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]

[Replying to post 16 by Goose]

All evolutionary biologists hold to the "reality" of biological evolution, but I'd never be so stupid as to argue their majority as a reason to think that evolution takes place!

What makes you think that would be a stupid argument?

I already explained that trusting only the words of "experts" is not sufficient to demonstrate anything's truth. Authorities can be wrong and often are.

Would you accept the argument for evolution based on a "consensus" of scientists? If so, then welcome to the naturalistic world of Darwinian evolution! Genesis is discarded as myth.

What If I were to ask you why dismiss the movie Avatar as fiction while accepting evolution?

There's literally solid evidence for evolution. That's why nobody as far as I know makes the inane argument that we can rely on authority for the truth of Darwin's theory.

And Avatar is fiction because we know that people make up wild stories. The same goes for the gospel fable.

For example, go ahead and tell me how you date fossils without appealing to experts?

I cannot date fossils because I do not have the training to do so. However, I could get that training and see first-hand how old they are. So at least in principal I'm not relying on authority as to how old fossils are. The ability to date fossils is available to anybody assuming they can get the training.

Besides, I'm not saying I know how old fossils are. So I'm not relying on authority regarding their age.

Fortunately, though, I can see fossils or at least photos of them. That way I can see transitional fossils knowing they exist without relying on authority.

There is no such evidence for Jesus. The "experts" know this fact, and that's why they keep trumpeting their consensus!

But your personal doubt here or what you personally demand evidentially in order to be convinced is entirely irrelevant.

It isn't? I thought we were debating what evidence convinces us what is or is not true. My mistake!

I didnt argue there werent scholars who studied the cult of John Frum. I argued there are no scholars who study the cult that hold to a real historical John Frum.

I don't believe that's correct. In the documentaries I've watched it was assumed that there was a "real John Frum" who inspired the cult although his real name is unknown.

We can infer from this that the evidence for Jesus must be stronger than for John Frum since it has convinced critics of Christianity that there was a historical Jesus.

LOL--not this critic. There are many "critics" who don't believe in a historical Jesus, but I wouldn't be so dumb as to count heads to determine whether or not he existed.

In either case there was no real John Frum.

If there was no John Frum, and it's very possible there was no such figure, then that fact counts as evidence that religious groups can grow up around people they think existed but never did. So the same goes for Christianity--Jesus may have never been a historical figure.

The same goes for Jesus. There may have been one or more "Jesuses" who engaged in a tradition of rebellion against the Romans getting themselves crucified.

There may have been... isnt much of an argument.

If my argument doesn't amount to much, then argue against it. Why could there have not been a tradition of Jewish rebellion that laid the foundations for Christianity? If such a tradition existed, then it's a perfectly plausible explanation for Christianity that needs no historical Jesus.

Actually it isnt an argument at all. You need evidence to support this idea regarding Jesus so where is it?

Just read up on the Roman occupation of Israel and the Jewish rebellions. Many Jews were crucified by the Romans. If Jesus existed, then he was very much like the other Jews crucified by the Romans.

Oh I have no doubt the John Frum cult borrowed from Christianity. Theyve virtually admitted as much and it makes sense since its a cult which emerged as a reaction against Christian influence.

Oh sure--exactly like the John Frum cult got inspiration from an older religion, Christianity is based to some degree in Judaism. So again, we see another similarity between the John Frum Cult and Christianity.

If the evidence that exists is enough to convince critics like Erhman that Jesus was real I think I can safely rule out statements like these as a denial of evidence.

I don't know what evidence I'm denying. I grant your appeals to authority and to consensus.

I suppose you think Richard Carrier is a good historian though, right?

Carrier seems to have done a great job with his work demonstrating that Jesus was probably a myth. Have you read any of his books?

What is the evidence that Jesus did not exist?

He's very similar to pagan gods you don't think exist. I'd suggest that you apply the same reasons to Jesus you use to see that all other gods except your own are myth.

Sure but do you have an enemy of the cult attesting to the existence of John Frum within say even 100 years? No, you dont. So the evidence for Jesus and John Frum is demonstrably not the same.

Of course some of the evidence is different. For example, we know the people who were eyewitnesses for the events that led to the Cult of John Frum, but the eyewitnesses for Jesus are unknown.

So again, much of the evidence for John Frum is much better than the evidence for Jesus.

I just asked for one measly scholar who holds to a historical John Frum. Whats the matter, cant find one?

Actually, I wasn't looking for any scholars for John Frum. I suppose I've been too busy
looking at the evidence for him!

