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]

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).

The problem with what you're arguing here is that you are confusing what Tacitus may have been hostile about. I don't see how he would have been hostile toward the existence of Jesus although he may have been critical about other Christian beliefs. It is critical to the logic of your argument that you demonstrate that Tacitus did not like to accept that Jesus existed. Otherwise, your argument is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.

...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.

I'm not so sure. If he hated Christianity, then he may have lied about it to make it look bad. It's even possible that Tacitus assumed Jesus existed to ridicule him. So again, describing Tacitus as a "hostile source" does little to make your case that Jesus existed.

You do realize that even when techniques like carbon 14 dating are used on a manuscript often several different labs are used, right?

Yes, but those labs are expected to present the evidence they have for dating an artifact--you don't just take their word for it, or at least I don't.

You do understand how the findings and conclusions of scientists are subject to peer review right?

Sure, but during peer review the reviewers check for good reasoning and evidence. They don't just vote on whether or not something is right.

And by the way, the Bible scholars who attended the Jesus Seminar literally voted on what they thought Jesus said. These scholars were severely criticized by Christian apologists and others for such sloppy methodology and rightly so. Therefore it seems to me that a "consensus of scholars" is only accepted if it agrees with Christian doctrine.

So do you accept this consensus of scholars who concluded that Jesus didn't say much of what the gospels quoted him as saying? To be consistent you'll need to agree that the gospels misquote Jesus.

Carbon 14 dating, like palaeography, doesn’t get your “Jesus scroll� to a precise 30AD.

OK, but the Jesus Scroll is hypothetical, and I'm assuming it's been dated to 30 CE. I don't wish to debate how precisely an artifact can be dated. That's another issue. The assumption of a 30 CE dating is important to my argument regarding what might be good evidence for a historical Jesus. If evidence for him is not or cannot be dated to the time he is believed to have lived, then I see that as a significant reason to doubt the credibility of that evidence.

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?

I see you're trying to discredit me by digging up earlier comments I've made that you see as inconsistent with what I'm saying currently. That's a common tact of Christian apologists.

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 don’t. It seems to me you are “naively believing� what it says.

Yes, I wouldn't know for certain that the Jesus Scroll is "genuine," but based on my description of that scroll, I think it is likely to be a true testimony of trader Jason.

When it comes to historical issues, we usually must depend on probabilities.

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.

Oops yourself. I already explained that appealing to a consensus of scholars is perhaps acceptable if I don't have anything else to go on. In the case of dating the documents of the New Testament, I have no way to see for myself what times those documents were written. So that's why I usually accept the generally accepted dates for the writings of the New Testament.

So when you go back to dig up things I said looking for inconsistencies, it's only fair to look for consistencies as well.

I will note that the evidence for Paul’s 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?

By "Paul" I mean the author of Romans and some of the other epistles. Obviously somebody wrote those epistles, and that person I call "Paul."

And while I'm not sure what criteria you're referring to, authorship of a known document is excellent evidence for a person being historical. For example, we have documents written by Josephus but none written by Jesus or Zeus. That's why the historicity of Josephus is assured while Zeus and Jesus are much more uncertain.

Why do you accept the existence of Mohammed?

A person wrote the Quran, and that person I call "Mohammed."

If you cannot be certain that your imaginary Greek trader witnessed Jesus how can you claim he was a witness?

I'm not certain Jason saw Jesus. I think it's probable that he did see Jesus.

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.

But he couldn't be illiterate if he wrote his story.

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

Those scrolls are probably "originals" because of the time they were dated to.

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

Well who was that?

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

I’m 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.

And that's one of the great weaknesses of historical studies. Many people and events have very little evidence for them. So we need to rely on our own judgments as to their historicity. As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, the evidence is very weak because it is ambiguous. That's why we're debating his historicity. If the evidence was very strong, like the Jesus Scroll, then it's doubtful that there would be a debate.

[Clownboat]

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.

Simple, he was the demigod that inspired the John Frum religion.

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.

Many people believe that Satan comes like a thief in the night. That He is the Deceiver.
John Frum religion didn't come out of nowhere, and we have believers willing to testify and even suffer for their beliefs.
This same case is often made for why Christianity should be considered as truthful.

"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.

Anyone notice any similarities with this claim and Paul/Saul's vision while dehidrated and sick?

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

Sure do. You know what happens to our bodies when extremely dehydrated? See what I'm doing yet?

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.

