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 reject Mormonism on theological grounds.

Well, whatever--the point is that you have reasons to doubt the Book of Mormon. You're thinking for yourself just like I think for myself.

By the way, I see you've posted on my thread, Are we unable to properly assess evidence for Jesus? Do you agree with Historia that you "lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to fully and properly assess the evidence (for a historical Jesus)"?

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

I dont think he made all of it up.

That's what I think about the gospel tale! There is some actual history in it. So we think much alike.

Tacitus is stronger than your imaginary Greek trader by virtue of being hostile.

You'll need to elaborate a bit on this assertion. How is a "hostile source" more credible than any other kind of source? If Tacitus is hostile, then how does his hostility make his claims about Jesus more credible? What did he say that seems so truthful to you?

It doesnt 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 doesnt follow that they all just made things up wholesale because they were biased.

While it's very true that bias doesn't guarantee dishonesty, bias does make dishonesty more probable. And the greater the bias, the greater the probability of dishonesty. Since the New Testament is extremely biased, the probability of dishonesty in it is high--much higher than most other documents of its era that are less biased.

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 meant "vote" metaphorically. But if a vote would be cast by Bible scholars, then it would surely be far better evidence for any consensus among them than your assumption that there is a consensus.

Scientists using credible dating methods is an appeal to the consensus! Oops.

Oops yourself; dating a scroll is not an appeal to a consensus. It is a scientific method that relies on reputable physics to determine an artifact's age.

Do you have any idea how scholars date ancient documents?

Well, I'm sure they don't appeal to a majority of their own. I assume they use Carbon 14 dating.

How is a mention that might be a dishonest mention better than nothing? I mean if its 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?

Very simple, Goose--a genuine mention of Jesus from the time and place in which he is believed to have lived opens the door to the possibility that he did exist.

And yes, the same goes for the New Testament. By its mentioning Jesus, we can at least entertain the possibility that he existed, and I do entertain that possibility.

But one of the key differences between the Jesus Scroll and the New Testament is that the Jesus Scroll originates from the time Jesus is believed to have lived--around 30 CE. The New Testament was probably written decades later, and the earliest fragmentary evidence we have for anything in the New Testament dates to almost a century later.

I reject Islam for theological reasons. I accept the historicity of Mohammed...
...But I accept the historicity of Mohammed. Dont tell me you doubt Mohammeds existence too?

That's just like I accept the historicity of Paul and the gospel writers. Yes, I think Muhammad existed, but do you accept the historicity of Allah? If not, then you are thinking like I am.

You do realize this Jesus scroll is hypothetical right? You arent seriously suggesting a document youve conjured up in your imagination is far more credible than an actual historical document are you?

If the Jesus scroll existed, then yes, I'd find it far more believable than the New Testament. I should add that the Jesus Scroll identifies its author, a Jason from Athens. Jason explains exactly how he knows what he says in his scroll. The New Testament documents, by contrast, generally don't bother to divulge this kind of important information. So we are in the dark as to how credible the New Testament might be.

How do you know the anonymous Greek trader was a witness to Jesus? It wouldnt 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?

Obviously we cannot be certain that Jason the Greek trader witnessed a real Jesus. But from the nature of Jason's scroll, it is far more credible than the New Testament. There's really no reason to doubt the scroll.

Thats quite the scroll when we consider that of all the thousands of documents written in the first century, as far as Im 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. I got my idea of the Jesus Scroll from the Dead Sea scrolls.

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."

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

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 71 by Jagella]

That's essentially correct, but we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are "the originals," of course. I got my idea of the Jesus Scroll from the Dead Sea scrolls.

Quote:
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 sure do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness

Possibly one of the many political would-be messiahs the Jesus propaganda was modeled on.

And circumstances enabled the Jesus propaganda to survive - despite the absence of evidence.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 70 by Goose]

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

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

I have to confess that I do not understand that. May I ask what theological reasons you have for rejecting Islam and Mormonism but not Christianity.

[Jagella]

Possibly one of the many political would-be messiahs the Jesus propaganda was modeled on.

I think that's the most likely explanation for the gospel Jesus. During the Roman occupation many young Jewish rebels preaching a "theologically disguised" verbal attack on the Romans (e.g. Matthew 24) blew their cover and got themselves crucified for their efforts. No doubt some Jews admired and loved these rebels seeing them as potential messiahs and saviors. This tradition of resistance became fertile ground for a new religion that sought to transform and reform Judaism. That religion eventually became Christianity.

We now know where Christianity came "Frum."

[historia]

How do you know what Goose is thinking?

