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]

I'm afraid the same can not be said for mythicism, which is promoted exclusively by atheist advocates like Richard Carrier. If there is a claim that can be made to bias here, surely the homogeneity of the mythicists is the more glaring example. Although, to be fair, there are simply too few to draw any conclusions.

I think it's safe to say that almost all mythicists are atheists. Many real-Jesus apologists interpret this phenomenon as an atheistic agenda to destroy Christianity. So real-Jesus apologists in many cases are conspiracy theorists.

And who was it that posted that mythicism is a "conspiracy theory"?

But there is another way to interpret the phenomenon of the bulk of mythicists being atheists. Atheists, obviously, generally have no need for a historical Jesus. It should then come as no surprise that they either don't insist that Jesus was historical or even argue against Jesus' historicity. Christians, on the other hand, almost universally need a historical Jesus who can get them to heaven. In their case, it should come as no surprise that they will argue energetically for a real Christ.

So to argue that mythicism results from bias or that it is based on an agenda is very hypocritical. As if Christians are not biased or don't have an agenda of their own!

[Goose]

Obviously, demanding proof for the reality of John Frum or the unreality of Jesus sets the bar way too high for anybody to make their case.

What makes you say that? The bar for the existence of John Frum has been set at the same height as Jesus. Get the majority of scholars who study the John Frum cult to argue for a historical Frum and I will consider his existence essentially proven.

It appears that a bulwark has been raised to make sure Christian faith is secured.

Not at all. But I agree the Christian faith is secure.

So I agree that we are "done here."

Good.

I think that discovering good evidence for Jesus is an exciting possibility. Maybe some day a scroll dated to 30 CE might be found near Jerusalem written by a Greek trader doing business in Israel. He might describe Jesus carrying out his ministry and getting crucified by Pilate. Such evidence would essentially disprove mythicism.

Historians don’t work like this. They don’t sit around wishing they had X for evidence. They work with the evidence they do have.

More importantly I would like you to think critically about what you just wrote here in relation to other things you have written in this thread because you aren’t being consistent. In post 31 you stated your uncertainty about Jesus’ existence due the ambiguousness of the evidence which comes to us in the form only documents. You argued, “The evidence for Jesus is completely in the form of documents, and documents will stand as still for lies as they will for truths."

Now you are telling me one scroll (documentary evidence) would essentially disprove mythicism. What?

Let’s imagine we did discover this scroll. What would prevent mythicists from simply objecting that this anonymous Greek trader is worthless as evidence because we don’t know his sources; that this trader may have just received his information from Christians wondering around Palestine? The same kind of mythicist argument you made in regards to Tacitus in post 10 where you argued, “Since we don't know where [Tacitus] got his information, then his testimony is of little value as evidence for Jesus. He may have been just repeating what Christians were saying.�

Further, Tacitus is better than some anonymous Greek trader wondering around Palestine. Tacitus was a professional historian who is widely considered to be generally reliable. He also had access to Roman records. Add to this Tacitus represents a hostile source so there can be no claim to bias. He’s a source that confirms what you have suggested would essentially disprove mythicism – that Jesus existed and was put to death under Pilate.

So I don’t see how you can say your hypothetical scroll written by a Greek trader would be “good evidence� that “would essentially disprove mythicism� and yet turn around basically dismiss Tacitus as “little value.� Don’t you see how your (or the mythicist) reasoning is so terribly flawed?

And if such evidence for Jesus is ever discovered, I have no doubt that Bible scholars and Christian apologists will jump on it. They will quickly dispense with their current arguments seeing them as "irrelevant." If you were to ask them about their consensus-of-scholars argument, then I think they would answer: "Are you crazy? Why bother with such nonsense when we have the 'Jesus scroll?'"

Nah. It would just be another nail in the coffin that guys like Carrier would have to work so very hard to dismiss. Besides, I think Tacitus is stronger than your hypothetical “Jesus scroll� anyway.

[Goose]

Let me be clearer then. There was no American soldier named John Frum in the region at the time. He doesn’t exist and never did.

Perhaps he went by another name and that has been lost in translation?

But in that case, if some person went under another name then it follows that, whoever he was, he wasn’t John Frum. So who was he? Do tell.

