₦airaland Forum

JOHN FRUM MOVEMENT PROTOTYPE

"'E look like you. 'E got white face. 'E tall man. 'E live long ago in America." These are the descriptions a follower of Cargo cult gave in an [interview] with David Attenborough, an English Anthropologist working with BBC Natural History Unit, about a divinity of the spiritual circle. A literal white American service man known as John 'Frum' is venerated as a Deity among the people in Vanuatu, an island country located in the South Pacific Ocean. It is generally believed among the adherents that John appeared to elders in the late 1930s, though some claim the movement started 30 years earlier putting John Frum appearance to 1910s.

As posted on Smithsonian Magazine] , Paul Raffaele on his journey to Island of Tanna, he met with Chief Isaac Wan Nikiau, the chief priest of the movement who gave detailed information about the cult belief system. “John Frum came to help us get back our traditional customs, our kava drinking, our dancing, because the missionaries and colonial government were deliberately destroying our culture.”
“He promised he’ll bring planeloads and shiploads of cargo containing Radios, TVs, trucks, boats, watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola, canned meat, candies and many other wonderful things to us from America if we pray to him.”

Raffaele pondered; “but if John Frum, an American, is going to bring you modern goods, how does that sit with his wish that you lead a kastom life?”

Chief Isaac answered; “John is a spirit. He knows everything. He is powerful.”

Raffaele: “Have you ever seen him?”

Chief Isaac: “Yes, John comes very often from Yasur to advise me, or I go there to speak with John.”

Raffaele: “What does he look like?”

Chief Isaac: “An American!”

Raffaele: “Then why does he live in Yasur?”

Chief Isaac: “John moves from America to Yasur and back, going down through the volcano and under the sea.”

No one knows who Frum is. There is no physical evidence he existed. However, some anthropologists concluded that the natives may have heard stories of such an English man or at least met an English service man cladded in US Army uniform who claimed he is "John From (somewhere)". The high tech equipments in possession of the 'Yankee Messiah' dazzled the natives who made a religion out of their experiences. This provided us with blueprint of how religion is decisively or indecisively framed from experiences or agenda, around fabulous fabrications like apocalypse, vision, miracle, martyrdom, divinities, etc.






jamesid29 Plaetton

BassReeves:
You're trying hard to playing half smart because I never at any time presented Testimonium Flavianum, you introduced it during your arguments.

FOLYKAZE:
You went and copy gibberish content off the internet like you are discussing with some kids.

Can you cite the passage where Josephus mentioned Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. which is not a forgery?

BassReeves:
I did earlier cite 18:063 as the passage

Why dont you get hold of Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18

1. You went and plagiarized content from earlywriting. And act of stealing.

2. You presented Antiquities 18.3 which is part of the discredited Testimonium.

3. Testimonium Flavianum is wholly forged or partially interpolated. You haven't been able to argue otherwise.

4. You admitted Testimonium has a lot of inconsistencies; something I tagged manipulation, redaction, interpolation, omission amd whole lot. It is a shame you are not honest with yourself.

BassReeves:
Fyi, go recheck my post to see that I clearly stated in my post that I have presented a full list of all the Jesuses in Josephus' work, namely:
1. Antiquities of the Jews
2. The Jewish War
3. The Life of Flavius Josephus

You stole the content from earlywriting. Shut the hell thief.

BassReeves:
If you're really are 'connect with the discussion self' sic you would see that I am pinning you down on the fact and evidence that in the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus recorded the existence of Jesus. Now you won't to dispute that Josephus ever typed that information. From my persona experience, I quote quite a lot of things I dont believe in. Josephus was commissioned to write, hence he wrote about the existence of Jesus, though he doesnt believe Him to be the Christ. Whats so difficult in that to understand?

You may run to the internet, steal and plagiarise stuff you don't really believe just to achieve se dubious purposes. Josephus explicitly told us his sources in the Antiquities, and he emphasize on basic truth only.

But as to these that have no regard to truth, they may write as they please. For in that they take delight. But as to our selves, who have made truth our direct aim, we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking: but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy: and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs.

1. Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9 is the same thing as Testimonium Flavianum. It is hilarious though that you admitted Testimonium Flavianum is inconsistent but Antiquities is not.

2. In your own words "Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ." But Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ. Can you tell us how Josephus who neither believe nor accept Jesus as Christ turns to penning the Testimonium?

3. Antiquities scholars and Christian apologists have ruled out the Testimonium as fraud. Can you please present your facts with contrary position?

4. Explain why Josippon a Hebrew variant of Antiquities lacks the passage in question.

5. The Testimonium in Antiquities 18 interrupted the contextual narration of Josephus who was explaining the foolishness of the Jew. Can you therefore explain the immediate turn at .3 which seems to support Jesus who is a Jew?