I don't know what Goose is thinking. I simply inferred his likely position on that point from his earlier comments. And correctly, as it turns out, as that was pretty obvious.

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."

Tim O'Neill is not a biblical scholar, nor is his education in biblical studies.

Well, I just wish you could come up with some good evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

The problem here isn't the lack of evidence for Jesus -- we have several early biographies, the writings of an early Christian who met Jesus' brother, and a handful of mentions in later historical works where we would expect to find Jesus mentioned. The problem lies with how one assesses the evidence, which is why this topic necessarily turns to questions of method and expertise.

If you claim he existed, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate he existed.

That's correct. And, as Carrier pointed out above, citing the consensus of qualified experts on this topic meets that initial burden of proof. The burden of proof now shifts to those who disagree with the consensus.

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.

I'm afraid this is an over-simplification, as "survive testing" in this brief outline would also include peer-review.

If that is not clear to you, you might want to check out the "Understanding Science 101" website, produced by UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, especially the sections on the social side of science and peer review.

So again, science is not advanced by seeking the approval of the "consensus" but through testing.

Again, a scholarly consensus is not about "approval," but rather qualified experts independently becoming convinced of a hypotheses because of its superior ability to explain the available data.

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.

These are unfounded assertions.

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

"Prove" is an odd standard to set here when just a few posts ago you said this:

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.

Back to the discussion:

I see you equate any doubt of the existence of Jesus as a conspiracy.

This is, once again, a straw man argument. There are plenty of people who doubt the existence of Jesus who don't engage in the tactics I was criticizing above.

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.

You aren't going to "quickly swallow a claim" you already believe in? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I was criticizing the sloppy logic and lack of evidence in your arguments.

Except neither of those things are true. Your criticism was based on a misunderstanding of the scope of scholars I was referring to, even though I explicitly delineated the scope in my initial comment.

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?

This is already covered by Carrier in post 45.

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.

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.

I don't see Goose or Tart denying the importance of relying on experts to properly assess the evidence, so there is no reason for me to direct this criticism at them.

But contrary to what you're saying here, biologists do take up the burden of proof for their theories.

Nowhere have I said that biologists don't take up the burden of proof for their theories. This is another straw man argument.

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.

No one here is demanding that you believe in anything or anyone without evidence. This is another straw man argument.

[historia]

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?

But modern historical Jesus research doesn't, in fact, do this.

A purely historical analysis of Jesus of Nazareth can't, by itself, back-up the claim that Jesus is the Messiah, God's only Son, our Lord, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, that he descended to the dead, rose on the third day, or ascended into heaven.

Those are all statements of faith, which are not even treated in the works of most critical historical Jesus scholars -- several of whom, as we've seen above, are not even Christians themselves.

So the insinuation here that such research results from confirmation bias, as it backs up "much of this doctrinal statement," is simply wrong, as it doesn't do that for fully 3/4 of the statement.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 76 by historia]

IMHO a very good response ...

(Take that, Jagella ...!)

But still doesn't get us past the "highly likely ipso facto possibly not at all"

Feet of clay, Mr Historia, feet of clay ....

Nor does it get us past the parallels drawn between the Frumian faith community and the Christian faith community.

[JoeyKnothead]

'Cause Goose keeps telling it:

The fact that 'virtually every scholar' thinks 'em them something, that don't mean that something is true.

Such an argument is wrong on at least a couple levels...

Firstly, it implies that if scholars thought the sun wasn't there, how much would lightbulbs cost.

Secondly, it implies that we should be us happy for the cost of lightbulbs, 'cause some scholar was proud we had to buy 'em. Ever have to buy you a book from the college book store there? Now imagine having to buy you a lightbulb from 'em just to read you that book.


The fact remains, evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus is as scant as for the evidence of how to please a woman. (Stated with love for y'all womenfolk, but boy howdy, I upset me the pretty thing so often, ya can set you a clock to it)


Conclusions?

It don't matter whether scholars are 'em either virtual, or real, thier beliefs and claims should be bound to truth.

And the truth is, if every dang scholar in the land thought barbecue is an abomination, that don't mean it ain't delicious.

[Jagella]

...citing the consensus of qualified experts on this topic meets that initial burden of proof. The burden of proof now shifts to those who disagree with the consensus.

Your arguments are full of assertions. Can you demonstrate that "citing the consensus of qualified experts on this topic meets that initial burden of proof"?

I should also point out that you merely assert that Bible scholars are qualified to demonstrate that Jesus existed. This claim appears to be probably false considering that Bible scholars have failed to demonstrate Jesus' existence.