You can't just ignore: "In some versions of the story, a native man named Manehivi, using the alias "John Frum", began appearing among the native people of Tanna"

I haven’t ignored it. In fact in one of my posts I mentioned Manehevi. It was discovered that he used deception and masqueraded under the name John Frum. Once again, in this case it follows there was no historical John Frum.

"Others contend that John Frum was a kava-induced spirit vision. Said to be a manifestation of Keraperamun"

If followers of John Frum claim he was a “spirit vision� then it logically follows they are not claiming he as an actual historical person.

By the way, you know what “kava-induced� means, right?

Therefore, why would you expect to see a John Frum in American service records?

Because he is claimed to be an American soldier serving in the region during WWII. It follows that if he were we expect there to be American military service records supporting his existence in the region at the time.

Why do you get to insist that this spirit vision or native man would have American service records?

I wouldn’t insist that a spirit vision would have American service records. What on earth gave you the idea I would? But I would expect there to be service records for an American GI serving in the region. I get to expect that for Frum because it logically follows.

"In 1941, followers of John Frum rid themselves of their money in a frenzy of spending, left the missionary churches, schools, villages and plantations, and moved inland to participate in traditional feasts, dances and rituals."
Why would they do this?

I don’t know for sure but I think may have been to distance themselves from Christian influence and re-establish their old traditions?

They even have a "John Frum Day" in Vanuatu.

Granted. And?

Are you saying that all the believers are liars?

Nope.

I know he didn’t exist. So do the scholars who study the cult. If he had existed there would be American military service records supporting his existence. There aren’t.

False, you only claim to know that a service man named John Frum didn't exist.

I also claim that not a single scholar/historian who has studied the cult has argued there was an actual historical person John Frum.

You don't know that a spirit vision or a native man behind the religion didn't exist.

But if anything other than a real historical John Frum is behind the religion then it logically, and inescapably, follows there was no real historical John Frum behind the religion. A spirit vision isn’t an historical John Frum. A native man masquerading under the alias “John Frum� isn’t an historical John Frum. In both cases there was no historical John Frum. In both cases he doesn’t actually exist. Do you see how that works logically?

Seriously, are all the believers liars?

Nope.

We even have believers being publicly humiliated for this religion. Why would they do that for a lie?

What do you mean by “publicly humiliated�? And who is doing the humiliating?

And besides, the people you are referring to weren’t in a position to know the truth. They weren’t direct witnesses to Frum. They are no different than modern day Jihadists or Christians in this respect.

Could any of your answers possibly explain how a Jesus, Mohammed etc... myth could evolve over time?

I don’t see how they do. But go ahead and show me how you go from the questions you’ve asked above regarding John Frum to Jesus being a myth.

[Jagella]

More importantly I would like you to think critically about what you just wrote here in relation to other things you have written in this thread because you aren’t being consistent. In post 31 you stated your uncertainty about Jesus’ existence due the ambiguousness of the evidence which comes to us in the form only documents. You argued, “The evidence for Jesus is completely in the form of documents, and documents will stand as still for lies as they will for truths."

Now you are telling me one scroll (documentary evidence) would essentially disprove mythicism. What?

Let’s imagine we did discover this scroll. What would prevent mythicists from simply objecting that this anonymous Greek trader is worthless as evidence because we don’t know his sources; that this trader may have just received his information from Christians wondering around Palestine? The same kind of mythicist argument you made in regards to Tacitus in post 10 where you argued, “Since we don't know where [Tacitus] got his information, then his testimony is of little value as evidence for Jesus. He may have been just repeating what Christians were saying.�

By gosh, Goose, this is some of your best reasoning yet. Thanks for an astute critique of my position.

Like you quoted me as saying, documents will stand as still for lies as they will for truths. So you are right: my hypothetical trader might be lying. If he lied about Jesus being a real preacher living in Israel in 30 CE, then we still have no credible information about a real Jesus. However, in my hypothetical scenario the Greek trader could not lie about the place his scroll would be discovered and the time his scroll was dated to. So at the very least we know that somebody--honestly or dishonestly--in 30 CE near Jerusalem mentioned a Jesus very similar to the gospel Jesus.