Evidences from textual and style analysis from different scholars has reviewed that the manipulation of the Testimonium is the doing of no other person than Eusebius. You may bring a strong rebuttal to establish that Testimonium is an original writing of Josephus. Until then, I have no further interest in discussing this with you. Na Monday morning be this.

Emusan:
What the OP is trying to say is that.

Seun the owner of Nairaland created a Thread under Islam for Muslims section, without TAKING THE OATH as an Atheist.

Which means as A CREATOR he isn't bound by the rules of Nairaland.

God also as the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE can't be bound by the laws that governed the universe.

Do you understand?

Yeah I understand now

Well, he is the owner and has admin access to the back end of website. This may makes it appear his 'seun' moniker is not bounded by the rules of Nairaland. He is actually bounded by programming laws. Remember few years ago, Nairaland forum lose some data. I can remember seun posts and threads were lost to that drainage. Therefore, Seun is bounded by some laws. He is not Almighty and do not matches God.

budaatum:
Explain what the point of the following was You did repeatedly present it when asked for evidence of your claim!

And mind your glasshouse when throwing stones.

budaatum:
Funnier still that the Romans "succeeded in overthrowing James the Just" who is recorded to be a brother of Jesus.

Was 'James the Just' a fictional character too then?

FOLYKAZE:
Historically, James existed and his brother who was elected as high priest is Jesus Damneus, not Jesus christ.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html

Woman, I no get time for your back and forth game. You may save the rabble rouser for the next guy.

Anas09:
You didn't understand the Op

I think I am the only one who do not understand the OP. Can you please rephrase in simple terms what he is trying to pass across

budaatum:
If you had bothered to read what you sourced, you'd have realised you were presenting Antiquities as evidence. It's either that or you were writing incoherently!



Regardless, note that the conversation has moved on from where you are stuck. Sorry if I don't let you hold us back from evolving.

That question should be directed to Eusebius who invoked the 'discredited' Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus antiquity to prove the existence of historical Jesus.

No wonder Muttley and Reed dey woze you

BassReeves:
Where did I ever say that the Antiquities is not with inconsistencies? As far as I am concerned both, the Antiquities, Testimonium Flavianum and other Josephus works have their fair share of inconsistencies, however for the umpteenth time, I reiterate that I am pinning you down on a smaller detail, which is that Josephus in Antiquities 18.3 penned:
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

I remain vehemently sticking to all that Josephus wrote in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 as admittance of the existence of Jesus and seen as the Christ, albeit, personally as a Jew, Josephus did not necesarily believe what he, as a matter of duty and commission had to record down, nonetheless he did mention the word Christ at least twice, thats talking of in Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9

Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ, but it doesnt compute to Josephus never wrote about the existence of Jesus who other believed to be Christ. Now for Origen to have complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while refusing to recognise Jesus as the Messiah.

I have no vested interest nor gain in putting up representation for any or all versions of the Testimonium out there, so no can do, is my response to your request

Josephus had from the outset said that multiple copies and/or variants of Antiquities could be found. Even said, copies of his work made their way East in various forms, so if thats the case, it sounds like adulteration waiting to happen

Virtually all scholars of antiquity up to the 21st century agree that Jesus existed. The transformer is out there to hug for any that disagree. Ouch, it hurt me more typing that way than it'll hurt the easily offended

Off point garbage again. I expected sound rebuttal and comprehensive counter-argument. But if these is the best you can offer, I beg to Fashi

budaatum:
Foly, you presented Antiquities as evidence, and you claim same it isn't reliable evidence.

Do you need me to argue it isn't reliable evidence when the question is, why did you present what you know is unreliable evidence?

What are you smoking? Me? Where? Presented Antiquities as evidence or I was stamping down Testimonium as forged document?

That wrap no good for your body. Causes some amnesia

budaatum:
Before pointing out the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, please tell me why you repeatedly presented the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence!

When and where did I present Testimonium Flavianum as evidence? Your comrade, BassReeves copied and paste the list of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus work. My argument so far is that what he presented, Testimonium Flavianum, is a forged document. You no connect with the discussion self. Trying hard to play smart

budaatum:
Just as you admitted to have never read the books you presented as evidence for you claim!

Isn't that like arguing blindly?

Is Wikipedia a book?

BassReeves:
Seeing that you've calmed down, it's so disappointing that you are too involved in seeing the whole, you couldn't admit to see that in a smaller detail, there is no inconsistency about Jesus and who He is, in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18 (i.e. Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ. And what befel Paulina, and the Jews at Rome) Chapter 3, section below:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

The knowledge is out there that Josephus was one of biggest political sell outs and stooges when Roman was at the heights of one of its world domination, so there is no doubt about inconsistencies in his literary work, however I am holding you down to the fact that Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ.

