The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Thanks a lot!!!

In any event, we already know that the Christian Bible is a product of no definable historical source.

By the way, Biblical evidence must come the Bible.

That's not quite what I meant by specifying "single" source. Thought you might have noticed that.

 

[Belz...]

That is not difficult to understand at all.

Yeah, it's also false, because no one is arguing that anyway.

We are talking specifically about the HJ claim that the biblical stories could not have arisen unless Jesus was a real person doing at least some of the things described in the bible.

But no one is arguing that, Ian. Show me someone who is arguing that here. Myself, Craig, Piggy, Porpoise, anybody. To the best of my memory NOBODY has said that.

And what Max has pointed out to you is that the example of John Frum (and others) disproves that claim completely.

Yeah, it disproves an argument that no one has made. That's really cool but it's irrelevant to this thread.

If you are now saying that there is some other explanation different from HJ people claiming that the biblical stories could not have arisen without a real figure as their basis doing at least some of things claimed in the bible, then you have changed the subject (!!) and are now talking about something else entirely.

....what? The thread is about the historical Jesus. How am I changing the subject?

 

[IanS]

That's plain daft. You can't really mean that. You're having a laugh. I wrote that there is in my opinion no "single source" definable as the bible. Please try again.

No! - you "try again". You were asked several very clear questions there, about what you are claiming as the "bible" (any "bible“), and what you are claiming as the evidence for Jesus from anything you want to call any part of any bible.

Stop your endless evasions and time wasting, and just produce the answers.

 

[IanS]

Yeah, it's also false, because no one is arguing that anyway.



But no one is arguing that, Ian. Show me someone who is arguing that here. Myself, Craig, Piggy, Porpoise, anybody. To the best of my memory NOBODY has said that.



Yeah, it disproves an argument that no one has made. That's really cool but it's irrelevant to this thread.



....what? The thread is about the historical Jesus. How am I changing the subject?

No.

It has been argued here may times. And I was only replying to your question about why Max says it's valid to compare the case of John Frum. And now you are changing the subject yet again.

The subject that was under discussion, was why John Frum was being used as any sort of comparison to the case of Jesus. And what I explained is that Max probably offers it as a counter to the very common HJ argument that has been made many times here, which is often put in the form of a question asking "why would the gospel writers have written anything about Jesus unless there was some sort of real figure behind the stories" ... and the answer to that, as Max shows, is the case of John Frum and similar fictional stories.

 

[Craig B]

Stop your endless evasions and time wasting, and just produce the answers.

The Bible is not a "single source". If you want to be nasty about that fact, for reasons which I don't understand at all, that's up to you.

 

[Belz...]

It has been argued here may times.

Quotes, please.

And I was only replying to your question about why Max says it's valid to compare the case of John Frum. And now you are changing the subject yet again.

I am NOT changing the subject. My ENTIRE POINT was that since no one has made that argument, Max's comparison with Frum is irrelevant. It's only relevant if you can show that, indeed, someone has made that argument.

The subject that was under discussion, was why John Frum was being used as any sort of comparison to the case of Jesus.

No. I've made very clear why I disagreed with his use of Frum as a counter-argument.

 

[IanS]

Quotes, please.



I am NOT changing the subject. My ENTIRE POINT was that since no one has made that argument, Max's comparison with Frum is irrelevant. It's only relevant if you can show that, indeed, someone has made that argument.



No. I've made very clear why I disagreed with his use of Frum as a counter-argument.

No! I am not wasting my time trawling back through loads of old posts to quote people who have made that argument.

You are clearly just here to start rows on the internet. And I am not remotely interested in wasting my time in any more discussions like that.

However, apart from that more specific point of whether or not the case of John Frum is a counter to HJ posters arguing that there must have been some real person at the root of the Jesus stories, I expect Max would say (perhaps he will tell us) that cases such as that of John Frum do show how, like the case of the fictional John Frum, a Jesus story told in the bible might just as easily arise without any real figure of Jesus at all.

 

[Belz...]

No! I am not wasting my time trawling back through loads of old posts to quote people who have made that argument.

Well, I'm not either. But my recollections seem different from yours. Is it possible that you misinterpreted their arguments?

You are clearly just here to start rows on the internet.