A fundamental difference between this "Jesus scroll" and the documents we already have is that this document makes claims that are very prosaic as compared to the outlandish claims in New Testament. The gospels, for example, describe Jesus as a divine or semi-divine being who descended to the earth from the sky, performed magic, rose from his grave, and then ascended back to his home in the sky. The Jesus scroll, by contrast, describes a Jesus who can only do things we know people can do.

So that's why I find the Jesus scroll very believable. Yes, any document can have lies written upon it, but the document itself along with its location and time of its origin cannot be fabricated. Moreover, the nature of its claims can indicate very strongly whether or not it documents truth or lies.

[historia]

So I'm sorry if my skepticism troubles you.

You keep making comments like this, Jagella, as if you think Goose and I are somehow angry or disappointed in you. I can assure you that that is not the case. We're simply pointing out flaws in your argument, as one does on a debate forum. There is no need to get personal or emotional here.

...Carrier realizes, rightly, that the task he and anyone else who disagrees with a particular scholarly consensus must undertake is to publish convincing arguments that ultimately change the consensus.

Why not come up with arguments and evidence that get at the truth? You seem to argue that our goal should be to make our ideas popular and impressive. I'm not sure how doing so can lead to the progress of human knowledge.

I'm afraid this simply misunderstands the nature of scholarship.

Surely, the point of any historical research is to come up with arguments and evidence that get at the truth. But historians sometimes make mistakes. So scholars have devised a process by which they subject their arguments and evidence to peer-review. That process weeds out mistakes and weaker arguments, while refining and promoting stronger arguments and evidence. Over time, the strongest arguments convince other experts in the field, thus leading to a consensus.

Seeking approval among the "consensus" won't get us far in discovering new truths. Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein would never have changed our way of looking at the world if they only concerned themselves with tickling the ears of the powers that be.

Again, this is simply mistaken. The consensus doesn't involve gaining "approval" or "tickling the ears of the powers that be."

Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein's works were all subjected to peer-review, and, in doing so, ultimately changed the consensus in their respective fields. That is how scholarship works, and how human knowledge progresses.

Now, to once again state the obvious, lest we fall back into more straw man arguments: No one is claiming that the consensus, in and of itself, "proves" a position is true. The point, rather, is that the burden lies with those who disagree with the consensus, not those who accept it.

My position is that agreeing with a consensus of presumed experts is possibly sensible assuming it's all you have to go on. However, if you have good reason to believe the consensus is wrong, then the sensible thing to do is to go with reason rather than popularity.

So where am I going wrong here?

For starters, the fact that you continue to misconstrue the consensus of experts as being about "popularity" suggests you don't have a good grasp of the issue.

Discounting it only when it proves inconvenient to a pet theory is the usual move of science deniers and conspiracy theorists.

LOL--so now you are equating real-Jesus apologetics with science.

Huh? No, I'm pointing out that discounting the consensus only when it conflicts with a pet theory is a tactic employed by science deniers and conspiracy theorists. All of us would be wise to avoid such dubious tactics.

The reason why Goose, myself, and even mythicist authors themselves readily accept that there is a consensus that Jesus existed is because there have been thousands of papers published on this topic over the past 50 years and you can count on one hand the number of peer-reviewed works that have argued Jesus likely didn't exist.

It's not enough to claim that "thousands of papers published on this topic over the past 50 years" constitutes evidence that a majority of Bible scholars do in fact believe that Jesus is historical.

Right, it's evidence that a majority of scholars who have actually researched and published on the issue have concluded that Jesus was an historical figure.

Since those are the historians and scholars we actually care about -- as opposed to biblical scholars who study only the Old Testament, say -- this is the relevant evidence we should consider.

But if it makes you feel any better, I do believe that most Bible scholars agree that Jesus existed.

Then what was the point of denying this obvious fact earlier in the thread?

While it's certainly true that the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is available to both experts and amateurs alike, amateurs such as yourself -- and everyone else in this thread -- lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the evidence.

So we're too stupid and/or ignorant to sensibly judge whether or not Jesus existed. If that's the case, then you need to tell all those "village Christians" that they cannot really conclude that Jesus did exist. They're not qualified!

In other words, you are being very biased. You conclude that the average Joe mythicist "lack(s) the necessary background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the evidence" while you don't make this same remark about the average person who does believe in a historical Jesus.

