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]

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 –

And of course both are strawman arguments.

I think we've all figured out that...

Have you figured out yet how to respond to my post 41 and historia’s post 46 where we address your post in which you pretty much, with a single broad stroke, tossed virtually the entirety of scholarship in the trash as “worthless�? I suggest that you consider responding to these rebuttal posts before chiming in with a congratulatory post containing a strawman-knock-down extravaganza.

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.)

Tacitus is actual evidence. And it is strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus is widely considered to be generally reliable as a historian. He is relatively close in temporal proximity. He had access to Roman records. He was hostile towards Christianity. That you simply assert it is “NO good� or that it has “obvious problems� means nothing.

[StuartJ]

Tacitus is actual evidence. And it is strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus is widely considered to be generally reliable as a historian. He is relatively close in temporal proximity. He had access to Roman records. He was hostile towards Christianity.

Goose

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

The ancient sources were written 60 years and more after the Ascension and the Assumption and other such events.

The best the ancient sources can do is indicate that there was a cult following of a possibly fictional character.

As historia has noted, the best that can be done is "highly likely" for any historical character ...

(But the "highly likely" for Jesus is far, far less than for, say, Herod the Great and Augustus Caesar, for example.)

Which still leaves the door open for "not at all".

"Highly likely" is feet of clay on which to build the religion of Jesus ... or John Frum.

Especially given the complete absence of evidence for the extra-terrestrial and magical elements of John Frum ... or Jesus.

[Jagella]

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.

But Goose, don't you find it odd that somebody you presumably don't know and never met seems to think he knows what you're thinking? I hope nobody here believes they are mind readers because they may think they can read the minds of Bible scholars--and that's how they know Bible scholars truly believe Jesus was historical.

This is a debate. Evidence and logic rule the day. Let's keep the personal stuff out of it.

Absolutely! That's why I objected to Historia claiming he knows what you think. When people start assuming what other people believe, then we're not properly addressing the issues.

[Jubal]

Sure, Tacitus is evidence.

Evidence for what Christians believed in early second century - many decades after the alleged events.

But not historical evidence for Jesus.

The very fact that when asked for evidence all we hear is late non-evidence like Tacitus (and Pliny and Suetonius) & dubious evidence like Josephus, starkly highlights the problem - there is NO contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.

Just religious documents handed down from unknown sources.

Jubal

[Jagella]

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?

Actually naively believing anything any document says is irrational. You know that to be true because you don't believe what the Book of Mormon says. You think Joseph Smith made it up, and so do I. In the same way we would need to scrutinize the Jesus Scroll to try to tell if its author was lying or not.

And I thought it would be obvious, but it looks like I need to spell out what would be so convincing about the Jesus Scroll: it is probably the truth. The Greek trader who wrote it had no stake in the existence of Jesus. He wasn't a Christian so he had no Christian bias and no reason to try to get people to believe in Jesus. He was just documenting somebody he thought was an interesting preacher who lived a life that seemed notable enough to commit to writing.

The documents that make up the New Testament, unlike the Jesus scroll, are tainted by Christian bias. The New Testament writers needed to recruit followers, and therefore they had a strong motivation to stretch the truth if need be. Dishonesty on their part is of course very plausible because we know that Christians today often lie to promote their faith.

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.

You sure love that consensus! But no, obviously the date of the Jesus scroll would not be decided by a vote of Bible scholars. The date would be determined by scientists using credible dating methods.

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?

Of course it matters whether or not the Greek trader was being honest about what he was writing, but at the very least we have a mention of Jesus. That's obviously better than nothing.

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?

In addition to what I said above, the New Testament is religious propaganda. It makes no effort to hide its intention to get people to believe what it says without good reason or evidence. It offers rewards for belief and threatens punishment for unbelief.

In other words, it's much like the Koran--a book you don't accept as true and for good reason. If you apply the same kind of logical skepticism to the New Testament as we both do to the Koran, then you will be as logically consistent as I am and see both works as not likely to be true.

...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.

Again, I am remiss for not spelling out what I thought would be obvious: the Jesus Scroll is far more credible than anything attributed to Tacitus because the Jesus Scroll was written during the time Jesus is believed to have lived, around 30 CE. So if Jesus existed, the Greek trader was right there at that time to see him firsthand! Tacitus, by contrast, was not a contemporary of Jesus and needed to rely on sources that may have been tainted by Christian belief and propaganda.