That is not the REAL John Frum. The real John Frum was probably a demigod anyways. Evidenced for this is that we have claims that this movement started in the 1910's.

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.

A movement this is claimed to have started in 1910 should have service records for an American serviceman from the 1940's?
I'm not so interested in Mohammed, I mean John Frum. I'm interested in Jesus, I'm sorry... the demigod that started this entire belief system. Surely this religion didn't become popular out of whole cloth or from some Kava induced/hallucinating person.

"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?

Or this is evidence for just how fully they believe in their religion. To compare, for your religious beliefs, have you rid yourself of money or moved off grid to participate in traditional Christian rituals?

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

Granted. And?

We have Easter and Christmas for Christianity. Coincidence?

Are you saying that all the believers are liars?

Nope.

Then there is a possibility that a demigod or what have you is truly behind this religion?

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 are looking for a false messiah it seems. You see, if there was a demigod behind the John Frum myth, you need to be looking for the demigod, not 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?

Yup, but what is in a name? How many names does the Christian god go by? Perhaps you should not be trying to assign person hood to this demigod?
Call him what you want, he is still what this religion was formed from. People claim there was a religion formed around a man (or men) named Jesus as well. If your open to one...

Seriously, are all the believers liars?

Nope.

So it is possible that an entire false religion could form because the believers actually believe the claims even if they happen to be false?
Hmm....

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?

"European colonial authorities sought to suppress the movement, at one point arresting a Tannese man who was calling himself John Frum, humiliating him publicly, imprisoning and ultimately exiling him along with other leaders of the cult to another island in the archipelago."

Remind you of Rome or pharisees in anyway?

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.

And how do you differ? Were you a direct witness to a Jesus?

[Goose]

The problem with what you're arguing here is that you are confusing what Tacitus may have been hostile about. I don't see how he would have been hostile toward the existence of Jesus although he may have been critical about other Christian beliefs. It is critical to the logic of your argument that you demonstrate that Tacitus did not like to accept that Jesus existed. Otherwise, your argument is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.

There’s no confusion. It’s implied that Tacitus was hostile toward the existence of Jesus by virtue of Tacitus being hostile towards Christianity which entailed belief in the existence of Jesus. It’s as though you are expecting Tacitus to say something like, “That darn Christ, I wish he had never existed!�? Obviously Tacitus held to the historical existence of Jesus. It’s sufficient that he shows hostility toward Christianity. Thus the argument stands that Tacitus presents a more credible source than your imaginary Greek trader.

I'm not so sure. If he hated Christianity, then he may have lied about it to make it look bad.

Sure Tacitus may have lied. But why would he try to make Christianity look bad by implying it’s founder was a real historical person? “Hey, Christianity is a bad religion and you shouldn’t believe the real guy who started it.� That seems counterproductive.

It's even possible that Tacitus assumed Jesus existed to ridicule him.

Setting aside this is pure speculation it’s easily falsified by the fact that Tacitus doesn’t seem to ridicule Jesus directly. Unless we count the statement by Tacitus that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate as some form of ridicule. But that seems like reading something into the text that isn’t really there. So why would Tacitus go out of his way to assume Jesus existed just to ridicule him, then not make it explicitly clear that he was ridiculing Jesus?

So again, describing Tacitus as a "hostile source" does little to make your case that Jesus existed.

So you say. But you haven’t overturned him as a hostile source and therefore stronger than your imaginary Greek trader.

Yes, but those labs are expected to present the evidence they have for dating an artifact--you don't just take their word for it, or at least I don't.

Of course they present their findings. I said that.

Sure, but during peer review the reviewers check for good reasoning and evidence.

Right. I thought that was self evident when I said “subject to peer review.�

They don't just vote on whether or not something is right.

Good grief, why are you back to knocking down this silly “ they don’t just vote� strawman?

And by the way, the Bible scholars who attended the Jesus Seminar literally voted on what they thought Jesus said. These scholars were severely criticized by Christian apologists and others for such sloppy methodology and rightly so.

Well it was a little more involved than just a vote. And they weren’t just criticized by “Christian apologists.�

Therefore it seems to me that a "consensus of scholars" is only accepted if it agrees with Christian doctrine.

Well that tells me you haven’t read much scholarship then. There are numerous conservative Christian scholars who work well within the scholarly consensus even when that consensus doesn’t jive with traditional Christian doctrine or dogma.

So do you accept this consensus of scholars who concluded that Jesus didn't say much of what the gospels quoted him as saying?