This is, of course, a straw man argument. My position is that all amateurs -- Christian, atheist, or otherwise -- lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to fully and properly assess the evidence. This is why we depend on experts.

My criticism on this point is not directed at mythicists, per se, but anyone who would deny this fact.

By insisting that a person needs to be an expert to assess the evidence for Jesus' historicity, you are unwittingly admitting that the evidence is far from clear!

No, because I would make the same point regardless of the issue or who is arguing it. Fundamentalists who are equally convinced they have good reasons for rejecting the consensus of biologists regarding evolution, for example, are on the same shaky ground, and bear the same burden of proof for the same reasons.

I don't mean to be overly critical here, Jagella, but your own analysis of the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is, at best, superficial...

OK, so it is your obviously biased Christian apologetic opinion that my analysis of the evidence for Jesus is "superficial."

On the contrary, my argument doesn't depend on any belief in the truth of Christianity at all. In fact, each point that I've made here is also made by Richard Carrier, as you can readily see from the quotations above.

This is a straight-forward argument about the nature of scholarship and expertise, why those are the most reliable mechanisms we possess for seeking the truth, and why the burden of proof always lies with those who reject the consensus.

[historia]

I'm afraid the same can not be said for mythicism, which is promoted exclusively by atheist advocates like Richard Carrier. If there is a claim that can be made to bias here, surely the homogeneity of the mythicists is the more glaring example. Although, to be fair, there are simply too few to draw any conclusions.

I think it's safe to say that almost all mythicists are atheists. Many real-Jesus apologists interpret this phenomenon as an atheistic agenda to destroy Christianity. So real-Jesus apologists in many cases are conspiracy theorists.

Since no one here has made any such claim, I think we can safely set this straw man argument aside.

And who was it that posted that mythicism is a "conspiracy theory"?

Nobody. Again, another straw man argument. My earlier comment was about avoiding the dubious tactics employed by conspiracy theorists.

But there is another way to interpret the phenomenon of the bulk of mythicists being atheists. Atheists, obviously, generally have no need for a historical Jesus. It should then come as no surprise that they either don't insist that Jesus was historical or even argue against Jesus' historicity. Christians, on the other hand, almost universally need a historical Jesus who can get them to heaven. In their case, it should come as no surprise that they will argue energetically for a real Christ.

Sure. But the point here, of course, is that many atheist, agnostic, and Jewish scholars also conclude that Jesus was an historical person, so this is clearly not a position simply born out of Christian bias.

So to argue that mythicism results from bias or that it is based on an agenda is very hypocritical. As if Christians are not biased or don't have an agenda of their own!

Except nobody has made that argument. The point that I'm making in the above quote is that Jubal's argument -- his argument, not mine! -- could be applied equally to mythicists, thus undermining the very point he was trying to make.

I thought that was reasonably clear. But maybe I should take greater care to spell out each point more fully for you, Jagella, as you seem intent on reading arguments into my comments that are simply not there.

[Jagella]

So I'm sorry if my skepticism troubles you.

You keep making comments like this, Jagella, as if you think Goose and I are somehow angry or disappointed in you. I can assure you that that is not the case.

This comment is very strange. How do you know what Goose is thinking? Did he send you a private message in which he told you he is not angry or disappointed with my skepticism?

Incidentally, I have encountered plenty of hostility from real-Jesus apologists for merely avowing that I am unsure about the existence of Jesus. On another (Christian) board I started a thread about mythicism. A real-Jesus apologist there who went so far as to post pictures of his diploma to prove he has the requisite education in Biblical studies started to abuse me calling me a "troll" and a "clown." He urged the other members there not to debate me. I put up with the abuse for a while, but then I started fighting back. I was then banned from the board.

So I do hope that isn't the mentality of the "consensus" of Bible scholars. I also hope that you agree with me that if we are forced to rely on people's word, then we should judge those people's characters for credibility. So far I cannot say I'm impressed with the honesty of Bible scholars.

We're simply pointing out flaws in your argument, as one does on a debate forum.

Well, I just wish you could come up with some good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. If you claim he existed, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate he existed. I'm merely a skeptic who is unsure of the existence of Jesus. So any flaws you think you see in what I'm saying is irrelevant to your case. Whining about skepticism won't help you one bit in proving the existence of Jesus.