And one more thing about the Jesus Scroll; unlike any of the other documents we may have regarding Jesus which are "copies of copies of copies...," the Jesus scroll is the original document. Since it's the original document, it has not suffered the degradation that is almost inevitable when documents are copied. As such, it is exactly what its author wrote and not what a scribe may have written.

So Goose, go find a Jesus Scroll, and you'll shut up us doubters.

[Jagella]

Sure, Tacitus is evidence.

Evidence for what Christians believed in early second century - many decades after the alleged events.

But not historical evidence for Jesus.

Since we don't know what sources Tacitus was using to judge Christ and Christianity, we cannot know whether or not what he was saying was just a repetition of what Christians believed. The testimony of Tacitus is then not what we can be sure was independent evidence for Jesus.

The same goes for almost anything written about Jesus by Jews or pagans. The Christian sect and its beliefs were probably becoming fairly well-known by the second century or even earlier. So Christ was becoming known by Christian and non-Christian alike but not necessarily as a historical person. People may have simply assumed he lived because he was being preached by Christians. So the original source for the Jesus Tacitus and others wrote about could easily have been Christian belief rather than a historical Jesus.

[StuartJ]

One of the comforting things about being a Christian, or a Frumian, or a person of any faith system at all ...

Is that "faith" enables you to evade the admission that it's you that's got it wrong ....

[Jagella]

Is that "faith" enables you to evade the admission that it's you that's got it wrong ....

Well, Stuart, for most Christians being wrong about the historicity of Christ means no heaven. With no Christ, there is no salvation from death and the eternal grave. I think that's the whole basis for these very poor arguments and why they stubbornly persist despite the almost total lack of good evidence for Jesus. From the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

This creed is the actual basis for real-Jesus apologetics.

[Goose]

Sure, Tacitus is evidence.

Evidence for what Christians believed in early second century - many decades after the alleged events.

What do you mean “Evidence for what Christians believed in early second century�? Are you arguing here that Tacitus’ source was Christians?

But not historical evidence for Jesus.

Why not? Please explain. What about when Tacitus mentions Pilate or Tiberius? Is Tacitus also not historical evidence for them?

The very fact that when asked for evidence all we hear is late non-evidence like Tacitus...

What are you saying here regarding Tacitus being “late�? Are you saying he’s not evidence because he writes 80-90 years after?

[Goose]

Actually naively believing anything any document says is irrational.

Another strawman. No one is suggesting anyone naively believe anything any document says. The point that was made was that the mere objection that it’s possible the source “might by lying� isn’t a valid argument to dismiss a source since it leads to absurdities where we are forced to dismiss all sources since it’s possible any source might be lying.

You know that to be true because you don't believe what the Book of Mormon says.

I reject Mormonism on theological grounds. I happen to believe Joseph Smith existed.

You think Joseph Smith made it up, and so do I.

I don’t think he made all of it up.

In the same way we would need to scrutinize the Jesus Scroll to try to tell if its author was lying or not.

The same way any ancient document is scrutinized. The same way the New Testament documents are scrutinized by scholars. It’s known generally as literary criticism. It’s a way of evaluating ancient texts and it has an established methodology.

[Tacitus] had no stake in the existence of Jesus. He wasn't a Christian so he had no Christian bias and no reason to try to get people to believe in Jesus. [Tacitus] was just documenting...

Most of what you just said about your Greek trader can be said of Tacitus (I substituted his name for the Greek trader in your quote). Thus we have something just as strong if not stronger than your imaginary Greek trader with Tacitus. With Tacitus we have a hostile source not simply an anonymous neutral source like your Greek trader that just happened to mention Jesus. You see? Tacitus is stronger than your imaginary Greek trader by virtue of being hostile. If a biased follower of Jesus (the Gospels, Paul, etc) is on the lowest end of the reliability scale, then a hostile source (Tacitus) is on the highest end. And a neutral source (your imaginary Greek trader) is somewhere in the middle. Thus, by your own reasoning, Tacitus establishes the probable truth of Jesus’ existence.