I'm beginning to have rather low regard for this presumed consensus of "buy bull" scholars.

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.

These are unfounded assertions.

Well, it's only fair that I can make "unfounded assertions" considering that your arguments for a historical Jesus are based on them.

But I have come to the conclusion that Bible scholars kowtow to liberal Christian dogma based on what Hector Avalos has documented in his excellent expos, The End of Biblical Studies. Avalos writes that Bible scholars are more interested in their careers than in educating the public about the Bible. He exposes the very biased textual analysis used by scholars and the way they distort archaeological evidence to make it appear to be supporting the history of people who appear in the Bible.

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.

You aren't going to "quickly swallow a claim" you already believe in? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Uh, no--I'm not going to swallow your claim that you know there is a consensus. I'm saying that I believe there is probably a consensus. OK? To believe is not the same as to know.

This is already covered by Carrier in post 45.

Please don't post links. Post in your own words what skills I lack in assessing the historical evidence for Jesus. If you don't know what those skills are, then say so.

I don't see Goose or Tart denying the importance of relying on experts to properly assess the evidence, so there is no reason for me to direct this criticism at them.

You're twisting your own words. You said:

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

So please tell Tart, Goose, and any other Christian here that they "lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to fully and properly assess the evidence (for a historical Jesus)." Tell them they do not have the expertise to make a case for a historical Jesus. Otherwise, concede that you only direct such criticisms at people who disagree with you.

Finally, did you read any of my posts about the "Jesus Scroll"? It is a hypothetical piece of evidence that, in my opinion, is actually good evidence for a historical Jesus. Unlike the weak and problematical evidence real-Jesus apologists offer for Jesus, this Jesus Scroll was discovered near Jerusalem and was dated to 30 CE. We then have the original document rather than a copy. Its writer, a Jason who identifies himself and explains he is from Athens and is doing trade in Israel, documents how he became familiar with Jesus seeing him firsthand. He is not a Christian and isn't evangelizing for Jesus in any way. He is almost completely free of bias, and his document shows every reason to be an honest report of what Jason really saw.

Now Hist, this scroll is good historical evidence for Jesus, or it would be if it really existed. With evidence like this scroll, I am sure you wouldn't bother to try to convince anybody with a consensus or presumed experts.

[Goose]

You'll need to elaborate a bit on this assertion.

Its not merely an assertion. I gave you a perfectly valid argument as to why a hostile source is on the high end of the reliability scale if a sympathetic source is on the low end. You conveniently snipped this bit out of the quote utterly ignoring the argument. Then you turn around and demand that I elaborate on the assertion. I did elaborate with an argument. You ignored it.

How is a "hostile source" more credible than any other kind of source?

Ill argue it again. Dont ignore it this time. A hostile source (e.g. Tacitus) is more credible than a neutral source (e.g. your imaginary Greek trader) for the same reason a neutral source is more credible than a sympathetic source (e.g. the Gospels, etc.). The bias towards getting people to believe in Jesus (as you put it) is potentially very low, if not entirely non-existent altogether, in a hostile source (Tacitus), potentially moderate in a neutral source (your imaginary Greek trader), and potentially very high in a sympathetic source (the Gospels). I mean youve virtually made this argument yourself with your Greek trader analogy. Ive just taken it a step further with Tacitus and logically shown he becomes stronger than your Geek trader in terms of mitigating potential bias using your own reasoning.

While it's very true that bias doesn't guarantee dishonesty, bias does make dishonesty more probable. And the greater the bias, the greater the probability of dishonesty. Since the New Testament is extremely biased, the probability of dishonesty in it is high--much higher than most other documents of its era that are less biased.

Which would mean that the probability of dishonesty from Tacitus is very low, if not non-existent altogether, by virtue of there being no bias at all since he is a hostile source.

Oops yourself; dating a scroll is not an appeal to a consensus. It is a scientific method that relies on reputable physics to determine an artifact's age.

If you dont think scholars work towards a consensus on dating manuscripts I suggest you take some time to research how manuscripts are dated. You do realize that even when techniques like carbon 14 dating are used on a manuscript often several different labs are used, right? You do understand how the findings and conclusions of scientists are subject to peer review right?

Well, I'm sure they don't appeal to a majority of their own.

They come to a consensus through peer review and so on.

I assume they use Carbon 14 dating.