Surely, the point of any historical research is to come up with arguments and evidence that get at the truth. But historians sometimes make mistakes. So scholars have devised a process by which they subject their arguments and evidence to peer-review. That process weeds out mistakes and weaker arguments, while refining and promoting stronger arguments and evidence. Over time, the strongest arguments convince other experts in the field, thus leading to a consensus.

OK, so am I supposed to believe that the existence of Jesus has been established this way? You mention evidence. That's great. I want to see convincing evidence for the existence of Jesus. Talking about peer review and "refining and promoting stronger arguments and evidence" isn't evidence.

Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein's works were all subjected to peer-review, and, in doing so, ultimately changed the consensus in their respective fields.

WRONG! Scientists come up with hypotheses that are to be tested. If the hypotheses survive testing, then they are established as theories. So the discoveries of Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein were not established through peer review but through testing. So again, science is not advanced by seeking the approval of the "consensus" but through testing. Authority--at least ideally--has no place in science.

Sadly, the basis for the historicity of Jesus was never established this way. It was established by seeking reasons to uphold the Christian belief that Jesus came to the earth. This process is not scientific, and it is not objective historicity. It is a liberal-Christian apologetic.

But even here I'm probably being way too generous. Very few scholars have ever even bothered to try to establish the existence of Jesus. His existence is for the most part assumed. In the words of Bart Ehrman:

Of course there was a Jesus--everybody knows there was a Jesus!

No one is claiming that the consensus, in and of itself, "proves" a position is true. The point, rather, is that the burden lies with those who disagree with the consensus, not those who accept it.

Sorry, but I want that consensus to prove its case. If it doesn't, then I probably won't agree with it.

...the fact that you continue to misconstrue the consensus of experts as being about "popularity" suggests you don't have a good grasp of the issue.

Oh--so now you're calling me an ignoramus. Argument weak--attack doubter! If you can't convince somebody you're right, then just tell that person that they're not smart enough to grasp your truth.

...I'm pointing out that discounting the consensus only when it conflicts with a pet theory is a tactic employed by science deniers and conspiracy theorists.

What "pet theory" are you referring to? I see you equate any doubt of the existence of Jesus as a conspiracy. Do you believe that doubting the existence of Bigfoot is a conspiracy?

And as far as "science deniers" are concerned, they have every right to doubt any scientific theory they wish. People all have brains, and I urge them to use those brains.

But if it makes you feel any better, I do believe that most Bible scholars agree that Jesus existed.

Then what was the point of denying this obvious fact earlier in the thread?

I never denied that most Bible scholars believe in a historical Jesus--I just questioned it. In other words, I'm not going to quickly swallow a claim without evidence. I was criticizing the sloppy logic and lack of evidence in your arguments.

My position is that all amateurs -- Christian, atheist, or otherwise -- lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to fully and properly assess the evidence. This is why we depend on experts.

Well, don't leave us all in suspense; what expertise is needed to tell if Jesus really existed? What skills am I lacking to decide whether or not Jesus existed?

My criticism on this point is not directed at mythicists, per se, but anyone who would deny this fact.

Then please reply to all of Goose's and Tart's posts telling them that they don't know what they're talking about when they post their reasons to believe that Jesus existed.

Fundamentalists who are equally convinced they have good reasons for rejecting the consensus of biologists regarding evolution, for example, are on the same shaky ground, and bear the same burden of proof for the same reasons.

Well, if biologists had no evidence for evolution aside from their "consensus," then I'd be a "fundamentalist" too! But contrary to what you're saying here, biologists do take up the burden of proof for their theories. They have solid evidence for biological evolution, and they are eager to present it. They often educate the general public regarding evolutionary theory, and they are confident that the layperson is well able not only to see the evidence for evolution but to understand why that evidence supports Darwin's theory. As far as I know, very few evolutionary biologists tell anybody to "believe" in evolution because most biologists do!

So real-Jesus apologetics is nothing like the Theory of Evolution. The very fact that such apologists demand that people believe them without evidence is a good reason to conclude that they don't have any evidence.

...the burden of proof always lies with those who reject the consensus.

Why don't you want the burden of proof? Is it too much of a burden to bear?

To end this post, I'd like to present what is probably the true basis for the historicity of Jesus. It comes from the Ecumenical version of the Apostles' Creed, and it states in part:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven...