You mean the consensus of the Jesus seminar? Probably no. Some of them weren’t even experts in relevant fields. But if such a consensus existed among bonafide scholars and I disagreed and I wanted to challenge any such consensus I would bear the burden of proof, not the one standing on the consensus.

To be consistent you'll need to agree that the gospels misquote Jesus.

Even if I agreed they did it has little relevance to whether Jesus existed. Almost everything attributed to Jesus could be misquotes and it still would not follow that Jesus did not exist. We would still have four ancient biographies and numerous letters attesting to his existence.

But I don’t think there’s quite the same consensus that Jesus didn’t say “much of what the gospels quoted him as saying.� Surely there are some scholars who would argue that. There are also some who would argue that the Gospels are by and large a fairly good representation of Jesus’ words. So it isn’t as one sided on this issue as it is with the historicity of Jesus. Even the critical scholars who would argue Jesus didn't say much of what the gospels quoted him as saying would argue Jesus existed.

OK, but the Jesus Scroll is hypothetical, and I'm assuming it's been dated to 30 CE. I don't wish to debate how precisely an artifact can be dated. That's another issue. The assumption of a 30 CE dating is important to my argument regarding what might be good evidence for a historical Jesus. If evidence for him is not or cannot be dated to the time he is believed to have lived, then I see that as a significant reason to doubt the credibility of that evidence.

Then you would have to doubt the credibility of your “Jesus scroll� because you’ve offered no reason to think it should be dated to 30AD aside from simply assuming it is written in 30AD. So much for the evidence that would “essentially disprove mythicism.�

I see you're trying to discredit me by digging up earlier comments I've made that you see as inconsistent with what I'm saying currently. That's a common tact of Christian apologists.

I’m discrediting your arguments by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies that seem to occur from one post to the next. It’s not hard to do there are so many inconsistencies. Don’t take it personally.

Yes, I wouldn't know for certain that the Jesus Scroll is "genuine," but based on my description of that scroll, I think it is likely to be a true testimony of trader Jason.

But you’ve not even a shred of evidence, imaginary or otherwise, to verify the scroll as genuine. You are just simply imagining it to be genuine and likely true.

When it comes to historical issues, we usually must depend on probabilities.

Probability says your imaginary Greek trader was illiterate.

Oops yourself. I already explained that appealing to a consensus of scholars is perhaps acceptable if I don't have anything else to go on.

No, no. You were quite adamant that an appeal to the majority of experts was a double error in logic. In post 6 you wrote...

“You’re making at least two mistakes in your logic here. You are appealing to authority, and you're appealing to the majority.�

Now you are arguing that in some cases it’s “acceptable� to appeal to a consensus of experts. Have you changed your mind? Because it can’t be the case that it’s acceptable to do it if it is an error in logic. Errors in logic are never acceptable.

In the case of dating the documents of the New Testament, I have no way to see for myself what times those documents were written. So that's why I usually accept the generally accepted dates for the writings of the New Testament.

What? You have no way to see “what times those documents were written�? You can see the texts though right? You know, those texts you say you have spent so much time evaluating and have concluded are not good evidence for Jesus?

So when you go back to dig up things I said looking for inconsistencies, it's only fair to look for consistencies as well.

The only consistent thing I’ve seen you say is that you find the evidence for the existence of Jesus weak because it’s ambiguous. Well, maybe that and one or two other things as well.

By "Paul" I mean the author of Romans and some of the other epistles. Obviously somebody wrote those epistles, and that person I call "Paul."

Oh I see. So now it’s some guy “Paul� in brackets. Even though the letters themselves internally identify as Paul, an apostle. So do you or do not accept the historicity of Paul? You know, the guy in the New Testament all those letters are attributed to.

And while I'm not sure what criteria you're referring to,

Paul doesn’t meet the criteria you set out in this post and which I summarized at the end of this post.

authorship of a known document is excellent evidence for a person being historical.

Of course. Granting you can establish authorship.

For example, we have documents written by Josephus but none written by Jesus or Zeus. That's why the historicity of Josephus is assured while Zeus and Jesus are much more uncertain.

But there are so many historical figures for which no documents written directly by them have come down to us either. Some notables are Socrates, Alexander the Great, Agricola, to name a few off the top of my head. Is their historicity likewise much more uncertain because nothing they wrote has come down to us?

A person wrote the Quran, and that person I call "Mohammed."

