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.

[Goose]

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.
...

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

In your narrative of John he is not real, he was merely a vision. Wouldn't that be a reason to dismiss it?

[Jagella]

In your narrative of John he is not real, he was merely a vision. Wouldn't that be a reason to dismiss it?

So you're saying that if a person isn't "real," then any cult based on that person should be dismissed as superstition. The problem is that we don't know if either John Frum or Jesus were real people. In fact, the evidence is much stronger for John Frum being a real person than it is for Jesus being a real person. At least in the case of John Frum we have the people who saw visions of him (or they were living recently).

Hence, the logical conclusion to come to based on what you ask is that Christianity should be dismissed as a superstition.

[Goose]

So you're saying that if a person isn't "real," then any cult based on that person should be dismissed as superstition.

Yep, pretty much.

The problem is that we don't know if either John Frum or Jesus were real people.

Who is we? Maybe you have a problem discerning whether John Frum and Jesus were real people but scholars dont. No scholar argues for a real John Frum and only a small handful of fringe scholars would try to argue for a mythical Jesus. Virtually all scholars, even many of the critical ones, agree there was a real historical Jesus.

In fact, the evidence is much stronger for John Frum being a real person than it is for Jesus being a real person.

Then there should be a boat load of scholars who argue for a historical John Frum. Where are they?

At least in the case of John Frum we have the people who saw visions of him (or they were living recently).

And when it was investigated it was found to be some crafty deception by a guy named Manehevi.

The John Frum Movement " The First John Frum

Hence, the logical conclusion to come to based on what you ask is that Christianity should be dismissed as a superstition.

Youve got alot of work to do here to first prove Jesus wasnt historical before you can make that jump. Good luck with that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

...
Virtually all scholars, even many of the critical ones, agree there was a real historical Jesus.
...

Whether this'n or that agrees to an unproven assertion is as goofy an idea as me declaring myself handsome, 'cause a bunch of ugly chicks think I am, only don't it beat all, a thimbleful of pretty chicks think them big ol' ugly chicks have it right.

Fact is not consensus.

Fact is, I'm handsome 'cause I look like me, Brad Pitt's dog.

...
Youve got alot of work to do here to first prove Jesus wasnt historical
...

You might well destroy your opponent's argument right then and there, when you show the man even existed.

Or, you'll just keep fussin' 'bout how it is, some other folks agree with you your position, while not offering you any reason why they should.

The concept?

Sure.

The resurectin'?

Well how 'bout that, them ugly chicks're right!

Edit for a ki there, that wasn't it s'posed to be LP
Nother edit for extraneous letters.

[Jagella]

The problem is that we don't know if either John Frum or Jesus were real people.

Who is we?

We = everybody. We all have the same scant evidence for Jesus. That we have such a dearth of evidence was the point of the OP. The same weak evidence for John Frum we have for Jesus. In both cases a religious movement grew up over people and events that were interpreted as supernatural. In both cases the people making the supernatural claims as well as the natural claims were primitive and superstitious. Since we know that no American soldier was a god with miraculous powers, we can say the same thing for any person living in first-century Israel.

But more than anything else, we can see in the case of the John-Frum cult that their savior, John Frum, only ever existed in their visions. I see no reason why Jesus must be anything more than a vision as well.

Maybe you have a problem discerning whether John Frum and Jesus were real people but scholars dont. No scholar argues for a real John Frum and only a small handful of fringe scholars would try to argue for a mythical Jesus. Virtually all scholars, even many of the critical ones, agree there was a real historical Jesus.

You're making at least two mistakes in your logic here. You are appealing to authority, and you're appealing to the majority. Authorities can be wrong and so can the majority. It's important to examine the evidence offered by scholars to see if it really supports the claim that Jesus was historical. What evidence do they offer that convinces you that Jesus was a real person?

I have checked the evidence and the reasoning that many Bible scholars offer for Jesus. I've read books written by Rice Brookes, Maurice Casey, and Bart Ehrman. The evidence they offer is much the same as the evidence we have for John Frum. In both cases all we have is the word of religious followers.

...there should be a boat load of scholars who argue for a historical John Frum. Where are they?

Actually, there's no reason to believe that there must be a "boat load" of scholars for any historical person. I'm historical, but as far as I know no scholars make a case for my historicity. You are correct that there are many scholars who study the New Testament, but few if any of them are truly qualified to tell us whether or not there was a historical Jesus. They are what might be called "liberal-Christian apologists." Their job is to make a case for liberal Christian doctrine and not to tell us what the "true history" of the Bible is.

At least in the case of John Frum we have the people who saw visions of him (or they were living recently).

And when it was investigated it was found to be some crafty deception by a guy named Manehevi.

That's very interesting. If anybody was involved in deception regarding John Frum, then that's evidence that the first Christians may have been lying as well!

So thank you very much for helping me to make my case.

[Goose]

We = everybody. We all have the same scant evidence for Jesus.