But you seem to think Richard Carrier is truly qualified and a good historian, no?

I don't really care how "good" Carrier is--I'm too busy assessing his arguments and evidence.

But you are back to simply making obvious statements like it could have been all made up.

You're not engaging the issue I raised. If you dismiss John Frum as a lie, then why couldn't Jesus be a lie as well? The fact of the matter is that Jesus very easily could have been made up.

What is Bart Ehrman blinded by then?

I don't know what Bart Ehrman might be thinking, but I'd recommend (Bible scholar) Hector Avalos' book The End of Biblical Studies. It's a scathing critique of Bible scholars and their sloppy and often misleading work.

You know--those Bible scholars you rely on to believe there was a Jesus.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 20 by historia]

Use of the word "likely" leaves the door wide open for "not at all".

The Jesus character may still be nothing more than a fictional figure in Jewish propaganda from the people who were trying to get the Davids back on the throne.

Putting percentages on likeliness - unless it's 100% - still leaves a percentage of possibility for fiction or part fiction.

And we haven't begun to look at the percentages for the Jesus character being sired by the mythological Jewish deity Yahweh, or the nebulous Holy Ghost.

I expect the percentages would be pretty much the same as they are for Prince Philip being a divine being.

Is there really any difference between people in Vanuatu adoring a picture of HRH and people in America adoring images of what they imagine Jesus looked like ...?

For me, it's all primitive superstition that should have been consigned to the anthropological dumpster years ago.

[Jagella]

Carrier admits, further, that a consensus of qualified experts already exists regarding the historicity of Jesus, so this argument from Jagella that historical Jesus scholars aren't really experts is refuted by Carrier himself.

Well, I suppose it depends on which "expert refuter" we which to cite. I haven't read the book you've quoted, so I will reserve judgment on Carrier's meaning regarding the consensus of Bible scholars and the historicity of Jesus. One thing I do know for sure, Carrier does not accept what that supposed consensus might conclude about Jesus. He is a mythicist who has concluded that Jesus probably did not exist.

By the way, how much do we really know about that consensus? It appears to me that this consensus is assumed. I've seen no real evidence that most Bible scholars truly believe that Jesus was historical. Have Bible scholars been polled to see what they believe? I don't think so. I've read much of the same works they've read--most notably the New Testament--and I see no more reason to conclude that it's historical than the Book of Mormon or the Koran. That scholars would be truly convinced that outlandish tales like the four gospels are historically credible is quite a stretch.

And according to The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos (who is a Bible scholar himself), Bible scholars are generally not credible sources of information. From Amazon we read:

Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in todays world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.

I think I agree with Avalos!

[Jagella]

For me, it's all primitive superstition that should have been consigned to the anthropological dumpster years ago.

I don't know if I'd consign the Bible to the "anthropological dumpster." It's an important work of myth and folklore that deserves its place along other great works of fiction from antiquity like the Iliad and the Odyssey.

But you do bring up a very important question: why do we still believe that the Bible has some historical credibility? I think the answer may lie at least partly in what Bible scholar Hector Avalos has called "liberal-Christian apologetics." Biblical scholarship is largely overseen by liberal Christian organizations who constrain what Bible scholars can openly say about the Bible.

I strongly recommend Avalos' book The End of Biblical Studies. It's a real eye-opener. After reading what Avalos has to say, you'll see why the "consensus argument for the historicity of Jesus" is so weak. To base a belief on dishonest people is sheer folly.

[Goose]

I already explained that trusting only the words of "experts" is not sufficient to demonstrate anything's truth.

Its a valid way to support a premise especially when virtually every expert is saying the same thing.

Authorities can be wrong and often are.

But you need to show how they wrong. Not just simply say things like sometimes they are.

Would you accept the argument for evolution based on a "consensus" of scientists?

I consider that to be a valid argument in favour of evolution, yes. If I were to argue against evolution I would need some serious argumentation and evidence in my corner. I would bear the burden to prove it false since it so widely held among experts.

If so, then welcome to the naturalistic world of Darwinian evolution! Genesis is discarded as myth.

Im very happy to concede that given the assumption of naturalism, Darwinism is the best naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life.

There's literally solid evidence for evolution.

You mean theres evidence, such as say the fossil record, and that evidence is interpreted to support Evolutionary theory.

That's why nobody as far as I know makes the inane argument that we can rely on authority for the truth of Darwin's theory.

Its never an inane argument or stupid argument to rely on or appeal to qualified experts.

And Avatar is fiction because we know that people make up wild stories.

