I think it’s abundantly clear that no one cares what you think in this thread, andros. 
kidding, kidding…much love…
I hesitate to try to clarify a Lolo point - but then, Christ does command charity.
I think Lolo is suggesting that it’s inherently incredible that God killed them under such circumstances. That if we heard a story like that today, we’d immediately discount the lunatic-fringe-God-killed-'em business, and focus on Peter and his crowd as primary suspects. After all, they were defrauded. What makes more sense, Lolo asks - that these people were killed by a vengeful invisible power in the sky, or that the Apostles, irked at not getting all the gelt they deserve, offed the cheating pair?
Perhaps Lolo means to ask, “Why is the story told in Acts immediately accepted by many Christians as God’s work - but if a similar story were told today, to those same Christians… by a defendant as a defense, while they were serving on a jury… surely most of them would waste no time voting ‘guilty’.”
Beats me. As often seems to happen with Lolo’s threads, I find myself constructing what I think is the argument he might be trying to make, and then defending or attacking it. What he actually means is known only to Lolo himself, and perhaps The Emperor.
- Rick
It’s really not an enormous leap in logic, Rick.
Jesus makes numerous statements about the end of the world in the gospels(e.g. matthew 24). If we’re going to use the gospels as evidence of Jesus’ followers and his friends, we must look at what is happening surrounding both his life and death.
And I’m made a generalized statement about end-of-the-world cults, b/c I don’t think all cults follow strict guidelines, like the ones found in your usual end-of-the-world-cult-official-handbook.
**
No, I don’t have that. But I have to people dead b/c they didn’t cough up the cash from the sale of the property. So again, what’s more likely? who more likely killed Ananias and Sapphira?
**
The mere existence of any single passage in the bible also does not suggest Jesus was God, but many people believe that.
However, a collection of passages do suggest things, don’t they?
**
Bricker, who asked you to do my work for me? I gave one passage get things started and you came here with an agenda b/c you don’t like me. You made a bunch of crude points b/c you imagined I’d be w/o answers.
If you don’t want to contribute, fine. I don’t care.
**
what a waste of cyber space.
I get the end-of-the-world impression out of the following, hardly stretching imagination at all.
Nuerotik, sorry to quote so much.
Bricker I’m sure that you are correct, and I was pretty sure that’s what he was making. But I can’t really debate a point that has hypotheticals as evidence.
If I was in a court of law and the defendent gave this testimony, is it more likely that Peter killed the person? Sure. I’ll agree with that. But if you are going to then go on to say Xianity = EOTW cult based on that, then that’s where I’m going to step on the brakes. The conclusion has just been reached on a series of hypotheticals and assigned motivations that have nothing backing them up except speculation.
That goes also for his assertion:
**
That’s just speculation, not a reasoned argument that I can actually debate. Perhaps they were making preparations. Perhaps not. But the same source that he is taking the whole thing from specifically states that they were doing it for the community, and makes no mention of the motivation being EOTW. So, unless another source that doesn’t rely on speculation comes out and says they did it in preparation for the apocalypse, then I am going to have to assume that that wasn’t actually the motivation.
I say this like Ben Affleck says “retainer” in Good Will Hunting.
“Semnatics.”
“SEMAAAAAAAANTIIIIIIIIIIICS!”
“Your situation… fuh you…”
I digress.
They were being dishonest about the money they didn’t come up with.
So, in essence, we’re both equally right.
**
Not only were they in an end-of-the-world cult… they were commies!
red bastards!
but seriously, I think there was more going on than that.
**
or, they lied to Peter about the cash and he killed them and buried them.
open to interpretation…
**
or, they were killed by Peter b/c they didn’t cough up the dough.
Well, if we are going to INFER things about these verses, maybe after the shock of getting caugh cheating not only the brethern in the commune but God himself, poor old Ananias had a heart attack and died. When his wife came in, Peter confronted her as well and knowing that she had a weak heart as well, said that her husband had dies and the pall bearers are at the door for her (a scare tactic to get her to confess) and her poor old heart stopped as well. no one was murdered or smote, it was natural causes.
I mean, if we are inferring things…
:shrug:
I’ve never really thought that Matt 24 necessarily described the “end of the world” as such. The end of the world as we know it, yes, but Jesus certainly doesn’t call for people to go out and kill themselves. On the contraty, he enjoins his followers to remain vigilant and faithful.
But I can certainly see how one might see this as an apocalyptic passage, especially when coupled with some of John’s more . . . interesting prophecy in the Revelation. But as I said, I’ve never seen it that way. But then even if I were Christian, I’d not be inclined to read prophecy literally. And Matt 24 sure has the prophetic ring to it (telling a parable and quoting Daniel and Isaiah make a difference too).
The question in the thread title deals with Jesus. Not what Peter might have been up to, or what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.
Are you conceding that Jesus rose from the dead and masterminded whatever went on, Lolo?
Or can you adduce evidence that implies Jesus was involved in an apocalyptic cult?
Or is this another case of your interest in ridiculing Christianity?
Choose one, please.
You are leaving out another option. Myth. Acts is full of myth. Or, in more modern terms, Urban Legend.
Your quote of Matthew 24:34 is an interesting quote. It does seem to indicate that Jesus thought the world was about to end. Or, it could indicate that the later chapters of Matthew were also Myth.
Once more for you, Lolo, Jesus’ message was “Love God, Love Everyone”. If any religious rule or preacher or practice contradicts these two, then you can ignore that rule. If any quote attributed to Jesus in the New Testament contradicts those laws, then you can be sure the quote is not authentic. If Peter, Paul, the Pope, Jerry Falwell or I say something that contradicts these two laws, then we are talking out of our asses.
