and if so, what implications does this have?
LOLO.
We get it. You don’t like Christianity.
OK?
jar
I would like to have a serious discussion.
here, I’ll get the ball rolling.
we’ll start with Acts 5
Acts 5:1
And a certain man, Ananias by name, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Acts 5:2
and did keep back of the price – his wife also knowing – and having brought a certain part, at the feet of the apostles he laid [it].
Acts 5:3
And Peter said, 'Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place?
Acts 5:4
while it remained, did it not remain thine? and having been sold, in thy authority was it not? why [is] it that thou didst put in thy heart this thing? thou didst not lie to men, but to God;’
Acts 5:5
and Ananias hearing these words, having fallen down, did expire, and great fear came upon all who heard these things,
Acts 5:6
and having risen, the younger men wound him up, and having carried forth, they buried [him].
Acts 5:7
And it came to pass, about three hours after, that his wife, not knowing what hath happened, came in,
Acts 5:8
and Peter answered her, ‘Tell me if for so much ye sold the place;’ and she said, ‘Yes, for so much.’
Acts 5:9
And Peter said unto her, ‘How was it agreed by you, to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? lo, the feet of those who did bury thy husband [are] at the door, and they shall carry thee forth;’
Acts 5:10
and she fell down presently at his feet, and expired, and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband;
Acts 5:11
and great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things.
so, what’s more likely; Peter was concerned about the money from the sale of possesion and killed Ananias and Sapphira? or God was concerned about the money and killed Ananias and Sapphira?
many times, in end-of-the-world cults, cult members sell their possesions in anticipation the world is about to end. Does this chapter suggest such activity?
anyonem with any other input is welcome here for a serious discussion.
I implore you.
Lolo, I implore YOU to find a more convoluted way of voicing your dislike of the ‘unimpressive Jesus’ and his ‘end of the world cult’
You find one example in the New Testament of two people selling their possessions and conclude that Christianity is an end of the world cult.
I guess I’ll answer your question, then. Christianity does have a viewpoint on the end of the world…AS DOES EVERY RELIGION ON THE PLANET.
I do not think it is a cult.
You are free to do so.
jar
Lolo, you have a valid point. I think it is not unreasonable to view early Christianity as a sort of doomsday cult. And yes, the Ananias and Sapphira story sounds a bit suspicious.
Pressed for time now, but I will keep an eye on the thread and may post later.
I’m using bible quotes. I’m afrain your objection is unsubstantiated.
**
I started out with ONE. I plan on posting more, and hope others have input as well. Your objection, again, is based upon your preconceived dislike for me and is unsubstantiated.
**
[/QUOTE]
I do not think it is a cult.
You are free to do so.
jar **
[/QUOTE]
You’ve voiced your opinion. Could you tell me how early Christianity differed from other end-of-the-world cults?
You can participate if you like. I’d like to hear your ideas.
Well, no I can’t tell you that. What I can tell you is that until I read in the Bible that Jesus, the cult leader, has instructed all of his followers to sell their possessions in prep for the end of the world, I will not take the Acts story as evidence.
Jesus commands us not to worship our possessions. That we should worship HIM with such eagerness that possessions and even family members pale in comparison.
And as for the ‘end of the world’, we are given no direct instructions except to spread the news of the gospel and be watchful. We are not given a date for this event “he will come like a thief in the night”, nor are we to make any out of the ordinary sacrifices to be a part of it.
And when I say you’re convoluted, I mean that the Acts passage (in my estimation) has very little to do with the apocolypse.
jar
Well, let’s get some things clear. Your thread title asks if Jesus was in an apocalyptic cult. Based on your passage from Acts, probably not . . . since Christ was already dead. Hard to be in a doomsday cult when you’re dead. And really, there’s no evidence that he was before he died, either.
But as to your second, and I think more serious question, of whether early Christianity could be called an end-of-the-world cult . . . well, I’m not sure what you mean.
Do you mean something like the Heaven’s Gaters? The Davidians? The Guyana Kool-ade Krew? Aum Shinrikyo?
If so, I see no comparison, for many reasons–but I’ll wait on that until you tell me what sort of cult you’re thinking of.
OK, Lolo I’m game for now.
If you will turn your text to Acts 4:32, it describes the whole process. The Christians would sell their property and bring the proceeds in to the Apostles who would then pool the money together and distribute it equally to ensure that no one was needy in the community, not in anticipation of the end of the world.
Argument 1 shot down (hopefully).
BTW, if you are going to be quoting Bible verses, it would probably be easier just to say Acts 5:1 and go from there, we’ll be able to follow what you mean. Or, if you feel the need to, just say Acts 5:1-11, no need to cite verse by verse.
Jesus may not have suggested others to sell their possesions b/c a comet was on its way to destroy earth, but he certainly made references to the world eneding. Do the phrases “wailing and gnashing of teeth” and “furnace of fire” mean anything to you?
Also, if Jesus was one of Peter’s buddies, and Peter was concerned about the sale of possesions and subsequent transfer of money, this suggests a great deal about Jesus’ involvement in an end-of-the-world cult.
**
Worshipping an individual more than family members is very cult-like. Does the name Davidm Koresh ring a bell?
(not that the comparison is a mirror reflection. It’s just an example)
**
No, you’re certainly not given a date like “8:15 wednesday, 37 AD.”
There is, however, a certain passage(open to debate).
Matthew 24:34
Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.
What did Jesus mean by generation? He was certainly speaking about the world’s end when he made the suggestion.