Yes we know people make up stories but how do you know Avatar was a made up story?

I cannot date fossils because I do not have the training to do so.

Exactly. So you need to appeal to experts.

However, I could get that training and see first-hand how old they are.

Sure, but you dont have that training now. Further, no one can be an expert in every field. At some point you need to rely on experts. Heck, even experts in one field often have to appeal to and rely on experts in other fields.

So at least in principal I'm not relying on authority as to how old fossils are.

Of course you are. You just said you dont have the training.

The ability to date fossils is available to anybody assuming they can get the training.

But you dont have the training. You rely on experts.

Besides, I'm not saying I know how old fossils are. So I'm not relying on authority regarding their age.

But you inevitably will have to rely on the authority of experts for fossil dating if you ever wish to argue for evolution.

Fortunately, though, I can see fossils or at least photos of them.

Yeah me too. But I have no way of establishing their age. Neither do you. We need experts for that.

That way I can see transitional fossils knowing they exist without relying on authority.

You cant establish transitional fossils without dating. Without a reliable way of dating you have no way of putting the transitional fossil in the time frame of being intermediate. To get the dating you need experts. See how that works?

It isn't? I thought we were debating what evidence convinces us what is or is not true. My mistake!

Yes thats your mistake. I answered your OP question. You asked in the OP why dismiss John Frum as superstition while accepting Christianity, remember? I provided a perfectly valid answer as to why reject the cult of John Frum " John Frum wasnt a real person. After that you switched the argument to how you dont find the evidence for Jesus compelling.

I don't believe that's correct. In the documentaries I've watched it was assumed that there was a "real John Frum" who inspired the cult although his real name is unknown.

That would mean there was no real John Frum.

LOL--not this critic. There are many "critics" who don't believe in a historical Jesus, but I wouldn't be so dumb as to count heads to determine whether or not he existed.

Those many critics are non-expert internet blogger types. Of course it would be dumb to count them to determine whether Jesus existed or not. That would be an argumentum ad populum. And thats a fallacy.

If there was no John Frum, and it's very possible there was no such figure, then that fact counts as evidence that religious groups can grow up around people they think existed but never did.

I wont dispute that argument.

So the same goes for Christianity--Jesus may have never been a historical figure.

There you go with the may have never been rubbish again. If all you want to argue is that its possible that Jesus may have never existed then fine, go ahead. While you are at it you may well concede its also possible that Jesus existed and did and said every single thing recorded in the New Testament.

If my argument doesn't amount to much, then argue against it.

I dont need to argue against a may have been argument because that kind of argument is an argument that does not seek to prove anything meaningful.

Why could there have not been a tradition of Jewish rebellion that laid the foundations for Christianity?

Its a possibility. Now go ahead and prove it.

If such a tradition existed, then it's a perfectly plausible explanation for Christianity that needs no historical Jesus.

So go ahead and prove it then. Stop asking me if it could have been.

Just read up on the Roman occupation of Israel and the Jewish rebellions. Many Jews were crucified by the Romans. If Jesus existed, then he was very much like the other Jews crucified by the Romans.

Okay. Many Jews were crucified by the Romans. So what does that prove? Btw, when were they crucified?

Oh sure--exactly like the John Frum cult got inspiration from an older religion, Christianity is based to some degree in Judaism.

Oh I absolutely agree Christianity drew upon Judaism. Now how do you get from there to Jesus wasnt historical?

So again, we see another similarity between the John Frum Cult and Christianity.

Not really. Christianity understood itself as the fulfilment and divinely orchestrated continuation of the Hebrew scriptures. The John Frum cult emerged in direct opposition to Christian influence borrowing ideas out of a sense of competition.

Carrier seems to have done a great job with his work demonstrating that Jesus was probably a myth. Have you read any of his books?

I have read a fair amount of Carriers material but not his book on the historical Jesus. And I probably wont. I have read reviews of it. Apparently the arguments arent new. And it hasnt garnished any real support among scholars so I dont see the point in reading it.

But you say Carrier has done a great job. Well what makes Carriers work so great compared to the work of the vast majority of scholars who you virtually swept under the carpet in a single stroke as not good historians? It wouldnt, by chance, be because Carrier holds a mythical view now would it?

He's very similar to pagan gods you don't think exist. I'd suggest that you apply the same reasons to Jesus you use to see that all other gods except your own are myth.

Thats not evidence Jesus didnt exist. That, if it were true, would be evidence that I am biased in my assessment of the evidence.