Yes of course a person(s) wrote it. But do you accept that Mohammed existed? You know, the guy who started Islam.

I'm not certain Jason saw Jesus. I think it's probable that he did see Jesus.

But why is it probable? Because he said so? It can’t be because the “Jesus scroll� was written in 30AD because there is an error of margin that makes it possibly as late as 80AD.

But he couldn't be illiterate if he wrote his story.

You do see how that’s entirely circular don’t you? Probability says your peasant Greek trader was illiterate.

Those scrolls are probably "originals" because of the time they were dated to.

What expert has argued this? Are you just making this up?

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

Why is it probable the "teacher of righteousness" was a real person and not Jesus? I mean my goodness at least I have an actual name for my guy.

And that's one of the great weaknesses of historical studies.

No it’s the great weakness in your reasoning. It leads to absurdities.

Many people and events have very little evidence for them. So we need to rely on our own judgments as to their historicity.

But the methodology you use to judge historicity has been shown to be seriously flawed, full of inconsistencies, and leads to absurdities.

As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, the evidence is very weak because it is ambiguous.

Yeah you keep saying that and I have to keep reminding you that it’s only ambiguous to you and maybe some amateur internet sceptics. It’s not ambiguous to the experts who study it.

That's why we're debating his historicity.

I don’t think that’s why we are debating it.

If the evidence was very strong, like the Jesus Scroll, then it's doubtful that there would be a debate.

Well thank the good Lord the standard for evidential support is not your imaginary “Jesus scroll.� If it were I’d be forced to throw away most of ancient history.

[Goose]

Simple, he was the demigod that inspired the John Frum religion.

If you say so but that’s not in and of itself a claim to an historical John Frum either.

Many people believe that Satan comes like a thief in the night. That He is the Deceiver.
John Frum religion didn't come out of nowhere, and we have believers willing to testify and even suffer for their beliefs.
This same case is often made for why Christianity should be considered as truthful.

You haven’t got the argument for Christianity right. It’s not argued that Christianity is true by virtue of some Christians believing despite persecution. It’s argued that the witnesses wouldn’t knowingly die for a lie.

But that’s a rabbit trail anyway. No one has argued Christianity is true in this thread.

What I did argue here and what you didn’t address was that it was discovered that Manehevi used deception and masqueraded under the name John Frum. I made that counter argument in response to your assertion that I had ignored some versions of the story involving Manehevi.

Anyone notice any similarities with this claim and Paul/Saul's vision while dehidrated and sick?

Not really. Even if Paul was dehydrated (which I don’t think he was) it was after his experience on the road to Damascus that he went without water. And there’s no evidence in the text that Paul had taken hallucinogens. Whereas the John Frum followers openly admit that their encounters with John Frum are kava induced.

Sure do. You know what happens to our bodies when extremely dehydrated?

Many things can happen. What makes you think Paul was dehydrated anyway? Don’t tell me you are hinging this whole thing on Acts 9:9?

See what I'm doing yet?

I see you asking questions. I also see you misreading the book Acts. I also see you assuming the historical reliability of Acts to record events. I also see you ignoring Paul’s first hand material from his letters. I also see you merely asserting Paul was dehydrated and sick. I see a lot of things. But alas what I don’t see is you making an argument here.

That is not the REAL John Frum. The real John Frum was probably a demigod anyways. Evidenced for this is that we have claims that this movement started in the 1910's.

So that’s your counter argument to my argument that we expect there to be American military service records supporting the existence of an American soldier serving in the region at the time?

A movement this is claimed to have started in 1910 should have service records for an American serviceman from the 1940's?

No. The later development that John Frum was an American soldier serving in the region during WWII.

I'm not so interested in Mohammed, I mean John Frum. I'm interested in Jesus, I'm sorry... the demigod that started this entire belief system.

These aren’t even a coherent sentences. Is this your attempt at some kind of argument by ridicule?

Surely this religion didn't become popular out of whole cloth or from some Kava induced/hallucinating person.

The John Frum followers themselves admit that John Frum is a kava induced sprit vision. What more needs to be said?

Or this is evidence for just how fully they believe in their religion.

Well of course they would believe their religion.

To compare, for your religious beliefs, have you rid yourself of money or moved off grid to participate in traditional Christian rituals?

My religion doesn’t demand that rid myself of money or move off the grid. Although I have participated in Christians rituals like communion.

We have Easter and Christmas for Christianity. Coincidence?

What of it? There is also President’s Day in the U.S.A.