Of course, there are inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, you are not telling anything I don't already know about that, but the fact remains, in terms of the little detail about Jesus, Josephus admitted Jesus' existence and supported that He is Christ. None of these assertions, are latter additions, insertions or copyist's poetic licence

Beyond the inconsistences in the manuscript, the colored contradictory statements of yours have shown vividly that you are inconsistent, and prolly don't have an idea on this subject matter. I had to reduce your 'facts' because I can't find any.

1. Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9 is the same thing as Testimonium Flavianum. It is hilarious though that you admitted Testimonium Flavianum is inconsistent but Antiquities is not.

2. In your own words "Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ." But Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ. Can you tell us how Josephus who neither believe nor accept Jesus as Christ turns to penning the Testimonium?

3. Antiquities scholars and Christian apologists have ruled out the Testimonium as fraud. Can you please present your facts with contrary position?

4. Explain why Josippon a Hebrew variant of Antiquities lacks the passage in question.

5. The Testimonium in Antiquities 18 interrupted the contextual narration of Josephus who was explaining the foolishness of the Jew. Can you therefore explain the immediate turn at .3 which seems to support Jesus who is a Jew?



I, Budaatum your friend, and Workch would love to see you address the above queries. Thanks

BassReeves:
As I earlier said to budaatum, reading Josephus without the ability of knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff is like as if going up a creek in a canoe and without a paddle

There is no inconsistency about Jesus and who He is, in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18 (i.e. Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ. And what befel Paulina, and the Jews at Rome) Chapter 3, section below:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

It's so disappointing that I trusted you will see the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum by reading a little more. But please for the sake of those following this thread, I will point out the inconsistencies.

Firstly, Testimonium Flavianum was first mentioned by Eusebius of Ceasera in his voluminous publication titled Church History.

Secondly, in the Testimonium, Eusebius mentioned that Josephus recorded in the Antiquities about the Jewish suffering and the siege of the temple was a punishment for slewing James, the just man.

Thirdly, Eusebius rooted his argument on Origen commentaries on Matthew’s Gospel and Against Celsus.

Fourthly, in these two references Eusebius cited, it is mentioned there that:
i. "" And the wonderful thing is, that, though he (Josephus) did not accept Jesus as the Christ,... ""
ii. ""Now this writer (Josephus), although not believing in Jesus as the Christ...""

Fifthly, Origen commentaries indicated he had before him copies of Josephus Wars and Antiquities. However, from his own copies, Josephus neither accept Jesus as Christ nor does Josephus believe Jesus as Christ.

VI. Regarding calling James the brother of Jesus, Origen does not say that he is quoting anything verbatim from Josephus.


VII. Josephus didn't attribute the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James.


Isn't it therefore glaring that Origen's Josephus did not accept or believe Jesus as Christ, but Eusebius cooked up a Testimonium wherein his own version of Josephus believes, accepts, and acknowledge that Jesus is Christ?

The contradiction gave an hint that there are two Josephus' publications here, and one is fake. Well, it isn't worth too much investigation before one could point out that that of Eusebius is fraud.

1. Eusebius Testimonium became known in the fourth century. Yet, those who were before him, Justin Martyr 140AD, Clement of Alexandria 192AD, Tertullian 193AD, and our known Origen 230AD didn't know about this testimony.

2. Eusebius is a known forger. He cooked up a correspondence between Jesus and Lord and Abgar at Edessa. Joseph Wheless in Forgery In Christianity, and Bart Ehrman in Forgery and counter-forgery shows overwhelming evidences that Eusebius forged the correspondence and another one between Paul and Seneca.

3. Pious fraud isn't a new thing in christiandom. Martin Luther was quoted saying "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

4. Been the only person in possession of the Testimonium in the fourth century, it is evident that Eusebius tampered the original work of Josephus.

budaatum:
Your source does not say the "brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James" is the same "Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest".

You yourself said:

The source actually said:

Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

The source yet again didn't say Jesus there is Jesus ben Damneus, the high priest because it was an obvious literal doctored testimony. An open mind would easily find out that Jesus ben Damneus was altered and replaced with 'who was called Christ'.

budaatum:
But I guess since you don't even read your own sources, so one shouldn't really bother asking you!

That question was thrown at you to help you see the illogical submission that the Jesus mentioned an Antiquities XX is Jesus of Nazareth. I had thought you and BassReeves will easily identify the inconsistencies in the Testimonium, and that the original form of the passage can never be gotten again.

budaatum:
Don't you think you should have read it before presenting it as evidence?

That was an oversight. Never really look into the content on the page. Was really concern on the fact that Jesus ben Damneus was a high priest of the Herodian second temple.

budaatum:
Funnier still that the Romans "succeeded in overthrowing James the Just" who is recorded to be a brother of Jesus.