Please stop that. "Clearly" is just a way to state your opinion about my purpose. Either have a discussion or don't, but don't assign intents to me that I don't have. It's way too easy to dismiss other people in a discussion by stating what you think they "clearly" really mean or want.

I expect Max would say (perhaps he will tell us) that cases such as that of John Frum do show how, like the case of the fictional John Frum, a Jesus story told in the bible might just as easily arise without any real figure of Jesus at all.

Indeed. I'm interested in knowing if any of those possibilities, if any, can be shown to be at least as probable as the historians' explanation.

 

[dejudge]

In any event, we already know that the Christian Bible is a product of no definable historical source.

By the way, Biblical evidence must come the Bible.

That's not quite what I meant by specifying "single" source. Thought you might have noticed that.

You seem terrified to tell us what you meant by specifying a "single" source.

But, in any event, your supposed dead obscure HJ is not plausible and NEVER was.

The worship of a known dead Jewish criminal as God Creator by people of the Roman Empire is probably the most ridiculous idea ever argued when it is documented the Roman hated and massacred the Jews.

 

[Loss Leader]

Due to the large number of reports coming out of this thread, we are placing it on moderated status at least for the time being.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Mcreal]

The NT is the result of cumulative elaboration and syncretism over a century or so; and then further refinement narratively and theologically..

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps I might take this opportunity to explain what I mean by there not being a "single source" comprising the "Bible"; although I'm rather surprised that any explanation is required.

The Bible is certainly a definable literary entity, but it consists of a collection of works of very disparate origin, assembled into a collection at different historical periods.

As must be well known to every contributor to this thread, this collection is notorious for the contradictions it displays between different accounts of the same event. As we have seen before: David kills Goliath - Elhanan kills Goliath; God makes David conduct a census - Satan makes David conduct the same census. Michal has no sons - Michal has five sons. These discrepancies reflect two sources of the David story, both in the Bible. Other stories are subject to similar variation, where they have been assembled from more than one, originally free-standing, account of events finally incorporated into the canonical scriptures.

That there is more than one separate source of stories about Jesus, and that these often disagree even in important matters, is surely too well known for me to be required to restate it.

An examination of these different sources, of the apparent order in which they were composed, and of the nature of the various things they relate, gives valuable clues about the possible historicity - or otherwise - of the events and characters described therein.

This, or certain aspects of this study, may well be controversial, or produce controversial results. That I understand. But that such commonplace statements should also arouse strong indignation, as they evidently do, seems very strange to me.

 

[maximara]

By "this" - it means what it says, which was - "why is it so difficult for you to understand that what Max says about cases such as John Frum, as complete refutations of the common HJ claim that the biblical stories of Jesus could not have arisen unless Jesus was a real person" ... what is difficult to understand about that as a frankly unarguable statement showing that it is NOT a valid or credible argument for any HJ people to claim that biblical stories of Jesus could not arise unless there was a real figure of Jesus actually doing some of things claimed in the bible????

That is not difficult to understand at all.

I should mention that John Frum also has a character in the mythology who does appear to have come from a real person (Tom Beatty of Mississippi): Tom Navy.

Getting up to speed on John Frum is relatively easy.

Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 is online and gives a detailed view of the cult up to about 1951 from both Emic (internal) and Emic (researcher) POVs

The next work is Worsley, Peter (1957). The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia London: MacGibbon & Kee. and is the work Carrier uses in his OHJ book. Worsley commented that "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum."

For a look at the John Frum cult at it was in 2005 there is Paul Raffaele's 2006 Smithsonian "In John They Trust" article. Here we get a glimpse at a power struggle in where to take the movement between Prophet Fred and Chief Isaac Wan which gives you an idea of what conflict between Paul and Peter was like.

Richard Dawkins' 2006 God Delusion comparison of Jesus to John Frum is online so this is easy to find and read.

The three online works should be enough to get a good handle on John Frum and why he is relevant to the whole HJ issue though Worsley's work does flesh things out some more.

 

[David Mo]

It is most amusing that David Mo is claiming that the LORD Jesus was crucified by the Jews in the Pauline Corpus but seems to have completely forgotten that THE LORD is from heaven, God's own Son and God Creator.