Then there is a possibility that a demigod or what have you is truly behind this religion?

Yes it’s possible, since it’s not logically impossible that there is a demigod behind the John Frum cult. While we are discussing mere possibilities I suppose it’s also possible that Christianity is true, right?

You are looking for a false messiah it seems. You see, if there was a demigod behind the John Frum myth, you need to be looking for the demigod, not John Frum.

If you say so but my point stands that not a single scholar/historian who has studied the cult has argued there was an actual historical person John Frum.

Yup, but what is in a name? How many names does the Christian god go by? Perhaps you should not be trying to assign person hood to this demigod?
Call him what you want, he is still what this religion was formed from. People claim there was a religion formed around a man (or men) named Jesus as well. If your open to one...

Your rebuttals are becoming increasingly incoherent. Is this supposed to be your idea of a counter argument to my argument that 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?

So it is possible that an entire false religion could form because the believers actually believe the claims even if they happen to be false?

Sure it’s possible. Now what?

Hmm....

Hmm... what? Is “Hmm� supposed to be some kind of an argument?

In fact, I can’t quite get a sense of what you are arguing. It kinda seems like you want to argue something like:

1. John Frum
2. Therefore, Jesus.

"European colonial authorities sought to suppress the movement, at one point arresting a Tannese man who was calling himself John Frum, humiliating him publicly, imprisoning and ultimately exiling him along with other leaders of the cult to another island in the archipelago."

So a man calling himself John Frum (not the real John Frum of course) was publicly humiliated by a foreign culture. Not by the Tannese people themselves. Well so what?

And did you happen to notice that the Wikipedia article (you did cut and paste this from Wikipedia, right?) said the man and his leaders were exiled to another island (other than Tannu). But the John Frum cult is currently found only on the island of Tannu where it originated. So it would seem the cult, on whatever island this man and his leaders were relocated to, died out. This would suggest that with a little ridicule and relocation the John Frum cult on this other island seems to have evaporated. Maybe they weren’t so confident in their beliefs after all?

Remind you of Rome or pharisees in anyway?

Not really. Aside from Jesus’ death, the Romans left the earliest Christians alone for the most part. It was the Jews, the countrymen of the early Christians (the early Christians were Jews remember), who persecuted the early Christians, not a foreign power or culture. This would be analogous to the Tannese people persecuting believers in John Frum.

Were you a direct witness to a Jesus?

Are you serious?

[Jagella]

It’s implied that Tacitus was hostile toward the existence of Jesus by virtue of Tacitus being hostile towards Christianity which entailed belief in the existence of Jesus.

That Tacitus was or was not hostile toward the existence of Jesus does not follow from his being hostile toward Christianity. Many people are hostile toward Christianity, but may or may not believe he existed. You need to demonstrate that Tacitus accepted the historicity of Jesus despite his hostility toward Christianity. You cannot justifiably assume what Tacitus thought about Jesus.

Sure Tacitus may have lied. But why would he try to make Christianity look bad by implying it’s founder was a real historical person?

Again, if Tacitus was as hostile as you say toward Christianity, then that strong bias makes him untrustworthy as a source for the historical Jesus.

So why would Tacitus go out of his way to assume Jesus existed just to ridicule him, then not make it explicitly clear that he was ridiculing Jesus?

I'm not sure. You should post what Tacitus said that makes you see him as hostile.

They don't just vote on whether or not something is right.

Good grief, why are you back to knocking down this silly “ they don’t just vote� strawman?

It's not really a "strawman." Scholars have indeed literally voted to settle issues.

You mean the consensus of the Jesus seminar? Probably no.

Great! We're finally getting somewhere.

To be consistent you'll need to agree that the gospels misquote Jesus.

Even if I agreed they did it has little relevance to whether Jesus existed. Almost everything attributed to Jesus could be misquotes and it still would not follow that Jesus did not exist.

You're missing my point. You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that a consensus is good evidence for what you want to believe and then dismiss a consensus that supports what you don't want to believe claiming that the scholars who make up the latter consensus "aren't scholars in relevant fields."

Then you would have to doubt the credibility of your “Jesus scroll� because you’ve offered no reason to think it should be dated to 30AD aside from simply assuming it is written in 30AD.

Goose--come on--the Jesus Scroll and its dating are hypothetical. OK? I'm describing what evidence would convince me that Jesus existed.

Now you are arguing that in some cases it’s “acceptable� to appeal to a consensus of experts. Have you changed your mind?

