Historical Jesus

[maximara]

Ok, I'll go along with that, thanks for your insight and knowledge. What do you think about my Jesus of Nazareth argument? Btw, are you a Christian?

I'm more of a deist with a Taoist bent.

As for the meaning of "Jesus of Nazareth" that is also a mess. Even if the town Nazareth exist in Jesus time it seems to have been on par with Nutt, NM (a town whose only remaining building is a bar and doesn't even appear on many modern maps)

If the name referred to a town IMHO he would have been getting 'Jesus of where?' all over the place. It is more logical to assume "Nazareth" is a misunderstanding of what "Nazarene" meant - it actually refers to a group that appears to go back to the at least the 1st century BCE. This creates problems as some early Church writers identify it as always being a Christian group.

Though with the evidently pagan group called Chrestian (based on some accounts "Chrestus" was another name for the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis) around things are a mess as to what is going on.

Further confusing things are references to Jesus Chrestos (Jesus the Good) rather then Jesus Christ (Jesus the Messiah): a record of baptism in a Cemetery of Callisto's sepulchral inscription (268 CE), the Deir Ali Inscription (318 CE) PGM IV. 3007-86 (c 4th century), and The Manichaean Manuscripts (4th century). Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) tried to explain this in Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII but the explanation doesn't acknowledge the variant of the term "Chrestian" for "Christian" which was used by Christians themselves (earliest version of Acts we have).

In fact if you look at it from an gentile standpoint "Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

*chraomai: consulting an oracle
*chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle."
*Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer"
*chresterios (χρηστήριος): one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"
*theochrestos: "God-declared," or one who is declared by god.
*Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
*Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
*Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
*Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
*Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
*Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
*Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

 

[searchengineguy]

I'm more of a deist with a Taoist bent

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that, but we can explore that later.

As for the meaning of "Jesus of Nazareth" that is also a mess. Even if the town Nazareth exist in Jesus time it seems to have been on par with Nutt, NM (a town whose only remaining building is a bar and doesn't even appear on many modern maps)

No, it's nowhere near a par with Nutt. Nazareth has NO verifiable evidence of habitation in the early part of the first century, it doesn't appear on ANY maps of that period, and appears on NO writings of ANY Jewish writers (including Josephus) for hundreds of years after the supposed death of Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus even lived within a stone's throw of where the place should have been, naming dozens of town's around it, yet knew nothing of it.

But my argument doesn't even need Nazareth not to exist in the first century. My argument is one of silence. The moniker "Jesus of Nazareth" was ONLY found multiple times in the NT, it doesn't appear anywhere else for over a thousand years after his supposed crucifixion - and it should have been if we are to accept that he existed as a historical person.

If the name referred to a town IMHO he would have been getting 'Jesus of where?' all over the place. It is more logical to assume "Nazareth" is a misunderstanding of what "Nazarene" meant - it actually refers to a group that appears to go back to the at least the 1st century BCE

.
Yes, I strongly agree.

This creates problems as some early Church writers identify it as always being a Christian group.

That's interesting. Have you a citation for that?

Though with the evidently pagan group called Chrestian (based on some accounts "Chrestus" was another name for the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis) around things are a mess as to what is going on.

Further confusing things are references to Jesus Chrestos (Jesus the Good) rather then Jesus Christ (Jesus the Messiah): a record of baptism in a Cemetery of Callisto's sepulchral inscription (268 CE), the Deir Ali Inscription (318 CE) PGM IV. 3007-86 (c 4th century), and The Manichaean Manuscripts (4th century). Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) tried to explain this in Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII but the explanation doesn't acknowledge the variant of the term "Chrestian" for "Christian" which was used by Christians themselves (earliest version of Acts we have).

