 F) in the hottest month of July. I’m not sure that even that is enough to cause severe dehydration. Other than the hottest months Damascus is not that bad really. Heck, they even occasionally get snow.

So unless you have some way of establishing Paul was travelling without water for three full days in the hottest months, on the hottest days, you are very far from making a successful dehydration argument to say the least. And even you could successfully mount such an argument for dehydration you still have to assume that the dehydration was severe enough to cause hallucinations. You have a lot of work to do.

"In a very hot environment, "an adult can lose between 1 and 1.5 liters [2.1 to 3.2 pints] of sweat an hour, Randall Packer, a biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., wrote for Scientific American. "A child left in a hot car or an athlete exercising hard in hot weather can dehydrate, overheat and die in a period of a few hours."
https://www.livescience.com/32320-how-l ... t-water.ht...

Paul wasn’t left in a car and he wasn’t an athlete exercising hard in a very hot environment. He was out of the sun in Judas’ house. Nor was Paul a pasty white tourist from England. He was a local and climatized to the weather conditions.

By the way, guess what your article doesn’t even mention. That’s right, hallucinations caused by dehydration.

So the bottom line here is that Paul was just as likely intentionally fasting for little more than 24 hours during a time of year when the average daily temperature was only as high as 12.6 C (54.7 F). You’re making a number of unsupported assumptions to argue for hallucination from severe dehydration.

[Clownboat]

Yes you do. In fact, what you are doing is comparable to looking for Allah while you should be seeking Yahweh (or vice a versa).

Nope. The question for debate is “Why dismiss the Cult of John Frum as superstition while insisting that Christianity is "the truth?" I’ve answered that question in my first post in this thread. I can dismiss the John Frum cult as superstition because John Frum never existed as a real historical person. Your only options to challenge my reasoning are to either establish that John Frum was a real historical person or show that Jesus never existed. Everything else is irrelevant.

However, since most of your argument seems to hinge on Paul being dehydrated and hallucinating, I will address this part...

Please explain how many hours passed with Paul not eating or drinking and kindly explain how you arrived at your number.

There are a number of points to be made.

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Secondly, this three days without food and water that Paul underwent appears to be an intentional fast. This was not unprecedented.

"Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" - Esther 4:16

Incidentally, in Esther we again see that three days isn't necessarily a full three 24 hour periods.

"On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall." - Esther 5:1

Thirdly, we don’t know the number of hours that may have passed as the text doesn’t say. The point is that “three days� is not necessarily three full 24 hour periods. In Jewish understanding a day begins and ends around sunset. Jews also sometimes count part of day as one “day.�

�In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day� - Jewish Encyclopedia

So in the context of how Jews reckoned time “three days� could mean part of a day (regardless of how little of that day), plus one whole day (a full 24 hour period from sunset to sunset), plus part of day (regardless of how little of that day).

We see this in the accounts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

“Sir, we remember that when [Jesus] was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day,� – Matthew 27:63-64

Jesus dies sometime between the “ninth hour� (this is around 3 P.M. by our time reckoning) and sunset. This is the first “day� although it is only a partial “day.�

The Sabbath then begins Friday at sunset and continues until Saturday at sunset. This is a full day (a full 24 hour period) and is the second day.

The third day begins at sunset on Saturday. Jesus’ tomb is discovered empty after the Sabbath early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1). This is another partial “day� but nonetheless counts as the third “day.�

Now let’s apply this to Paul. So what this means is that, in theory, Paul may have had his last meal and drink on, say, a Saturday only, say, an hour before sunset and then eaten and drank again, say, an hour after sunset on Sunday and this, in Jewish time reckoning, could be counted as “three days.� Yet in our sense of time reckoning this may have been as little as around, say, 26 hrs give or take an hour or two.

Say what you want, but anyone spending near 3 days in the desert without water is nearing death.

Paul didn’t spend three days in the desert without water. Do you really think Paul and his travelling companions would be stupid enough to do that? Do you think this was the first time Paul had travelled? Paul spent his three days without water at the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight street in Damascus (acts 9:11).

But let’s be a little more precise here. You’ve argued here that Paul was “in the desert.� That’s only partially correct. The climate of Damascus is considered to be a cold desert climate. Damascus’ daily mean temperatures range from, in the coolest month of January, 6.1 degrees C (43 F) to, in the warmest month of July, 27.3 C (81.1 F). The average daily high in the coolest month being 12.6 C (54.7 F). It can get hot in the summer months to be sure with an average daily high of 37 C (98.6 F) in the hottest month of July. I’m not sure that even that is enough to cause severe dehydration. Other than the hottest months Damascus is not that bad really. Heck, they even occasionally get snow.

So unless you have some way of establishing Paul was travelling without water for three full days in the hottest months, on the hottest days, you are very far from making a successful dehydration argument to say the least. And even you could successfully mount such an argument for dehydration you still have to assume that the dehydration was severe enough to cause hallucinations. You have a lot of work to do.

"In a very hot environment, "an adult can lose between 1 and 1.5 liters [2.1 to 3.2 pints] of sweat an hour, Randall Packer, a biologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., wrote for Scientific American. "A child left in a hot car or an athlete exercising hard in hot weather can dehydrate, overheat and die in a period of a few hours."
https://www.livescience.com/32320-how-l ... t-water.ht...

Paul wasn’t left in a car and he wasn’t an athlete exercising hard in a very hot environment. He was out of the sun in Judas’ house. Nor was Paul a pasty white tourist from England. He was a local and climatized to the weather conditions.

By the way, guess what your article doesn’t even mention. That’s right, hallucinations caused by dehydration.

So the bottom line here is that Paul was just as likely intentionally fasting for little more than 24 hours during a time of year when the average daily temperature was only as high as 12.6 C (54.7 F). You’re making a number of unsupported assumptions to argue for hallucination from severe dehydration.

So it's possible that Paul didn't hallucinate, and it is possible that the story you read is not completely accurate and Paul did hallucinate (it is religious promotional material afterall).
And so now we ask ourselves what is more likely...

That the rumors spread about John Frum and the rumors spread by Paul about a Jesus actually happened, or there is an actually known mechanism for how rumors like this come about where next thing you know, you have dead people coming back to life. Whether induced via some sort of hallucination or for power gains, or to feel important or what have you.

What we do have is numerous examples of religions being created by men. What we don't have is evidence of a god being behind any of them. This is key. For this reason it is justified to assume all religious faith claims are equally [strike]true[/strike] false until shown otherwise like you are doing with John Frum.

If it makes you feel any better, I would imagine the Jesus myths did come about due to actual people and claims being made about them. (For example, turning water into wine is a known trick). Just like some claim that John Frum religion came about by a manifestation of Keraperamun.

Only a fool says in their heart that there is no Keraperamun.

Obviously I am not actually arguing for a real John Frum, nor am I arguing against a real Jesus, but I am pointing out a valid mechanism for religious claims and I'm seeing some possible similarities. You have been great, thanks.