Of course some of the evidence is different. For example, we know the people who were eyewitnesses for the events that led to the Cult of John Frum,

Oh yeah? Name them. Show me their testimonies.

but the eyewitnesses for Jesus are unknown.

They are no more unknown than the witness we have for the eruption of Vesuvius. See this thread.

So again, much of the evidence for John Frum is much better than the evidence for Jesus.

Nah. You dont have a hostile witness for Frum. I do for Jesus.

Actually, I wasn't looking for any scholars for John Frum. I suppose I've been too busy
looking at the evidence for him!

And after looking at the evidence have you concluded he wasnt real yet? Or would you like to make an argument that he really existed.

I don't really care how "good" Carrier is--I'm too busy assessing his arguments and evidence.

If you say so, but you appealed to him as an authority. You even just finished saying Carrier, ...seems to have done a great job with his work...

You're not engaging the issue I raised. If you dismiss John Frum as a lie, then why couldn't Jesus be a lie as well?

Everything about Jesus could be a lie. Everything about Jesus could also be true. Now what?

And lets be clear. I dismiss John Frum as superstition because there was no historical John Frum. You havent shown how this is false and Ive provided evidence to support it. I dont need to argue anything beyond that.

If you wish to argue that I should likewise dismiss Christianity on the basis that it is superstition then you bear the burden to prove Jesus wasnt historical. Dont you understand this?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus very easily could have been made up.

Yes he could have been made up. It could also be the case that every single thing recorded about him really happened.

I don't know what Bart Ehrman might be thinking,

Whatever Ehrman may have been thinking it certainly wasnt along the lines of supporting religion or Christianity.

but I'd recommend (Bible scholar) Hector Avalos' book The End of Biblical Studies. It's a scathing critique of Bible scholars and their sloppy and often misleading work.

You mean a self professed atheist and secular humanist who sees himself as being on the margins of the marginalized in the Society of Biblical Literature would write a scathing critique of the scholars who marginalize him? (see here). Say it isnt so.

But hey, that was a nice appeal to the authority of a Bible scholar, Jagella.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 24 by Jagella]

Biblical writings - once you move beyond the mind-trap of belief - are fascinating studies that appear to contain far more genuine history than we may think.

These histories are political.

They look to use existing lore as historical allegory.

And propaganda.

It's belief that should be trashed.

Well past time we grew out of it.

And stopped making excuses for it.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 24 by Jagella]

Biblical writings - once you move beyond the mind-trap of belief - are fascinating studies that appear to contain far more genuine history than we may think.

These histories are political.

They look to use existing lore as historical allegory.

And propaganda.

It's belief that should be trashed.

Well past time we grew out of it.

And stopped making excuses for it.

Absolutely, Stuart! We should trash the belief but not the knowledge of the folklore. What would literature be without legends like that of King Arthur? As long as people see these tales for what they are--as you say propaganda and historical allegory--then I personally have no problem with people reading these myths.

[Goose]

I've seen no real evidence that most Bible scholars truly believe that Jesus was historical.

Historia already provided this evidence in the quote from Carrier:

"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."

And since you think Carrier has done a "great job" in his other work, you should have no problem accepting this proposition.

[Jagella]

I've seen no real evidence that most Bible scholars truly believe that Jesus was historical.

Historia already provided this evidence in the quote from Carrier:

"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."

And since you think Carrier has done a "great job" in his other work, you should have no problem accepting this proposition.

I asked for evidence that there is in fact a consensus of historians who truly believe Jesus was a historical figure. Carrier evidently believes there is one, but that's not the kind of evidence I'd like to see. I'd like to see a scientific statistical analysis and poll results.

I won't accept a quotation from a book I've never read posted in an online forum. To do so would be to rely on authority.

[Goose]

I asked for evidence that there is in fact a consensus of historians who truly believe Jesus was a historical figure.

Evidence was given via the quote from Carrier provided by historia.

Carrier evidently believes there is one, but that's not the kind of evidence I'd like to see. I'd like to see a scientific statistical analysis and poll results.

No one can stop you from shifting the goal posts and demanding a different kind of evidence once evidence is given. But that doesn't negate the evidence that was given. What's the matter, don't trust Carrier's work anymore? Thought you said he does a "great job".

I won't accept a quotation from a book I've never read posted in an online forum.

But you expect others to accept quotes from Amazon about Avalos' book.

To do so would be to rely on authority.

But you do rely on authority. You've done it numerous times in this thread. Even the quote you have in the OP from the Gospel of John relies on the authority of the translators. Unless you know Greek.