**
I disagree. The passage doesn’t explicity suggest, “A and S were selling their possesions b/c they thought the world was going to end” but if Jesus is discussing the end of the world, and people are selling their possesions(and getting killed and buried for not handing over the cash)… something is amiss.
Yes, it does. But once again, I urge you to find me one religion or culture that does not have an end of the world speculation.
I suspect you are singling out christianity as a cult simply because of your dislike for it.
jar
cult (pronunciation and derivation omitted) 1: formal religioius veneration; WORSHIP **2[2]: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents 3 a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also its body of adherents 4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 5****a: a great devotion to a person, idea, or thing; esp: such a devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: a usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure. -from Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1983.
It certainly sounds like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. etc. etc. to me. I’ve never understood the difference between a “cult” and a “religion” except that “cult” has developed a negative connotation based on what passes for religious devotion in Christians, Jews, Islamics, etc. At the time that Jesus walked the Earth I would imagine that he and his followers were looked on as a cult simply because they were unorthodox and out of the mainstream. Now that his followers ARE the mainistream, what once was a cult is now a religion. Its the same exact concept, except one has a degree of acceptance while the other one doesn’t.
No, I don’t think it shoots the argument down.
The people were encouraged to sell their possesions and become common, but when Ananias and Sapphira do not produce the amount of money Peter suspected the property was worth God kills them. So, my point is not that the people weren’t coming together as one, but that one of the leaders and some of its members were more likely reponsible for Ananias and Sapphira’s death than God. This community is coming together, selling their possesions and attempting to become equal, and when one of the couples doesn’t come up with the cash… they get killed.
What is more likely? That Peter and his goons 
killed S and A, or that God killed S and A?
**
well, I didn’t know if simply listing the verses w/o quoting them would be acceptable. Now I know.
I have no idea why all of that ended up bolded. Sorry.
People talk about Jesus on these boards all the time. Something to the order of 75% of US citizens are Christian. I don’t think I’m being exclusive in my choice of discussion, nor am I being biased.
Curious, does Budhism have any end-of-the-world under/overtones? Curious, I honestly don’t know.
I guess it depends. If this were a modern-day trial, and this evidence came from an observer, I’d say it was more likely that Peter, or someone in cahoots with him, was guilty of foul play, than it was likely that God came along and struck husband and wife down.
If those are the only two options, that is.
No. Here is an enormous leap of logic. You go from what seems to an an unexplained death - as long as supernatural soures are excluded - to a generalized statement about end-of-the-world cults, and ask us to draw an inference from this.
It’s not a supported inference. If you offered a quote form Peter that had him telling Joe Blow, “Verily, the end of the world is at hand, so sell your possessions,” you’d certainly have some strong inferential evidence.
But the mere existence of a couple who sold something, gave a pportion of the money to the Apostles, and were struck down does not support an inference that early Christians were an end-of-the-world cult.
However, there is considerable credible evidence that Jesus thought the end of the world was at hand, or at least coming along shortly. I don’t buy it, but it’s credible - or at least consists of reasonable inferences. Since I’m not here to do your work for you, however, I guess you’ll simply have to wonder what it might be.
By the way, if I had put forth either proposition - Christianity was, or was not, and end-of-the-world cult, I’d be obligated to disclose my evidence. But I’m merely responding to the question, does a particular passage of Acts support the inference that early Christianity was and end-of-the-world cult.
And the answer is no.
- Rick
P.S. - Lolo, learn how to frame an argument and support a position. Please.
What the hell am I, chopped liver?
I find it an enormous stretch of the imagination to read Christ’s words in contect and claim he was talking about an apocalypse.
You made an error. Ananias and Sapphira don’t get killed because they didn’t produce the amount of money Peter suspected the property was worth. It specifically states that the two weren’t being honest and kept some of the portion of the sale for themselves. So there is no speculation on Peter’s part.
And it’s not a matter of coming up with the cash, like they had a specific amount that they had to go raise. They sell their possessions and pool it so that no one is needy. Again, nothing to do with EOTW.
As for your assumption that it was Peter that killed them over the money. They weren’t killed for the money. They were killed for the deception. It says that. Acts 5:4. So there goes the argument.
So let’s sum up.
-
The early Christian community pooled its resources not in anticipation of the end of the world, but to ensure that no one wanted for anything in the community. Acts 4:32+
-
S and A were killed not because they didn’t come up with a certain amount of money, but because they lied to God. Acts 5:4.
So your argument (you are correct, I didn’t properly address it the first time, I was responding to the EOTW thing) that S/A were killed by the Apostles for not coming up with the money is incorrect. They were killed by God for lying to God.
Not really. In the generic Buddhist point of view, life on this plane of existence is one of constant rebirth. There is no “end of everything” concept – although the individual Buddhist may “end everything” by attaining enlightenment, which will end the cycle of rebirth. At that point, with no attachments left to cause rebirth, you reach nibbana. The Buddha was once asked what happens to a person who dies have attained this state, and he replied, “What happens to the candle flame when the candle is extinguished?”
- Rick
But these are the people Jesus associated with, yes/no? And if they’re collecting possesions and killing people after Jesus suggests what he suggests in Matthew 24… perhaps they are making preparations for the apocalyse.
**
A cult with implications about the end of the world, generally. Specifically all cults are different, so I wouldn’t say David Koresh and Jesus were mirror reflections of one another. I will say some passages in the New Testament suggest very cult-like activities.
this discussion aimed not at necessarily resolving with an absolute answer, but to discuss the possibilities.
But on a different note, I just returned from getting a massage… at work.
That’s right. I just got paid to get a massage.