The claim that Jesus the Messiah was crucified by "the rulers of this age" is explicitly claimed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8. He mentioned the Jews in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, but this paragraph is considered an extrapolation, even by Carrier and Doherty. Paul says that the heavenly Jesus adopted a human form and so was crucified by the rulers of this age. As a man Jesus was born, suffered and died and he was risen to the heaven again.

You put on the same level two dissimilar assertions. A crucified Jew is a more plausible event than a man speaking to Satan. There is a big difference. A non believer can accept without contradiction the first assert, but not the second.

 

[maximara]

No! I am not wasting my time trawling back through loads of old posts to quote people who have made that argument.

You are clearly just here to start rows on the internet. And I am not remotely interested in wasting my time in any more discussions like that.

However, apart from that more specific point of whether or not the case of John Frum is a counter to HJ posters arguing that there must have been some real person at the root of the Jesus stories, I expect Max would say (perhaps he will tell us) that cases such as that of John Frum do show how, like the case of the fictional John Frum, a Jesus story told in the bible might just as easily arise without any real figure of Jesus at all.

John Frum also shows the complexity of what may have existed in the 1st century

Guiart's 1952 Oceania paper (online) is a treasure trove example of what may have existed at that time.

This paper not only shows that tn the period from 1940 to 1947 not only were there three illiterate natives who took up the name John Frum (Manehevi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip) and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism) and were exiled or thrown into jail for the trouble they stirred up but there were also three people saying they were the "sons" of John Frum in 1942.

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."

So here we are told John Frum was a "supernatural being" while the believers are saying he is an actual man who is still running around out there.

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."

So here we are told that John Frum is Karaperamun (who is a long existing volcano god)

There is also a 1949 letter claiming John Frum (or at least his spirit) was felt 30 years previously which kind of kicks the idea Manehevi was the founder of the movement in the head.

So a mere 11 years after the 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.

So we have the possibility that Jesus did start out as a celestial being (the guts of the Christ Myth) but one or more people took that as their name or passing themselves off as relatives to try and take the movement in a certain direction.

 

[Belz...]

The three online works should be enough to get a good handle on John Frum and why he is relevant to the whole HJ issue though Worsley's work does flesh things out some more.

Max, would you agree that the argument that HJ is the only explanation has not been made by HJ proponents?

 

[IanS]

Perhaps I might take this opportunity to explain what I mean by there not being a "single source" comprising the "Bible"; although I'm rather surprised that any explanation is required.

The Bible is certainly a definable literary entity, but it consists of a collection of works of very disparate origin, assembled into a collection at different historical periods.

As must be well known to every contributor to this thread, this collection is notorious for the contradictions it displays between different accounts of the same event. As we have seen before: David kills Goliath - Elhanan kills Goliath; God makes David conduct a census - Satan makes David conduct the same census. Michal has no sons - Michal has five sons. These discrepancies reflect two sources of the David story, both in the Bible. Other stories are subject to similar variation, where they have been assembled from more than one, originally free-standing, account of events finally incorporated into the canonical scriptures.

That there is more than one separate source of stories about Jesus, and that these often disagree even in important matters, is surely too well known for me to be required to restate it.

An examination of these different sources, of the apparent order in which they were composed, and of the nature of the various things they relate, gives valuable clues about the possible historicity - or otherwise - of the events and characters described therein.

This, or certain aspects of this study, may well be controversial, or produce controversial results. That I understand. But that such commonplace statements should also arouse strong indignation, as they evidently do, seems very strange to me.

Craig - the above is entirely irrelevant.

Firstly everyone here is very well aware that what we have now as the modern version of the bible, is something that was created over time and through many changes, redactions, and with many other gospels being discarded or even destroyed by the Church.

But when you yourself quote passages as "evidence" from "the bible", you are using exactly the same gospels and letters that we are all using as "the NT bible".

And your reply to me (it's quoted below at the foot of this post), was your response to me pointing out in considerable detail why those same gospels and letters that your yourself are relying on as evidence, could never be regarded as a credible reliable source of factual evidence about Jesus.