And yet virtually every scholar holds to the historicity of Jesus. Imagine that.

The same weak evidence for John Frum we have for Jesus.

But the evidence cant be the same. If it were wed have scholars holding to a historical John Frum.

But more than anything else, we can see in the case of the John-Frum cult that their savior, John Frum, only ever existed in their visions.

Right. Its known John Frum never actually existed. Hence we have a reason to dismiss the cult as superstition.

I see no reason why Jesus must be anything more than a vision as well.

What you personally can or cannot see is irrelevant here. Your personal incredulity over the existence of a historical Jesus is hardly enough to overturn the immense weight of the vast majority of modern scholarship.

You're making at least two mistakes in your logic here.

Ive made no logical errors. If I have go ahead and name the fallacy.

You are appealing to authority,

Thats not a logical error. Its a valid form of argumentation. You do it every time you take the advice of your family Doctor or car mechanic

and you're appealing to the majority.

Lets be clear, Im appealing to the majority of experts. Thats valid as well. This is not an argumentum ad populum. These scholars are experts for good reason. And when almost all the experts hold to a particular position we have good reason to think that position is probably the right one.

Authorities can be wrong and so can the majority.

Of course they can. But its not enough to point that out as though that brute fact alone is enough to overturn the majority position of scholars. Any time someone wishes to challenge the majority position of the experts, that person needs to bring some heavy weight argumentation and evidence to the table if they wish to be taken seriously. Time to get busy.

It's important to examine the evidence offered by scholars to see if it really supports the claim that Jesus was historical.

Sure its always important to examine evidence. So go ahead and show me why all those scholars who hold to a historical Jesus are wrong in their evaluation of the evidence. What do you know that they dont?

What evidence do they offer that convinces you that Jesus was a real person?

Many evidences. One I find particularly compelling is from Tacitus. He was one of the most reliable historians of the era and hostile towards Christians. Yet he confirms Jesus existed and was killed under Pontius Pilate.

Do we have something like that for John Frum? Do you have any modern reliable historians who are antagonistic toward the John Frum cult arguing he was indeed real?

I have checked the evidence and the reasoning that many Bible scholars offer for Jesus. I've read books written by Rice Brookes, Maurice Casey, and Bart Ehrman. The evidence they offer is much the same as the evidence we have for John Frum. In both cases all we have is the word of religious followers.

And yet despite your assertion that the evidence is much the same theres not a single scholar who holds to a historical John Frum. Yet sceptical scholars, like Ehrman, hold to a historical Jesus.

Actually, there's no reason to believe that there must be a "boat load" of scholars for any historical person.

Actually there is. But okay how about just one scholar then. Just one scholar who holds to a historical John Frum. Cant find one?

You are correct that there are many scholars who study the New Testament, but few if any of them are truly qualified to tell us whether or not there was a historical Jesus.

You dont think a PhD in a relevant field is a true qualification? What on earth then do you think makes one truly qualified? Do tell.

They are what might be called "liberal-Christian apologists."

Ehrman, as one example, is hardly a "liberal-Christian apologist.

If anybody was involved in deception regarding John Frum, then that's evidence that the first Christians may have been lying as well!

What kind of crazy logic is that? Thats one big fat non-sequitur. John Frums truth or falsehood has no bearing on the truth of Christianity.

So thank you very much for helping me to make my case.

In order to make your case you need to prove Jesus wasnt real. Youve got a lot of work to do. Time to get busy.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

And yet virtually every scholar holds to the historicity of Jesus.

If everybody, scholars and all, thought mice were men, would them mice suddenly become 'em?

There's not the first scholar that can show Jesus existed. This is fact, whether you believe it or not.

Imagine that.
...
...

It never fails to amuse me when a Christian uses such a term.

The fact remains, Jesus can't be shown to have existed, unless it is, we set to imagine he did.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 8 by JoeyKnothead]

Of mice and men and the possibility of a nonfictional Jesus ...

That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny. https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus ... -hold.html

The very best that can be offered are one and a half references to the Jesus character 60 years after his magical Ascension ...

As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

Only enough to establish that a Jesus character was known ...

NOT enough to establish that the Jesus character was non-fictional ...

In a culture that believed in gods breeding with human virgins and magical Ascensions.

However ...

If you want to change the minds of doubters, you can triumphantly slap on the table:

Its relatively simple to make the case for the historicity of Jesus. Firstly, its what the vast majority of scholars of the ancient world believe https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blo ... their-mind

Without dwelling on the word "believe" ....

And there is NOTHING offered for a Frumian Jesus who will return to this planet at any moment with your much-deserved, cargo-cult-mentality rewards and fire and hail mixed with blood for everyone else.

[Jagella]

And yet virtually every scholar holds to the historicity of Jesus. Imagine that.

All evolutionary biologists hold to the "reality" of biological evolution, but I'd never be so stupid as to argue their majority as a reason to think that evolution takes place! I look at the evidence for evolution like fossils, DNA, and the geographical distribution of species. The same goes for anybody who claims Jesus is historical--I want to see convincing evidence. If that evidence is absent--and it is--then I remain a doubter.