They might. They also use the methods of palaeography. Both have been shown to yield similar results and errors of margin. Carbon 14 dating, like palaeography, doesnt get your Jesus scroll to a precise 30AD. Carbon 14 dating was used to get a range on the Qumran manuscripts. It was found there was a +/- 200 year margin of error. At best carbon-14 dating can get down to a +/- 50 year margin of error. That would put your Jesus scroll somewhere between the range of 20 B.C. and 80 A.D. assuming the smallest margin of error.

Very simple, Goose--a genuine mention of Jesus from the time and place in which he is believed to have lived opens the door to the possibility that he did exist.

What a minute. I thought you said the scroll was good evidence and would essentially disprove mythicism. Now you seem to be saying that even if your scroll were a genuine mention it merely opens the door to the possibility that he did exist. Well how then, is that any different than, say, the Gospels?

And of course you are assuming your scroll is indeed a genuine mention of Jesus. But then how would you know whether your Jesus scroll was a genuine mention of Jesus or a dishonest one? It seems to me you dont. It seems to me you are naively believing what it says.

And yes, the same goes for the New Testament. By its mentioning Jesus, we can at least entertain the possibility that he existed, and I do entertain that possibility.

But it seems to me your Jesus scroll doesnt do much more than open the door for us to entertain the possibility Jesus existed as well since its just as possible that your imaginary scroll was a dishonest mention of Jesus. Or at least simply repeating the dishonest mentions the Greek trader had heard from Christians. And you dont seem to have a way of proving otherwise. Yet you think this evidence is very good, believable, and essentially disproves mythicism.

But one of the key differences between the Jesus Scroll and the New Testament is that the Jesus Scroll originates from the time Jesus is believed to have lived--around 30 CE.

You mean your scroll would have originated sometime between that date ranges of 20BC and 80AD.

The New Testament was probably written decades later, and the earliest fragmentary evidence we have for anything in the New Testament dates to almost a century later.

Where are you getting this idea the New Testament was written decades later and the dating of NT manuscripts? Because that smells an awful lot like an appeal to the majority of scholars. Oops.

That's just like I accept the historicity of Paul and the gospel writers.

I will note that the evidence for Pauls existence does not meet the criteria you set out for Jesus yet you accept the historicity of Paul. So why do you accept the historicity of Paul then? All we have to support his existence are mentions in biased Christian texts and some letters that bear his name. Some of which some scholars reject as authentic. None of which have come down to us in the original autographs.

Yes, I think Muhammad existed, but do you accept the historicity of Allah?

I reject Allah on theological grounds. Why do you accept the existence of Mohammed?

If not, then you are thinking like I am.

No, we arent thinking anything alike.

If the Jesus scroll existed then...

It doesnt exist. Its purely a figment of your imagination. Therefore anything you try to infer from this first premise (the Jesus scroll existed) is false. End of story.

Obviously we cannot be certain that Jason the Greek trader witnessed a real Jesus. But from the nature of Jason's scroll, it is far more credible than the New Testament.

But the scrolls relation to the NT is irrelevant. It either stands or falls on own merits. If you cannot be certain that your imaginary Greek trader witnessed Jesus how can you claim he was a witness?

There's really no reason to doubt the scroll.

Oh I see. So basically what you are saying is we should give the scroll the benefit of the doubt and believe what it claims because we dont have a reason to doubt it. But I have given you a reason to doubt it. The Greek trader might be lying.

I'll give you another reason to doubt your scroll was written by your anonymous Greek trader. It's one of arguments often used against the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Here it is. Your Greek trader was probably illiterate. If he was a trader wandering around Judea trying to eek out a living like the vast majority of folks he was in the lower classes and thus was probably illiterate.

Not to mention it's unlikely he have would have the time or the inclination to spend precious resources to obtain the materials needed to sit down and write an account of the ministry of some Jewish preacher he just happened to bump into one afternoon.

You see whats happening here is you are forced to naively believe what your scroll says because, well, you dont have a reason not to. You cant really show evidence as to why we should believe the scroll. You cant prove its a genuine mention. You just believe it.

That's essentially correct, but we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are "the originals," of course. I got my idea of the Jesus Scroll from the Dead Sea scrolls.

Ive not heard any expert argue for the Dead Sea scrolls being original autographs. Where are you getting this from?

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

Well who was that? You see? You cant name a single person from the first century that has the evidence you demand. Paul doesnt have it, the Gospel writers dont have it. Yet you accept their historicity.

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

Im saying the criteria you expect the evidence to meet, if we were to apply it across the spectrum of figures from the first century, would lead to absurdities where we would have to doubt the existence of virtually everyone from the first century since no one from the first century can meet the evidential criteria you demand for the historicity of Jesus.