In fact if you look at it from an gentile standpoint "Chrestus" has related derivatives that far better fit Jesus than "Christ" does, especially to a non-Jewish audience:

*chraomai: consulting an oracle
*chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle."
*Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer"
*chresterios (χρηστήριος): one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"
*theochrestos: "God-declared," or one who is declared by god.
*Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
*Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
*Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
*Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
*Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
*Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
*Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

Thanks for the info! Have you any historical qualifications, as all this sounds very impressive?

 

[GDon]

The moniker "Jesus of Nazareth" was ONLY found multiple times in the NT, it doesn't appear anywhere else for over a thousand years after his supposed crucifixion - and it should have been if we are to accept that he existed as a historical person.

Can you explain your reasoning behind that, please? It would like saying "If Cassius Clay was such a great boxer, we'd expect his name to be everywhere after 1960 (which is when he won a gold medal at the Olympics)." But he changed his name to Muhammed Ali after 1960, and that was the name he became popular under.

Similarly, "Jesus Christ" was known as "Christ" by the pagans and called "Jesus Christ" by the Christians after NT times. Can you explain why you'd expect him to continue to be referred to as "Jesus of Nazarath"?

 

[maximara]

That's interesting. Have you a citation for that?

Epiphanius in Panarion 29 (4th century CE) expressly states "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called Jessaeans for a time. In fact, there is a inscription dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE (if Acts is to be believed. Yes I know but go with for the sake of the argument as it just show how flawed the idea even is.)

"at least one scholar connects Pliny's Nazerini with early Christians and then they go on to date Pliny's source to between 30 and 20 BCE and estimates given the lapse of time required for the installation in Syria of a sect born in Israel/Judea, that the Nasoraean existed 50 BC" (Bernard. Dubourg, L'Invention de Jesus, Gallimard Paris 1987, II, p. 157) - from the insanely detailed and citated out the wazoo Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ over at rationalwiki

That article and the ones it links to will give you more information regarding the whole one legged man in a butt kicking contest that is the (recognizable) historical Jesus idea then you know what to do with.

For instance the Jesus myth theory article says this:

"there are examples of people who were thrust into prominence that, when you look at the evidence, is greatly inflated. Ephraim McDowell (November 11, 1771 – June 25, 1830) is one such example. When you really look at his work it is not that important in the grander picture. Because his operations depended on a mixture of ridiculous luck, patients with stamina to withstand being cut open without anathesia, a passion for being meticulously clean when doing his operations (the merits of which would not be fully understood for decades) and crediting his success to divine providence (he tended to do his operations on Christian holy days), his contribution to the field of medicine in his own day was effectively nil.[327] Without the printing press just how good would our knowledge of McDowell's achievements be?

A even more relevant example to this can be said of John Ballou Newbrough (1828–1891), the founder of the obscure Oahspe cult; even with the power of the printing press, our knowledge of it is relatively minor. Relegated to just another leader of just another Third Great Awakening movement that went nowhere, he has been elevated to prominence unknown in his own time based largely on him being one of the first people to use the term "star-ship".[328][329] Jesus could have been like McDowell or Newbrough."

(from the Evidence...talk page):
Here is a collection of "historical" but nobody Jesuses to illustrate just what the problem with a minimal Jesus is:

1) In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

2) Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles whose teachings are time shifted so he is before Paul. (John Robertson actually came up with a variant of this in 1900 with this Jesus being inspired by Paul's writings rather then teachings)

3) You could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of Jewish wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50.

As the article points out you have to take some of the Gospels story as true otherwise you have no clue as to where to search. But even at its most basic level that story has problems. Given how Pontius Pilate reacted to potential problems how do you get a movement large enough for him to take notice but not go "Rome Crush!" as he did with the Samaritan prophet of c 36 CE and not one non believer record of it surviving? (The Jospheus "references" are so screwed up that odds are they are forgeries)

Thanks for the info! Have you any historical qualifications, as all this sounds very impressive?

My major is anthropology with a side major in historical anthropology (which even though he doesn't know it is what Carrier is actually using in his book).