Those same gospels and letters that you are totally reliant upon, are not credible for numerous quite unarguable reasons (as detailed in the full post that you replied to), but the most obvious reasons are that they are totally discredited by the fact that they are filled from end to end with claims about Jesus that have since (it took nearly 2000 years!) been proven to be certainly untrue (and mostly proved physically impossible). As well as the fact that serious academic authors like Helms have shown how, why, and exactly where, those gospel writers were all certainly creating Jesus stories from what had been written centuries before in the OT.

And as if that was not enough (which it certainly is), none of those gospel writers have ever known any such person as Jesus anyway. The Jesus that they all knew was known to them only as a figure of religious belief handed down to them as messianic legend of the past.



The entire problem here is that you do not have any credible reliable evidence of a living Jesus ever known to anyone. And that has been pointed out to you many hundreds of times here before.

If you really believe there is some evidence in any of those gospels and letters of the writers ever knowing anything about any living Jesus, apart from what they had been told as legend by other unnamed unknown preachers of their past, then what is stopping you from posting that evidence for all these years?

But if all that you have are those same gospels and letters which admit that their authors had never known anyone called Jesus, then at very best all you can possibly have as what you are calling "evidence of Jesus", is nothing more than evidence of their un-evidenced religious beliefs about Jesus.

What you actually have is evidence only of religious belief. But no sceptics here are arguing about mere belief ; everyone accepts that Christians had religious beliefs about Jesus.

What you do not have, and have never had, and have never been able to produce here, is any evidence of a human Jesus ever claimed to be known by any of those believers.

So all you are really left with is the bible. And that, as just described (and explained!), is just about the most unreliable, and most “proven” unreliable, source ever in the history of mankind. And yet, that is what we are being offered as the source of evidence of Jesus. In fact, that is all we are being offered as the evidence of Jesus.

I deny and have always denied, that there is any single source definable as "the Bible". So there is no point in my perusing your dissertation any further.

 

[Mcreal]

... Like drawing a parallel between Jesus and Serapis because one had the epithet Christos and the other Chrestos?

More drawing a parallel by the way they were both created and quickly given human attributes (ie. anthropomorphized = euhemerized).

I think it's highly likely that Paul's initial Christ was the basis for that.

 

[dejudge]

Perhaps I might take this opportunity to explain what I mean by there not being a "single source" comprising the "Bible"; although I'm rather surprised that any explanation is required.

The Bible is certainly a definable literary entity, but it consists of a collection of works of very disparate origin, assembled into a collection at different historical periods.

As must be well known to every contributor to this thread, this collection is notorious for the contradictions it displays between different accounts of the same event. As we have seen before: David kills Goliath - Elhanan kills Goliath; God makes David conduct a census - Satan makes David conduct the same census. Michal has no sons - Michal has five sons. These discrepancies reflect two sources of the David story, both in the Bible. Other stories are subject to similar variation, where they have been assembled from more than one, originally free-standing, account of events finally incorporated into the canonical scriptures.

That there is more than one separate source of stories about Jesus, and that these often disagree even in important matters, is surely too well known for me to be required to restate it.

An examination of these different sources, of the apparent order in which they were composed, and of the nature of the various things they relate, gives valuable clues about the possible historicity - or otherwise - of the events and characters described therein.

This, or certain aspects of this study, may well be controversial, or produce controversial results. That I understand. But that such commonplace statements should also arouse strong indignation, as they evidently do, seems very strange to me.

Again, you cannot show historical data for your dead obscure HJ.

The very fact that you admit, as we all already know, the bible is notorious for contradictions, then it rather bizarre that you will use the very same contradictory bible for the Biology and History of your dead obscure HJ.

It is most amazing that you will use an admitted contradictory controversial bible for "clues" of historicity.

For example, gMatthew states specifically that Jesus was born after his mother was found with child of a Ghost yet you use the very same gMatthew to argue that Jesus had a Biological family.

All you have done is attempt to show that gMatthew is a contradictory source.

The Christian Bible is not credible but that is the very same source that you MUST use to argue for a dead obscure HJ.

Why are you using the Christian Bible as an historical source when virtually all accounts of Jesus are known to be implausible fiction?

 

[Mcreal]

The claim that Jesus the Messiah was crucified by "the rulers of this age" is explicitly claimed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8. ...

Paul says that the heavenly Jesus adopted a human form and so was crucified by the rulers of this age ...

Yep, that fits with the likely evolution of the narrative.