Was 'James the Just' a fictional character too then?

Your primary question here is was 'James the Just' a fictional character too?

And my response here below:

FOLYKAZE That question should be directed to Eusebius who invoked the ' discredited' Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus antiquity to prove the existence of historical Jesus.

Unknown to him and the church, Josephus was only referring to Jesus ben Damneus the high-priest whose brother - James the Just was reportedly killed by Ananus ben Ananus.

It however came out that what Origen, Eusebius, and church fathers hold to their chest as a secular evidence of historical Jesus is forgery.

Historically, James existed and his brother who was elected as high priest is Jesus Damneus, not Jesus christ.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus

I answered James the Just isn't a fictional character, and that his alleged brother is Jesus Ben Damneus; not Jesus Christ.

The Wikipedia link is to inform you Jesus Ben Damneus was a high priest in the second temple 62AD. Who ever edited the page to mean James brother of Jesus of Nazareth should answer you.

The reference cited on the Wikipedia page leads to Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews which I included in my corresponding response. There, no Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned.

budaatum:
The following is from your source.

"In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just)."

Does that, upon critical analysis, not imply that Jesus ben Damneus is not the same person as the brother of James whom Ananus he replaced was written to have executed?

Or perhaps your argument is that Jesus Christ is not Jesus of Nazareth?

FOLYKAZE I am disappointed in you Budda. You have a lot to read please.

Take sometimes off here
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html


An excerpt from that page

Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (27) But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

Keynotes, Festus there was the procurator who interviewed Paul, second year after he was imprisoned by Felix. How could Jesus Damneus of 62AD be the same person as Jesus of Nazareth of 33AD?

You have anlot to answer sis!

The original page didn't mention Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know what you really intend to achieve from your hyrocrisy and dishonesty Sissy.

budaatum:
Here is you re-presenting it, in case you've confused yourself.

Presenting what exactly?

That 'who was called christ' is a later interpolation or that James brother is Jesus Ben Damneus?

budaatum:
Did you not bother to read your own source?

Excerpt from my source http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html is cited here https://www.nairaland.com/6674257/anyone-give-evidence-jesus-ever/3#104264217

Stop been dishonest Darling Buda

BassReeves:

---

---

Its OK for you to reference: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html as a source, but it isnt OK for me to use http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html from a same source you used, as my reference. Hmm?

What and where is the forgery? What and where is the interpolation? It would be interesting to see what you in your wisdom voice as '... interpolation and forgery as evidence' sic

As you can see, I had no interest in citing the passage because it has been discredited as forgery. Jesus who was called Christ is an obvious interpolation. Same as the garbage you cited. Come up with authentic and unaltered citation.

budaatum:
Don't dear me! I am not your dear!

You claimed James the Just, the brother of Jesus ben Damneus. Yet, the text you presented as evidence describes James the Just as the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, and you admit that Jesus of Nazareth of 34AD could not possibly be Jesus ben Damneus who made it into priesthood in 62AD.

Now, it's possible James the Just had more than one brother named Jesus, so just provide a simple reference so we know!

Where you take see Nazareth?

Read again https://www.nairaland.com/6674257/anyone-give-evidence-jesus-ever/3#104264217

Abeg park well

BassReeves:
How many times do you want me to cite the passage before you've had enough?

I voluntarily without you soliciting first cited the source the information was drawn from, then I afterwards went as far as copy and paste the passage here for, even shared the reference. Now what else do you Oliver Twist want?

No ones giving you any 'Eusebius forgery or interpretation' sic

Ttestimonium flavianum is discredited. Haven't I said this like more than once? How could you present an interpolation and forgery as evidence

BassReeves:
Why do you think not?

You should explain how Jesus of Nazareth of 34AD made it into priesthood in 62AD

BassReeves:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-home-town-nazareth-archaeological-discovery-research-a9470716.html

I am still looking for the City Nazareth.

BassReeves:
https://www.livescience.com/49997-jesus-house-possibly-found-nazareth.html

q

Jesus house indeed. Lol

BassReeves:
Soot trying to call avalanche black

Caught pants down

BassReeves:
Its a tragedy when emotions arent as educated as intellect. Emotional intelligences allows one to respond, instead of react. Emotionally intelligent posters know when to display emotions and when to delay emotions. Have the heart of a kid. Goodnight! Sayonara!

Haahaa

budaatum:
You never cited the passage! What you did do was throw an entire book at me and expect me to wade through it to find evidence for your claim!

Stop been dishonest Dear
https://www.nairaland.com/6674257/anyone-give-evidence-jesus-ever/3#104264217

22jumpstreet:
http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing