Read this article from the Huffington Post on made up religons. Hard hitting essay on the mormons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/if-jesus-never-existed-re_b_5883198.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

might exhibit bias: he wants to sell his book!

"The underlying psychology may be fairly simple. Common confidence tricksters work their magic by telling victims what they want to hear. The same is true of successful prophets who offer pie in the sky bye and bye as I explain in my book 'Why Atheism Will Replace Religion'. The only reason that Jesus does not fit in this category is that he probably never existed."

The notion that I agree with this paragraph indicates I have a compatible bias myself!

Damn!

I might be buying a book soon...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 08:03PM by moose.

made up religion, isnt that a little bit of an oxymoron?

lol, yeah I did

nonsequiter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> made up religion, isnt that a little bit of an
> oxymoron?

Don't you mean "redundancy"?

Hane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nonsequiter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > made up religion, isnt that a little bit of an
> > oxymoron?
>
> Don't you mean "redundancy"?

Yup. Got my parts of speech wrong. :/

It does seem like a kid or kids made up a secret society type religion with secret handshakes and hierarchies, planets
and achieving godhood.

"Mormons MADE 'Simple'" (propaganda) video

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLQWGtastA

It's made up alright.

M@t

Implying that the Mormon church is a "Made Up Religion" is also an insinuation that there's a church out there somewhere that isn't.

Whaaaaat?

That's like saying SpongeBob is made up and isn't real like Mickey Mouse.

Whether or not Jesus existed, modern Christianity in no way resembles the church of the 1st C AD or the 5th C AD. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Crusades, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Industrial Revolution and Democracy, etc. have all dramatically changed religion.

Major portions of Christianity are not in the Bible, such as Heaven and Hell. The Rapture is a 19th C. invention that Mormons and Catholics do not recognize. Prosperity Gospel has perverted Jesus' message of poverty and charity into an "every man for himself" Social Darwinism. Gluttony and greed are celebrated as signs of virtue.

Even if I did believe in Jesus, there is no way that any Christian church today comes anywhere near what Jesus intended. If JS got one thing right, it was the Great Apostasy. Unfortunately, his religion is one of the more demonstrably fraudulent of the lot.

Are you saying that 14 year old girls in the time if Jeebus didn't attend Mia Maids?!

Of course they did, but only after a large bowl of chiasmus for breakfast.

You said "Major portions of Christianity are not in the Bible, such as Heaven and Hell."

You are totally wrong. "Heaven" is mentioned 691 times, and "Hell" is mentioned 54 times (King James Version).

All religions are made up religions. If one wasn't, then that would mean it would have to be true. Can you think of any that meet that criteria?

ALL religions are made up.

I have just finished re-reading Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity."

He comments at the beginning: "Religions are not based on facts, but upon myths."

As the title implies, he shows that Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but of Paul. He shows that Jesus was a Jew (a Pharasee!) and had no intention of starting a "new" religion. Christianity was entirely the invention of Paul, fusing together elements of Judaism, the mystery religions, and Gnosticism.

I recomment the book highly. It reads easy, like a detective novel.

I agree with other posters: all religions are "made up."

Thanks for mentioning this book! Now I'll have to buy it.

Years ago, thanks to a liberal arts education, I took an undergrad class on Judaism. My professor boldly stated that Jesus was a Pharisee. Since that time I've found a lot of nay saying and obfuscation in regards to that possibility. So, I'm looking forward to what the book has to say. :-)

(Edit2x:typos)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 11:55PM by sassypants.

I read a pretty critical review of the book, so I'm interested in which parts you felt were really informative. The review is by Robert M. Price. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_maccoby_mythmaker.htm

I'm only really starting my historical study into the New Testament, but many scholars argue that early Christianity was far more diverse than could be accounted for by Paul as the founder.

Moreover, as Price implies in his review, can we really be so sure of what we know about Paul? Certainly some argue as strongly that can make various conclusions about what Jesus did or did not teach, but this continues to be an ongoing debate among scholars.

In the 28 years since this book was published, it doesn't appear that Maccoby's arguments have persuaded many, if any, other scholars to his viewpoint.

outsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read a pretty critical review of the book, so
> I'm interested in which parts you felt were really
> informative. The review is by Robert M. Price.
> http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_maccoby
> _mythmaker.htm
>
> I'm only really starting my historical study into
> the New Testament, but many scholars argue that
> early Christianity was far more diverse than could
> be accounted for by Paul as the founder.
>
> Moreover, as Price implies in his review, can we
> really be so sure of what we know about Paul?
> Certainly some argue as strongly that can make
> various conclusions about what Jesus did or did
> not teach, but this continues to be an ongoing
> debate among scholars.
>
> In the 28 years since this book was published, it
> doesn't appear that Maccoby's arguments have
> persuaded many, if any, other scholars to his
> viewpoint.

Of course early Christianity was diverse. It is a straw-man argument to criticize Maccoby for claiming that Paul was the sole source for the later Christianity. Maccoby acknowledges other sources and names them. His thesis is simply that what later became Christianity was essentially and basically from Paul.

If Price argues "what can we really know about Paul?" one can more readily argue "what can we really know about Jesus?" At least Paul wrote rather extensively about his activities, his teachings, and his background (although, as Maccoby argues, much of his statements about himself are subject to skepticism and are not accurate). But Jesus wrote nothing. Nor did those who knew him best write anything.

Of course there is considerable ongoing debate. Believers (even scholars) who are wedded to the traditional story about Christian origins will defend tradition. Maccoby confronts many of their objections in his book.

RPackham Wrote:

>
> Of course early Christianity was diverse. It is a
> straw-man argument to criticize Maccoby for
> claiming that Paul was the sole source for the
> later Christianity. Maccoby acknowledges other
> sources and names them. His thesis is simply that
> what later became Christianity was essentially and
> basically from Paul.
>
Again, you earlier claim:

"Christianity was entirely the invention of Paul, fusing together elements of Judaism, the mystery religions, and Gnosticism."

You are not saying it's a straw-man argument to refute the very claim which you made. I'm not following this?

"As the title implies, he shows that Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but of Paul. He shows that Jesus was a Jew (a Pharasee!) and had no intention of starting a "new" religion."

As I'm sure you are aware, although many on the board are not familiar with biblical scholarship, there are a great number of excellent scholars to debate these various issues.

It is a gross simplification for to make a claim that any one scholar "shows" something as controversial as Jesus being a Pharasee when at best he can only argue that. While it may seem I'm being pedantic, one of the problems here on this board is the refusal to look at biblical scholarship as legitimate.

There is a vast body of solid work by many historians concerning the early Jesus movement, a term which the ones I'm studying refer to as there really wasn't one "church."

In light of the many questions concerning the complex relationship between Paul and the other leaders, including Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and the unnamed others who are visiting the congregations and actively disputing with him;
his quotes of earlier material such as the hymns; the marked (no pun intended) difference in Christology between the Gospels and the Pauline epistles; and other factors, it does not seem to be something with such a pat explanation.

> If Price argues "what can we really know about
> Paul?" one can more readily argue "what can we
> really know about Jesus?" At least Paul wrote
> rather extensively about his activities, his
> teachings, and his background (although, as
> Maccoby argues, much of his statements about
> himself are subject to skepticism and are not
> accurate). But Jesus wrote nothing. Nor did those
> who knew him best write anything.
>
Yet, Maccoby is claiming to know a considerable amount about Jesus, which goes beyond the evidence.

It looks like we agree that lot of what was traditionally believed about Paul is highly problematic. The Acts gives a vastly different account of events than is seen in the epistles.

Even the account of Paul's conversion on the road from Damascus (and note my separation of the terms, "Jesus" for the most probable historical peasant of Galilee, and "Christ" the invention or evolution of his divinity by followers of the Jesus movement) is only found in Acts.


> Of course there is considerable ongoing debate.
> Believers (even scholars) who are wedded to the
> traditional story about Christian origins will
> defend tradition. Maccoby confronts many of their
> objections in his book.

Objective historians, be they believing Christians, agnostic or atheists, are not wedded to the traditional story of Christian origins. Richard Carrier essentially claims that the field is tainted because historians are buying into the work of early Christian writers, yet fails to acknowledge the legitimate work which is being done.

The question among scholars is not if the traditional accounts are historical. They clearly are not. However, that cannot be used as evidence of other extraordinary claims which Maccoby appears to be making.

outsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Carrier essentially claims that the field
> is tainted because historians are buying into the
> work of early Christian writers, yet fails to
> acknowledge the legitimate work which is being
> done.

Have you read "On the historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier? It doesn't sound like you have, but if you have then I would be interested in a more detailed critique of it.

I apologize in advance. It's really late and I'm very tired so my writing is likely to ramble and not be coherent at times.

The Invisible Green Potato Wrote:

>
> Have you read "On the historicity of Jesus" by
> Richard Carrier? It doesn't sound like you have,
> but if you have then I would be interested in a
> more detailed critique of it.

I have not read it yet. However, I've studied a fair amount of his earlier arguments, including a number of his online articles, as Youtube lectures.

A must-see youtube video is his debate with the historian Zeba Crook. Both present initial points and then offer rebuttals.

Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth? A discussion with Zeba Crook and Richard Carrier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgmHqjblsPw

Some of his online lectures include: Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Carrier has some good points, including the overuse of some methods by certain scholars who are too quick to confirm their earlier presuppositions. Certainly Christian apologists latch on to the criterion of embarrassment to stretch it beyond breaking the breaking point.