 

[dejudge]

Can you explain your reasoning behind that, please? It would like saying "If Cassius Clay was such a great boxer, we'd expect his name to be everywhere after 1960 (which is when he won a gold medal at the Olympics)." But he changed his name to Muhammed Ali after 1960, and that was the name he became popular under.

Similarly, "Jesus Christ" was known as "Christ" by the pagans and called "Jesus Christ" by the Christians after NT times. Can you explain why you'd expect him to continue to be referred to as "Jesus of Nazarath"?

Your claim about Jesus Christ is baseless. You have no historical evidence whatsoever that NT Jesus Christ was known as Christ by pagans.

 

[searchengineguy]

Can you explain your reasoning behind that, please? It would like saying "If Cassius Clay was such a great boxer, we'd expect his name to be everywhere after 1960 (which is when he won a gold medal at the Olympics)." But he changed his name to Muhammed Ali after 1960, and that was the name he became popular under.

Sure, but you have used another really bad analogy. This one is worse than the one used by Maximara with his Nutt analogy. We have tons of evidence of mentions of the person known as Cassius Clay, from when he was born, changed his name at 18 and when he died. People in all types of media will cite his former name including his full name "Cassius Marcellus Clay Jnr" and will usually mention the name change. That he changed his name doesn't mean that it immediately vanished in thin air. There's even Cassius Clay dolls and a Cassius Clay LP! Have a look at all the mentions online: https://www.google.com/search?q=cas...ECBIQAw&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=AhJY652LO0L9MM

Similarly, "Jesus Christ" was known as "Christ" by the pagans and called "Jesus Christ" by the Christians after NT times. Can you explain why you'd expect him to continue to be referred to as "Jesus of Nazarath"?

Are you saying that even though he was known as "Jesus of Nazareth" by Jews and Christians, pagans only referred to him as Christ? Why would all Christians that know him by that moniker stop calling him that and then only call him Jesus Christ? If he really existed and was well known in the NT as that name, why do you think that EVERYONE would stop calling him that for over a thousand years after his death? Remember that this guy was voted the most important person in history by Time magazine!

 

[searchengineguy]

My major is anthropology with a side major in historical anthropology (which even though he doesn't know it is what Carrier is actually using in his book).

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Which book are you talking about, his peer reviewed book, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt"? Have you read this book, btw? It has an interesting section on cargo cults and how anthropologists actually studied them as they grew without having an existing leader, he was entirely made up. See "Element 29: Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movements most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them. For not only are their attributes remarkably similar, but so are the socio-political situations that created them; and it is this distinct parallel of both cause and effect that makes the comparison illuminating."

 

[searchengineguy]

Your claim about Jesus Christ is baseless. You have no historical evidence whatsoever that NT Jesus Christ was known as Christ by pagans.

Yes, I doubt very much that they would call a real person well known as "Jesus of Nazareth" anything else except his real name. Why would they call him "Christ", "Saviour" "Lord" "messiah" etc if they didn't believe the hogwash?

 

[dejudge]

..... Remember that this guy was voted the most important person in history by Time magazine!

NT Jesus was a person??

Christian writers specifically stated their Jesus was born of a ghost.

KJ21
Matthew 1.18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

It is clear to me that the NT writings about Jesus are not historical at all.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, I doubt very much that they would call a real person well known as "Jesus of Nazareth" anything else except his real name. Why would they call him "Christ", "Saviour" "Lord" "messiah" etc if they didn't believe the hogwash?

In fact, NT writers stated that those who did not believe in their Jesus character associated him with Beelzebub - a major devil.

KJ21 Luke 11.15

But some of them said, “He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the chief of the devils.”

The Gospel writers claimed their Jesus character was not known as Christ and he commanded his disciples to tell no-one such a thing.

Mark 8

27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? 28 And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

NT Jesus was not even qualified to be called Christ even if it is assumed he really lived since he was not a King or High Priest of Judea.