By the way, I think it's very possible that a "Jesus" existed. There's very little evidence for him, but it's possible he existed.

But the evidence cant be the same. If it were wed have scholars holding to a historical John Frum.

Actually, some people do study the Cult of John Frum. But studying the sect built around the figure of John Frum doesn't make him real, and studying Christianity doesn't make Jesus real.

But more than anything else, we can see in the case of the John-Frum cult that their savior, John Frum, only ever existed in their visions.

Right. Its known John Frum never actually existed. Hence we have a reason to dismiss the cult as superstition.

I must take back what I said. It depends on what you mean by "John Frum." The John Frum that the natives of Tanna saw in visions was obviously illusory, but there could have been a real American soldier who later became identified as John Frum.

The same goes for Jesus. There may have been one or more "Jesuses" who engaged in a tradition of rebellion against the Romans getting themselves crucified. The primitive and superstitious people of first-century Israel--just like the primitive and superstitious people of mid-twentieth-century Tanna--built up a religious cult around these Jewish rebels just like the people of Tanna built up their religion around the American soldiers that visited their island.

The similarities between the two religions are striking indeed!

Your personal incredulity over the existence of a historical Jesus is hardly enough to overturn the immense weight of the vast majority of modern scholarship.

Yes, we've heard all about the "vast scholarship," (ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence for a historical Jesus.

You are appealing to authority,

Thats not a logical error. Its a valid form of argumentation. You do it every time you take the advice of your family Doctor or car mechanic

I have often disagreed with both my doctors and my mechanics. I was right every time, in fact. The reason I was right was because I used reason and evidence to conclude that they were wrong.

So that's why your argument from authority is fallacious. Authority counts for little if evidence is lacking.

These scholars are experts for good reason. And when almost all the experts hold to a particular position we have good reason to think that position is probably the right one.

I don't doubt that Bible scholars are experts in Biblical studies. They can tell you a lot about the Bible. But they're not historians--or at least they're not good historians. So their expertise doesn't qualify them to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus.

Any time someone wishes to challenge the majority position of the experts, that person needs to bring some heavy weight argumentation and evidence to the table if they wish to be taken seriously. Time to get busy.

I don't agree with your logic. Just because somebody doesn't have a good argument and evidence against a position doesn't make that position right.

But there are good arguments and evidence against the historicity of Jesus. Richard Carrier has plenty of them.

So go ahead and show me why all those scholars who hold to a historical Jesus are wrong in their evaluation of the evidence. What do you know that they dont?

I know that the gospel tale reads like fiction with all its outlandish claims, but I'm not sure that Bible scholars don't know that too. I don't see how they could miss it!

One I find particularly compelling is from Tacitus. He was one of the most reliable historians of the era and hostile towards Christians. Yet he confirms Jesus existed and was killed under Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, and we don't know his sources for Jesus. Since we don't know where he got his information, then his testimony is of little value as evidence for Jesus. He may have been just repeating what Christians were saying.

Do we have something like that for John Frum? Do you have any modern reliable historians who are antagonistic toward the John Frum cult arguing he was indeed real?

We have the testimony of the natives of Tanna who we know were in fact contemporaries of John Frum if he existed.

Yet sceptical scholars, like Ehrman, hold to a historical Jesus.

Ehrman uses the word of the followers of Jesus to "prove" Jesus' historicity. It's the exact same evidence we have for John Frum only the testimony for Frum is far better than that for Jesus!

Actually there is. But okay how about just one scholar then. Just one scholar who holds to a historical John Frum. Cant find one?

But I already explained that I don't go by a laundry list of scholars to assess historicity. But here's an online article by Paul Raffaele who writes for Smithsonian Magazine, In John They Trust.

Scholars are a dime-a-dozen.

You dont think a PhD in a relevant field is a true qualification? What on earth then do you think makes one truly qualified? Do tell.

LOL--it depends on what the doctorate has been awarded in. But again, I'm not looking for PhDs--I'm looking for evidence, and you don't have any.

If anybody was involved in deception regarding John Frum, then that's evidence that the first Christians may have been lying as well!

What kind of crazy logic is that? Thats one big fat non-sequitur. John Frums truth or falsehood has no bearing on the truth of Christianity.

People lie about religion all the time. The Christians in this forum are proof of that. So if somebody lied about John Frum, then somebody could have lied about Jesus. The gospel writers, in particular, could have easily been lying.

In order to make your case you need to prove Jesus wasnt real. Youve got a lot of work to do. Time to get busy.

It's not my position that Jesus wasn't real. I'd give him a fifty percent chance of being historical.

Anyway, it seems like religion often blinds people to the facts. Jesus is seen as a savior who will take his followers to heaven, and as such he must be real if anybody wants to get to heaven. John Frum's followers probably won't give up in him either.