No, an appeal to a majority is not fallacious in an absolute sense. I can think of at least one exception, and I have posted it. I thought you understood that fact without my spelling it out.

What? You have no way to see “what times those documents were written�? You can see the texts though right? You know, those texts you say you have spent so much time evaluating and have concluded are not good evidence for Jesus?

Yes, I can "see the texts," but that doesn't mean I know when they were written.

Sheesh, Goose, I realize that you want Jesus to be real so you get to go to heaven, but your logic is so bad that I just need to go for now! It's really hard work to try to untie your "Gordian knot" of twisted logic.

[Goose]

That Tacitus was or was not hostile toward the existence of Jesus does not follow from his being hostile toward Christianity.

Of course it does. Let me spell it out again. If Tacitus was hostile toward Christianity then he was hostile toward the existence of Jesus since the existence of Jesus is a central tenant of Christianity.

X entails (i).
A is hostile toward X.
Therefore, A is hostile toward (i).

It’s iron clad logic.

You need to demonstrate that Tacitus accepted the historicity of Jesus despite his hostility toward Christianity.

Tacitus says so himself.

�Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...�

Tacitus says Jesus suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pilate, which meant Jesus was executed under Pilate. That’s about as an explicit a reference to an historical Jesus as it comes. I mean how on earth could Tacitus not accept Jesus’ historicity yet hold to Jesus having been executed at the hands of Pilate?

You cannot justifiably assume what Tacitus thought about Jesus.

It’s not merely an assumption.

Again, if Tacitus was as hostile as you say toward Christianity, then that strong bias makes him untrustworthy as a source for the historical Jesus.

On the contrary it makes him very strong because of there being virtually zero potential for a bias toward “getting people to believe in Jesus,� remember? Your argument, not mine.

I'm not sure. You should post what Tacitus said that makes you see him as hostile.

The point here is your counter that Tacitus may have assumed Jesus existed in order to ridicule him fails quite badly.

It's not really a "strawman." Scholars have indeed literally voted to settle issues.

The “scholars� of the Jesus seminar, yes. The methods of the scholars I’ve been talking about do not settle things with a “vote.� They come to a consensus through subjecting their work to peer review and so on. I’ve been quite clear about that on numerous occasions. So it is indeed a blatant strawman.

Great! We're finally getting somewhere.

Where do you think we are getting? I said I would probably reject the consensus of the Jesus Seminar. A small group of about 50 “scholars� heavily weighted toward the critical/liberal end of the spectrum. Some of whom had never published anything on the New Testament. Heck, one member of the Jesus Seminar was a movie director with no PhD and master degrees in math and physics for crying out loud. I did not say I would outright reject the consensus of a widely held position amongst all bonafide scholars who have published on a topic.

You're missing my point. You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that a consensus is good evidence for what you want to believe and then dismiss a consensus that supports what you don't want to believe claiming that the scholars who make up the latter consensus "aren't scholars in relevant fields."

It’s not both ways. I did not dismiss the consensus of scholars. I said I would probably dismiss the consensus of the Jesus Seminar. It’s not at all representative of the positions held by all bonafide scholars anymore than a small group of 50 conservative scholars is.

Goose--come on--the Jesus Scroll and its dating are hypothetical. OK? I'm describing what evidence would convince me that Jesus existed.

And I’m using that hypothetical evidence to demonstrate how terribly flawed and biased your methodology and reasoning are.

No, an appeal to a majority is not fallacious in an absolute sense. I can think of at least one exception, and I have posted it. I thought you understood that fact without my spelling it out.

Look, an error in logic isn’t a case by case thing. If it’s a logical error it’s a fallacy. There are no “exceptions� to logical errors anymore than there are exceptions to when 2+2=4. If you think there are you don’t understand logic. For example, you can’t say affirming the consequent is a fallacy except in the case of X. Affirming the consequent is logical fallacy in every case, full stop. So either an appeal to the consensus of experts is a logical error or it is not.

Hint: it isn’t.

Yes, I can "see the texts," but that doesn't mean I know when they were written.

Right. Which is why you accept the consensus of dating and why you argued the Gospels were written “decades later.� It’s a consensus you like, it helps your arguments, so you appeal to it.

Sheesh, Goose, I realize that you want Jesus to be real so you get to go to heaven,...

What about Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey? Do they want Jesus to be real so they can get to heaven too?

...but your logic is so bad that I just need to go for now!