The documents that make up the New Testament, unlike the Jesus scroll, are tainted by Christian bias. The New Testament writers needed to recruit followers, and therefore they had a strong motivation to stretch the truth if need be. Dishonesty on their part is of course very plausible because we know that Christians today often lie to promote their faith.

It doesn’t follow from bias that an author outright invented Jesus. Virtually every author from antiquity had some kind of bias one way or the other. It doesn’t follow that they all just made things up wholesale because they were biased.

You sure love that consensus!

I have a healthy respect for it. You, Jubal, et al seem to have quite the disdain for it. So without appealing to a consensus of scholarship on dating go ahead and narrow down a date for say the Gospel of Mark. Because there are scholars who have argued for a date of around the mid 50’s.

But no, obviously the date of the Jesus scroll would not be decided by a vote of Bible scholars.

Another strawman. No one said it is decided by a vote of scholars. I’ve never encountered so many strawman arguments from an opponent. I can’t help wonder if you are even reading what is being written to you.

The date would be determined by scientists using credible dating methods.

�Scientists using credible dating methods� is an appeal to the consensus! Oops. Do you have any idea how scholars date ancient documents?

Of course it matters whether or not the Greek trader was being honest about what he was writing, but at the very least we have a mention of Jesus. That's obviously better than nothing.

How is a mention that might be a dishonest mention better than nothing? I mean if it’s possible your Greek trader was just lying and making it all up, why is that better than nothing? Why does that count as evidence but the documents in the New Testament do not?

In addition to what I said above, the New Testament is religious propaganda. It makes no effort to hide its intention to get people to believe what it says without good reason or evidence. It offers rewards for belief and threatens punishment for unbelief.

But you argued that even a dishonest mention is still at least a mention. In fact you just finished arguing a dishonest mention is better than nothing. So what does it matter if the source is biased? It’s still at least a mention using your own reasoning.

In other words, it's much like the Koran--a book you don't accept as true and for good reason.

I reject Islam for theological reasons. I accept the historicity of Mohammed.

If you apply the same kind of logical skepticism to the New Testament as we both do to the Koran, then you will be as logically consistent as I am and see both works as not likely to be true.

But I accept the historicity of Mohammed. Don’t tell me you doubt Mohammed’s existence too?

Again, I am remiss for not spelling out what I thought would be obvious: the Jesus Scroll is far more credible than anything attributed to Tacitus because the Jesus Scroll was written during the time Jesus is believed to have lived, around 30 CE.

You do realize this “Jesus scroll� is hypothetical right? You aren’t seriously suggesting a document you’ve conjured up in your imagination is far more credible than an actual historical document are you?

So if Jesus existed, the Greek trader was right there at that time to see him firsthand!

Wait a minute. How do you know the anonymous Greek trader was a witness to Jesus? It wouldn’t be just because the document internally claimed to have seen Jesus by any chance is it? What happened to not “naively believing anything any document says�? How would you prove the Greek trader really was a witness?

Tacitus, by contrast, was not a contemporary of Jesus and needed to rely on sources that may have been tainted by Christian belief and propaganda.

I’ve already demolished this argument that Tacitus would have used Christians as his source. You ignored those arguments entirely.

And one more thing about the Jesus Scroll; unlike any of the other documents we may have regarding Jesus which are "copies of copies of copies...," the Jesus scroll is the original document. Since it's the original document, it has not suffered the degradation that is almost inevitable when documents are copied. As such, it is exactly what its author wrote and not what a scribe may have written.

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.

So Goose, go find a Jesus Scroll, and you'll shut up us doubters.

I don’t want you to shut up. I want you to keep presenting these mythicist type arguments so I can show utterly irrational they are.

Now let’s review some of the demands you have made. You want a document that:

• 1. Was written by an eyewitness to the person it reports on.
  2. Was at least a neutral source (so it can’t be a Roman reporting about a Roman for example. It has to be, say, a Jew reporting on a Roman).
  3. Is free of any bias.
  4. Was composed during the life of the person it reports on.
  5. Is the original autograph.

Can you name even a single historical person from the first century that has evidence like that? Do you have any idea how many people from antiquity you would have to “doubt� as having existed if you expected the evidence to meet that criteria? Your demands lead to absurdities.