The Apostles' Creed is a statement of Christian faith, obviously. It asserts that Christians must believe that Jesus came to the earth and acted on it. Isn't it a strange coincidence that a historical analysis of Jesus on the part of Bible scholars would presumably back up much of this doctrinal statement of faith?

[Goose]

Like you quoted me as saying, documents will stand as still for lies as they will for truths. So you are right: my hypothetical trader might be lying. If he lied about Jesus being a real preacher living in Israel in 30 CE, then we still have no credible information about a real Jesus.

Now you are contradicting yourself by using a mythicist type counter argument though. See how easily the mythicist just waves aside evidence that you said was “good evidence�? They just say things like what you’ve written here where the source in question “might be lying." Voila! The mythicist has swept “good evidence� under the rug along with obliterating virtually all of ancient history because, well, it’s possible that any source might be lying. Therefore there is no good evidence for anyone from antiquity regardless of how close that source may have been to the character in question. Can’t you see how irrational these desperate arguments are?

However, in my hypothetical scenario the Greek trader could not lie about the place his scroll would be discovered and the time his scroll was dated to.

That’s assuming we have a consensus on the scroll being authentic and dated to somewhere around 30 AD.

So at the very least we know that somebody--honestly or dishonestly--in 30 CE near Jerusalem mentioned a Jesus very similar to the gospel Jesus.

So let me get this straight. It doesn’t matter to you that this hypothetical scroll may have been a dishonest mention of Jesus? That even if it were, it would still count as a mention of Jesus in your books? That seems awfully charitable. I’m wondering then, why you don’t accept the New Testament documents as at least mentions of Jesus if you would accept a possibly dishonest scroll’s mention as at least a mention?

A fundamental difference between this "Jesus scroll" and the documents we already have is that this document makes claims that are very prosaic as compared to the outlandish claims in New Testament. The gospels, for example, describe Jesus as a divine or semi-divine being who descended to the earth from the sky, performed magic, rose from his grave, and then ascended back to his home in the sky. The Jesus scroll, by contrast, describes a Jesus who can only do things we know people can do.

But we already have a very mundane mention of Jesus with Tacitus. You just keep ignoring those arguments. No need to hope for some imaginary “Jesus scroll� in this regard.

So that's why I find the Jesus scroll very believable.

Tacitus meets the burden of proof you demand.

[Goose]

So I'm sorry if my skepticism troubles you.

You keep making comments like this, Jagella, as if you think Goose and I are somehow angry or disappointed in you. I can assure you that that is not the case.

This comment is very strange. How do you know what Goose is thinking? Did he send you a private message in which he told you he is not angry or disappointed with my skepticism?

To set the record straight here. No, I have not sent historia a private message about you. And yes, historia is quite correct that I'm not angry or disappointed in you. This is a debate. Evidence and logic rule the day. Let's keep the personal stuff out of it.

[Jubal]

What "pet theory" are you referring to? I see you equate any doubt of the existence of Jesus as a conspiracy. Do you believe that doubting the existence of Bigfoot is a conspiracy?

Good work Jagella,
you've well exposed the emptiness of apologetic arguments for the alleged historical Jesus.

Which amount to :

• so many people believe Jesus existed that it must be true,
• anyone who disagrees is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Of course both are utterly false -

Jesus mythicism has nothing to do with a conspiracy at all - neither Dr Carrier nor Earl Doherty nor the Prices have ever claimed there was a conspiracy at the core of the Jesus myth.

Falsely attempting to smear your opponents as 'conspiracy theorists' shows you have no argument. Yes - weak argument : then bash your opponents.
I think we've all figured out that nowadays the insult of 'conspiracy theorist' is simply aimed at anyone who dares to disagree with the official story. (Remember when those who doubted WMDs in Iraq were smeared as conspiracy theorists ?)

And no many how many times you ask for actual evidence, all we hear is endless repeats of the above - but NO good evidence (we should all know the obvious problems with Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius etc.)

Instead we just hear endless repeats of the same mantra - Jesus must be real because so many people believe he was.

The same argument that proves John Frum existed.
Or Krishna, Buddha, Zeus, Osiris, Aphrodite...
Worthless.

Jubal