This coming from the guy who argued in big circle that Jason the illiterate peasant Greek trader could not have been illiterate if he wrote the "Jesus scroll."

[Jagella]

Tacitus says so himself.

�Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...�

Tacitus says Jesus suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pilate, which meant Jesus was executed under Pilate. That’s about as an explicit a reference to an historical Jesus as it comes. I mean how on earth could Tacitus not accept Jesus’ historicity yet hold to Jesus having been executed at the hands of Pilate?

Actually, it looks like Tacitus did accept a historical Christ. Unfortunately he does not divulge, at least in this passage, how he may have known about Christ. If we don't know his source, then we don't know if that source was accurate. Good historical work always involves citing one's sources if one has not had direct contact with the people and places reported on. So Tacitus is not doing good historical work here.

Also, it's easy to see how Tacitus might have been been more explicit here--and we have yet more problems then. Contrary to what you claim, Tacitus never mentioned a Jesus in this passage--but only a "Christus." Aside from the crucifixion under Pilate, he says nothing about the life of Christ--when he lived, where he lived, or how he lived. He doesn't say why Christ was crucified either.

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

So where am I going wrong here? Do you deny any of my reasoning?

Finally, if you're going to accept the word of Tacitus involving a real Christ, then to be consistent you need to accept that Christianity was a "sinister belief," it was hated for its "abominations," and was a "mischievous superstition." Or will you only accept the word of Tacitus when it appears to back up what you want to believe?

[Clownboat]

Simple, he was the demigod that inspired the John Frum religion.

If you say so but that’s not in and of itself a claim to an historical John Frum either.

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

You haven’t got the argument for Christianity right. It’s not argued that Christianity is true by virtue of some Christians believing despite persecution.

It matters not as that was not my argument.
"John Frum religion didn't come out of nowhere, and we have believers willing to testify and even suffer for their beliefs."

It’s argued that the witnesses wouldn’t knowingly die for a lie.

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

What I did argue here and what you didn’t address was that it was discovered that Manehevi used deception and masqueraded under the name John Frum.

Shame on Manehevi!!!! Right! Shame all upon him for doing that!!!

Anyone notice any similarities with this claim and Paul/Saul's vision while dehidrated and sick?

Not really. Even if Paul was dehydrated (which I don’t think he was)

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

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

Whereas the John Frum followers openly admit that their encounters with John Frum are kava induced.

To hallucinate is to hallucinate. Kava induced or dehydrated, still hallucinating.

Many things can happen. What makes you think Paul was dehydrated anyway? Don’t tell me you are hinging this whole thing on Acts 9:9?

Is the information available outside of religious promotional material? If so, I would also examine it there.

But alas what I don’t see is you making an argument here.

You are resistant as you are trying to maintain a religious belief. I get that and have no hopes of you seeing the argument here. I trust it is not lost on the readers though.

A movement this is claimed to have started in 1910 should have service records for an American serviceman from the 1940's?

No. The later development that John Frum was an American soldier serving in the region during WWII.

John Frum is just a spin off of the actual demigod. That is what I have been trying to explain.

Surely this religion didn't become popular out of whole cloth or from some Kava induced/hallucinating person.

The John Frum followers themselves admit that John Frum is a kava induced sprit vision. What more needs to be said?

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

To compare, for your religious beliefs, have you rid yourself of money or moved off grid to participate in traditional Christian rituals?

My religion doesn’t demand that rid myself of money or move off the grid. Although I have participated in Christians rituals like communion.

Another striking similarity! Amazing how rituals form no!

Yes it’s possible, since it’s not logically impossible that there is a demigod behind the John Frum cult. While we are discussing mere possibilities I suppose it’s also possible that Christianity is true, right?

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

If you say so but my point stands that not a single scholar/historian who has studied the cult has argued there was an actual historical person John Frum.

Never claimed that they have.
I point to the believers and make comparisons to other religions.

Is this supposed to be your idea of a counter argument to my argument that 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?

Nope. You just aren't getting it. There was no John Frum. On that we agree. Now lose the name John Frum, and we can discuss...

So it is possible that an entire false religion could form because the believers actually believe the claims even if they happen to be false?

Sure it’s possible. Now what?

Now nothing. My point has been made.

In fact, I can’t quite get a sense of what you are arguing. It kinda seems like you want to argue something like:

Hang tight and you might get it.
First off, I'm not arguing. I'm making comparisons and noting how religions form. Acknowledge this and you will understand better where I'm coming from.