However, it will be interesting to see if Carrier does a better job in making a case for his ideas in "On the Historicity of Jesus" than what I see as rather mediocre arguments in the material I've seen or read so far.

While I'm in absolutely no sense a scholar myself and am really only digging into this now, his attempt to use Bayes Theorem to make sense of the question of the historical Jesus is incomprehensible to me. If there were ever a case of garbage in is garbage out, this would seem to be the case. Does the theorem really produce meaningful results for something like this? More on this later.

I intensely hate apologetic arguments from anyone: Mormons, Christians and even from fellow atheists. I dislike cherry picking simply to prove a point. I also dislike authors and posters who pretend a certainty which doesn't exist. Brian Hales and his defense of Joseph Smith's polygamy is the epitome of that type of apologist.

What I've studied of Carrier strikes me as bad scholarship and smacks of apologetics. The first article I read was his review of Earl Doherty:

The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, a work by Earl Doherty http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

Which contain the following: "One could say that Jesus was an insignificant, illiterate, itinerant preacher with a tiny following, who went wholly unnoticed by any literate person in Judaea. However, this would not bode well for anyone who wished to maintain he was God, or did any of the more amazing things attributed to him. It is very implausible, for instance, that a biography would be written for the obscure itinerant philosopher Demonax in his own lifetime (by Lucian), yet God Incarnate, or a Great Miracle Worker who riled up all Judaea with talk, should inspire nothing like it until decades after his death."

This, of course firmly places the target of his arguments outside of scholars because no serious historian today accepts the Gospels accounts in any way, shape or form as historical.

The consensus of historians is that if Jesus lived, which most accepted that such a person did, in fact live, he would be "an insignificant, illiterate, itinerant preacher with a tiny following, who went wholly unnoticed by any literate person in Judaea."

Doherty makes terrible blunders in his arguments, yet Carrier offered his opinion that he was basically right.

In the 2012 debate with the Mark Goodacre,
(Did Jesus Exist? Mark Goodacre vs. Richard Carrier Did Jesus Exist? Mark Goodacre vs. Richard Carrier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKoOvhuHMqY) Carrier acknowledges that he had not made his case yet. However, he was absolutely certain that he would be able to.

This seems to be the Kerry Muhlestein approach to the Book of Abraham. Make us your mind first then fine tune your arguments.

As a fellow atheist, it is painful to read Carrier because I would like atheism to be better than this.

Back to his debate with Zeba Crook. Carrier seems to be forcing the evidence in order to match his theory. While there were cases of legends were gods become men, the argument of the literary form of the Greek bios as a basis for the Gospels too to this untrained eye to be more likely.

Carrier argues extremely forcefully, but uses sources and events far from the first century Judea. Likewise his characterizations of Paul misrepresent the nature of the epistles, which were occasional correspondence, not in that they were infrequent, but that they were written for specific situations and occasions. They were not thesis on Jesus, but to address specific issues originating from the various congregations.

Unfortunately, Carrier has taken an extremely aggressive stance and ensured that mainstream scholars simply become wary of engaging with him.

Anyway, this isn't very coherent, but I wanted to write something before going to bed.

I read a book with a similar argument. Basically says Paul perverted the message and turned the followers anti-semetic in order to have the movement appeal to broader audiences.

How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson.

Good article... not good for TSCC though. Thanks for sharing.

Don't confuse HuffPo with scholarship or even journalism.

Best satire of a teabagger ever!!!!

I like that since Mormons have stepped on the public media arena to spout their opinions that so many journalist have decided to report on them without "pretending" like the Mormon fantasy is real. I also like that because of this and the iterwebs, we can have a candid discussion without walking on eggs shells around Mormonism.

It's made up, period. It's time WE all stop pretending.

Actually, they're all made-up! The idea that Mormons restored the original Christianity is foolish. There never was a single Christianity, it was fractured into lots of sects from the get-go.

Exactly.

This is the reason that current scholars often use the term "Jesus followers" to describe the early movements.

The followers were divided concerning practices and theology, one of the largest of which concerned Christology, or the question of how divine was his nature. Was he a mortal man? An angel? God incarnate?

Would he return soon? Not?

Do gentile converts need to become Jewish and follow Jewish laws? Must they become circumcised?

While historians used to subscribe to the belief that there were only two camps, one pro-Paul and the other not, most scholars believe it was far more complex than that.

That said, unless one believes in some sort of a god or gods who communicate with humans, then all religions are "made up."

According to John Allegro, the dead sea scrolls expert, early Christianity grew out of an ancient mushroom cult. Therefore, if Mormons want to copy the early "Christians" they should be doing shrooms.