Jews called their Kings and High Priests the anointed one [Christ] since they were actually anointed with oil in Jewish tradition.

 

[GDon]

Sure, but you have used another really bad analogy. This one is worse than the one used by Maximara with his Nutt analogy. We have tons of evidence of mentions of the person known as Cassius Clay, from when he was born, changed his name at 18 and when he died.

Doesn't that make my analogy stronger? The analogy isn't about the number of references to his old name while he used it, it is the lack of references to his old name -- remember, as you note there were tons of references to the old name! -- after he changed it and became even more well-known under the new name. Is there a mystery for why, even though the name "Cassius Clay" was so well known, that references to him stopped after about 1960?

Are you saying that even though he was known as "Jesus of Nazareth" by Jews and Christians, pagans only referred to him as Christ?

Yes. "Christ" was a title meaning "Messiah/Annointed". In the wider pagan world, he was known as "Christus", the name he became famous under. They didn't understand it as a title. His wife would have been called "Mrs Christus". As some point, the earliest Christians thought that Jesus was actually the Christ and started to use that title with the name. So Jesus the man disappeared, just like Cassius Clay did.

Why would all Christians that know him by that moniker stop calling him that and then only call him Jesus Christ? If he really existed and was well known in the NT as that name, why do you think that EVERYONE would stop calling him that for over a thousand years after his death?

Because that's what he was known under to the later Christians: Jesus Christ, or sometimes Christ Jesus: the name and the title. To the people of the wider world, he was known as Christ or Chrest (as a proper name) as maximara points out.

That's not to say that it isn't an interesting question you raise: when was Jesus known as "Jesus as Nazareth" and by whom, and when did he start to get called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"? But there is no mystery about why the pagans knew him as "Christ". They thought that that was his actual name. I think a lot of Christians today still do think that.

 

[dejudge]

.... "Christ" was a title meaning "Messiah/Annointed". In the wider pagan world, he was known as "Christus", the name he became famous under. They didn't understand it as a title. His wife would have been called "Mrs Christus". As some point, the earliest Christians thought that Jesus was actually the Christ and started to use that title with the name. So Jesus the man disappeared, just like Cassius Clay did.

Your analogy is useless since Cassius Clay the boxer was well-known and documented historical person. Cassius Clay was also known as Muhammad Ali because he changed his name before he died.



Again, there is no mention of NT Jesus of Nazareth or Christ by any non-apologetic writers who mentioned events in the time of Pilate so your claim that pagans called Jesus the Christ is baseless.

You have no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus actually lived and was known as or called Christ.

For hundreds of years Christian writers claimed their Jesus was born of a ghost and a virgin.

Christian teachings of their Jesus are documented.

KJ21 Matthew 1.18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Aristides Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel....

Ignatius to the Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father..

Jesus called Christ was never a figure of history.

 

[searchengineguy]

Doesn't that make my analogy stronger? The analogy isn't about the number of references to his old name while he used it, it is the lack of references to his old name -- remember, as you note there were tons of references to the old name! -- after he changed it and became even more well-known under the new name. Is there a mystery for why, even though the name "Cassius Clay" was so well known, that references to him stopped after about 1960?

But those references to CC didn't just stop after 1960! Sure people may have stopped calling him that to his face (who wouldn't!), but multiple sources continuously have been talking about the name changes. Not so for JoN. For a thousand years after his supposed death, there's not a single source. Not just from Jewish historians and theologians, but from ANYONE! IOW, a historical person's name change doesn't silence the old name from history.

Yes. "Christ" was a title meaning "Messiah/Annointed". In the wider pagan world, he was known as "Christus", the name he became famous under.

Where did you get this from? It doesn't make any sense.

They didn't understand it as a title. His wife would have been called "Mrs Christus". As some point, the earliest Christians thought that Jesus was actually the Christ and started to use that title with the name. So Jesus the man disappeared, just like Cassius Clay did.

I very much doubt that pagans would call a once living man Christ or Saviour if they didn't believe he was, they would use his actual name.

 

[searchengineguy]

NT Jesus was a person??

Christian writers specifically stated their Jesus was born of a ghost.

KJ21
Matthew 1.18

It is clear to me that the NT writings about Jesus are not historical at all.

There ya go: https://ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history/ Jesus, voted the most significant person in history, had zip verifiable evidence that he existed at all!

 

[GDon]

But those references to CC didn't just stop after 1960! Sure people may have stopped calling him that to his face (who wouldn't!), but multiple sources continuously have been talking about the name changes. Not so for JoN. For a thousand years after his supposed death, there's not a single source. Not just from Jewish historians and theologians, but from ANYONE! IOW, a historical person's name change doesn't silence the old name from history.

It happens all the time. Octavian --> Augustus. 'Caligula' wasn't his name. 'John Wayne' wasn't born John Wayne. People become popular under different names all the time. I can't see why the same couldn't have happened with Christianity.

Yes. "Christ" was a title meaning "Messiah/Annointed". In the wider pagan world, he was known as "Christus", the name he became famous under.

Where did you get this from? It doesn't make any sense.

Okay.

I very much doubt that pagans would call a once living man Christ or Saviour if they didn't believe he was, they would use his actual name.

Actually, they had no idea that "Christus" came from "anointed". They just thought it was a name. That's why they were confused on whether it was "Christus" or "Chrestus".

Tertullian wrote around 200 CE in his First Apology to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html

Then, too, the common people have now some knowledge of Christ, and think of Him as but a man, one indeed such as the Jews condemned...

Well now, if there is this dislike of the name, what blame can you attach to names? What accusation can you bring against mere designations, save that something in the word sounds either barbarous, or unlucky, or scurrilous, or unchaste? But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder. Is there anything new in a religious sect getting for its followers a designation from its master? Are not the philosophers called from the founders of their systems--Platonists, Epicureans, Pythagoreans?​

In his Apology, Tertullian uses the name "Christ" many times, because that is how the pagans knew him. He doesn't use the name "Jesus" once.

 

[searchengineguy]

It happens all the time. Octavian --> Augustus. 'Caligula' wasn't his name. 'John Wayne' wasn't born John Wayne. People become popular under different names all the time. I can't see why the same couldn't have happened with Christianity.

I know that people become popular under different names, but their old names don't just vanish from history. I knew John Wayne's real name was Marion from forty years ago, as I had seen it in articles in magazines and newspapers and thought it was strange that he had a name like a girl. Marion just didn't go away. But "Jesus of Nazareth" vanished once written 17 times in the NT and wasn't seen again for over 1,000 years.

In his Apology, Tertullian uses the name "Christ" many times, because that is how the pagans knew him. He doesn't use the name "Jesus" once.

He was not using it for the sake of pagans, which pagan talks of a Christ? If he knew of the Gospels (and he should have, being an early Christian author born in the 2nd century) there is no good reason that he would not mention a Jesus of Nazareth, unless that character was never known by him. It's exactly the same reason why the most prolific Jewish historian Josephus never wrote about him. He didn't exist!

 

[searchengineguy]

That's why they were confused on whether it was "Christus" or "Chrestus".

Christian forgers weren't confused when they changed an e into an i

 

[maximara]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Which book are you talking about, his peer reviewed book, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt"? Have you read this book, btw? It has an interesting section on cargo cults and how anthropologists actually studied them as they grew without having an existing leader, he was entirely made up. See "Element 29: Further supporting the previous element is the fact that what are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movements most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them. For not only are their attributes remarkably similar, but so are the socio-political situations that created them; and it is this distinct parallel of both cause and effect that makes the comparison illuminating."

"On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt"? is the work I am talking about,

Historical Anthropology is very young (going back to the 1970s). The way it works is one uses Anthropology (and archeology) to set a base line of how people viewed things and then see how that likely effected the records.

Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997) is practically textbook Historical Anthropology as is Carrier's comparison of Jesus to John Frum (which actually appeared years earlier in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion)

In fact, I pointed out a piece that better supports Carrier's comparison better that he was unaware of (it also shows a flaw): Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177

Here is what Jesus myth theory (rationalwiki) says about this:

"Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper also shows the complexity involved regarding determining if Jesus was a man or a celestial being.

We are told that "A man named Manehevi had posed as a supernatural being by means of ingenious stage management." But later we are also told "From elsewhere rail the rumour that, in spite of the Administration statement, Manehevi was not John Frum, and that the latter was still at liberty."

Here we are told John Frum was a "supernatural being" while the believers are saying he is an actual man who "was still at liberty"

If that isn't enough we are also told "John Frum, alias Karaperamun, is always the god of Mount Tukosmoru, which will shelter the planes, then the soldiers."

Here we are told that John Frum is Karaperamun (who is a long existing volcano god) but we were also told that Manehevi was (or pretended to be) John Frum and that John Frum was another person who was still at liberty.

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war and the splinter Prince Philip movement which has Prince Philip as John Frum's brother...even though Prince Philip has only sisters."

Paul is thought to have started writing in the 50s...well outside the 11 years for the first appearance of John Frum (or at least a native using that name).

Then there is the Rusefel (Roosevelt) Cargo Cult which claims FDR as its founder even he had never visited the island.

 

[maximara]

Christian forgers weren't confused when they changed an e into an i[qimg]https://i0.wp.com/www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ultraviochrest.jpg[/qimg]

From Rationalwiki's Evidence...

"Tacitus (ca. 55 - 117 CE; oldest relevant copy is from 11th century): In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source.[87][88] Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.”[71] His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone."

In fact some apologists use "Chrestus" for the Tacitus passage, generally when they are trying to connect it to Suetonius (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature from 1894 uses this spelling for example)

 

[dejudge]

...Actually, they had no idea that "Christus" came from "anointed". They just thought it was a name. That's why they were confused on whether it was "Christus" or "Chrestus".

Your claim appears to be utterly false or mistaken.

The Greek words for "anointed" (Christus) (χριστόν) and "good " (Chrestos)(χρηστός) are found multiple times in the Septuagint ( the Greek version of Hebrew Scripture) written hundreds of years before the fables called the NT were composed.

Septuagint Psalms 88.

39 σὺ δὲ ἀπώσω καὶ ἐξουδένωσας, ἀνεβάλου τὸν χριστόν σου..

English translation Psalms 88.39

But thou hast cast off and set at nought, thou has rejected thine anointed ...

Septuagint Psalms 88.

52 οὗ ὠνείδισαν οἱ ἐχθροί σου, Κύριε, οὗ ὠνείδισαν τὸ ἀντάλλαγμα τοῦ χριστοῦ σου

English translation Septuagint 88. 52

wherewith thine enemies have reviled, O Lord: wherewith they have reviled the recompense of thine anointed.

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=105

Examine Septuagint Psalms 105.1

᾿Αλληλούϊα. - ΕΞΟΜΟΛΟΓΕΙΣΘΕ τῷ Κυρίῳ, ὅτι χρηστός...

English translation--

[Alleluia] Give thanks to the Lord for he is good

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=106

Psalms Septuagint Psalms 106.1

᾿Αλληλούϊα. - ΕΞΟΜΟΛΟΓΕΙΣΘΕ τῷ Κυρίῳ, ὅτι χρηστός...

English translation--

[Alleluia] Give thanks to the Lord for he is good

It is simply nonsense that people who called their Jesus the Christ did not know the meaning of the name or title.

...

Tertullian

But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity....

This very passage exposes your false claim that pagans called Jesus the Christ.

Tertullian implied that non-believers were calling supposed Christians
by the name of CHRESTIANOS.