So a man calling himself John Frum (not the real John Frum of course) was publicly humiliated by a foreign culture. Not by the Tannese people themselves. Well so what?

Do people get persecuted for false beliefs?

And did you happen to notice that the Wikipedia article (you did cut and paste this from Wikipedia, right?) said the man and his leaders were exiled to another island (other than Tannu). But the John Frum cult is currently found only on the island of Tannu where it originated. So it would seem the cult, on whatever island this man and his leaders were relocated to, died out. This would suggest that with a little ridicule and relocation the John Frum cult on this other island seems to have evaporated. Maybe they weren’t so confident in their beliefs after all?

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

[historia]

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

Sure. Careful readers of the thread will recall that I already cited Richard Carrier in support of this assertion (see post 20). Here it is again. In Proving History (2012), pgs. 29-30, he writes:

An effective consensus of qualified experts (by which I mean at least 95 percent agreement) is probably true unless a strong and valid proof arises that it is not. This is a straightforward fact of frequency: the methods that generate such a consensus far more frequently discover the truth than err; therefore, any given result of that consensus is far more probably true than false.

And this is a consequence of cumulative probability: it is far more unlikely that an incorrect argument would persuade a hundred experts than that it would persuade only one; and it is far more unlikely that it would persuade any expert than that it would persuade even a hundred amateurs.

. . .

Hence the burden of proof clearly falls on anyone who would challenge an existing consensus, despite repeated attempts to deny this. For example, in the matter of whether Jesus actually existed as a historical person, historicists have already met the burden of evidence to produce a consensus of qualified experts. So the deniers of historicity must overcome that burden with their own.

You'll find similar comments from philosophers discussing other fields besides history, especially in the sciences. Consider, for example, Mark Battersby, a philosopher out of Capilano University in Canada, who writes in his work Is that a Fact? (2016), pg. 21-22:

A study that makes claims contrary to the existing consensus needs to provide sufficiently strong evidence to meet the burden of proof established by that consensus. Such a study should not only provide evidence for its claims, but also give some account of why the previous position should not longer be accepted.

Similarly, scholars of rhetoric have long noted that the person looking to overturn the status quo bears the burden of proof. James Jasinski in Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies (2001), pg. 77, notes that:

Rhetoricians over the years, based on their observations of human practice, have described how the burden of proof is normally allocated . . .

For example, people advocating a change in the status quo (e.g., a new law, a new interpretation of an old law; a new procedure) have the burden of proof; they have the responsibility of presenting a compelling case . . .

Defenders of the status quo often engage the advocates of change in argument, but they do not share the same argumentative burden. Defenders of the status quo typically have presumption on their side.

The burden of proof normally lies with those who deny the consensus of experts, as that consensus establishes the initial burden of proof.

I should also point out that you merely assert that Bible scholars are qualified to demonstrate that Jesus existed.

I have not "merely asserted" this. I cited Richard Carrier in support of this claim in my very first post in this thread (quote repeated above). He apparently has "good arguments," or so I'm told.

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 never said I know there is a consensus, but rather:

The reason why Goose, myself, and even mythicist authors themselves readily accept that there is a consensus that Jesus existed . . .

I've lost count of the number of straw man arguments in this thread, but we've got to be approaching some kind of record.

Post in your own words what skills I lack in assessing the historical evidence for Jesus.

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

In this particular case, you would need to read widely in the scholarly literature and study the primary sources for Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman world in which Christianity emerged.

That would, in turn, allow you to better asses the genre and function of each text, what the authors meant by certain phrases and ideas, and generally gain an appreciation for what evidence from the ancient world looks like, and how it differs from modern evidence.

You would need to couple that with advanced skills in: (1) the relevant ancient languages, including Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin; (2) textual analysis, including textual criticism and paleography, and finally (3) historical analysis that has been honed under the guidance of other experts, as Carrier helpfully noted in the quote from post 45.

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.

I don't see how that is twisting anything I said. Moreover, Goose has explicitly agreed with this point, so there's no reason for me to tell him again.

Tell them they do not have the expertise to make a case for a historical Jesus.

They are certainly free to make a case, just as you are. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying otherwise. I'm simply pointing out, in response to your assertion to the contrary, that amateurs are always reliant on experts in making their case -- or should be anyway if they want to mount a convincing argument, since they lack the necessary background knowledge and expertise to fully and properly assess the evidence on their own.

[historia]

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

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

Let's be a little more precise here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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