Jesus, however, wasn’t the only Jew who taught that message. Rabbi Hillel (60 BCE-9 CE) said
What is important is not the historical facts, but Jesus’ message. Once you understand this you might be able to get past your anger towards Christianity.
That said, I will agree that you can reasonably interpret the early Church believed the end of the world was near. Whether that makes them a Doomsday Cult is another issue.
Poly;Or can you adduce evidence that implies Jesus was involved in an apocalyptic cult?
Polycarp,
were Jesus and Peter not tight?
Does Jesus seem to talking about the end of the world in Matthew 24?
I’m not being as flippant and non-sequitur as you’re all suggesting. Stop pretending like I’m completely unjustified in my questioning in some of the biblical events.
Lolo, question the bible and jesus and christianity and the unimpressive world of religion all you want…we have people on this boards who do it every day.
The point is, your argument is flimsy.
What we have is
-
One anecdote from the book of Acts that SEEMS to indicate that someone died from not coughing up cash.
-
One verse from Matthew that you seem to think sums up the end of the world.
-
The fact that Peter and Jesus were friends
and
- The fact that some cults sell possessions to preclude the end of the world.
Put it all together and you get…nothing.
jar
Then whole bible is full of myths. One could easily say everything in the bible is myth.
That was the point of this excercise. It’s just a discussion about the possibility that Jesus was in an end of the world cult.
You people bitch and complain when I mock and disparage, and now when I try to have a discussion you bicth and complain yet again.
You’re so attached to Jesus, it’s frightening.
Any implication that maybe he wasn’t so great is dismissed b/c “oh that’s myth”, “that wasn’t Jesus’ message”, “you’re not interpreting it correctly”
But what can be expected from a bunch of people in a cult?
Peter was a follower of Jesus prior to the Crucifixion. I would not read this as “they were best buds.”
Later, he became the leader of the 12 Apostles, and, tradition has it, first Bishop of Rome.
Scripture indicates that God struck down A & S for holding back money after claiming they were contributing all their worldly goods to the Church-in-Jerusalem pot. It would appear that they had a choice whether or not to do so, but that they did not have the option of hanging onto a nest egg if they claimed to be giving all.
Accusations against Peter may or may not be valid in a secular worldview, but you’d have to suggest that the evidence against him is subject to dispute too. Either the Book of Acts is correct in saying they gave part but not all their money, and God offed them for lying, or else the Book of Acts is not correct, and all the story is, is another urban legend. Either way, Peter does not stand culpable of anything more than preaching in public.
You and Eternal Student are, I believe, “tight,” to use your terms. He trolled, and was banned. Does this indict you, Lolo? I’d be inclined to say not. But by the same argument, whatever went on with Peter later does not indict Jesus – unless He was still around and giving Peter guidance, as claimed.
You cannot have it both ways.
Mark’s version of the doomsday prophesies of Jesus can be found in Mark Chapter 13.
And andros, I don’t see how you can look at Matthew Chapter 24 and not see it as a doomsday prophesy.
Sample:
What do you think he’s talking about there?
no, you get something alright.
DENIAL.
Christian DENIAL.
Disregarding Lolo’s attacks, can we refocus on the OP?
Like most of the posters to this thread, I think Lolo is reading a bit much into the account of Annanias and Sapphira. Two people died, there was a disagreement about money from property that was sold to support commune style living. This neither supports nor detracts from the suggestion that they were part of an end-of-the-world cult.
Lolo’s also been plenty vague about what he/she means by end-of-the-world cult. Unless Lolo objects I’ll describe what I think makes something an end-of-the-world cult:
- cult just means this a group of a spiritual nature (basically agreeing with plnnr that the distinction between cult and religion is in the eye of the beholder)
- end-of-the-world refers to a drastic change - the end of the world as we know it (I feel fine)
- this drastic change will be in the near future (all but the oldest members of the group will live to witness this event)
So, did Jesus have this end-of-the-world mentality? Did early Christians?
Matthew 24 is a prediction of tumultuous events. I think they fit the bill of the end of the world. The sun being darkened, the heavenly bodies shaken, the entire world mourning. Will it be soon? This is where the debate comes in, I think. Because of Matthew 24:34, I think Jesus believed that the end was nigh.
As for the early Church, Paul seemed to believe the end was nigh as well. 1 Corinthians 7 (especially 7:29-31) indicates he felt the end was imminent. Whether or not Paul’s beliefs reflect upon Jesus’ beliefs is another debate I think.
Despite the poor choice of words in the OP, I’ll answer yes, Jesus was in an end-of-the-world cult (as far as the founder of a religious group can be ‘in’ that group).
What are the implications of this? I’m pretty sure that before getting sidetracked about who really put the hit on A & S, Lolo was going to drive at the point that:
- Jesus thought the world was going to end very soon
- It didn’t
- Therefore Jesus was wrong, not infallible, not God
Given the premise, I think the logic is sound. So, is there an error in the premise?
Hmmm. There seems to be a lot of simmering hostility toward Lolo. I don’t know what he may have been up to in other threads, since I don’t get into the religious debates too often, but it does seem that here at least he was attempting a rational debate. Why all the venom?
You are right. One could easily say that. And be correct. From Merriam-Webster Online.
Being myth, however, does not empty it of containing Truth. At the very least the story of Jesus, particularly his Royal Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, gives insight on a fairly positive way to live life.
Jesus apparently had some concept of a disaster-movie set of events that would happen at some time in the future.
However, the quotations from Matthew that suggest he set a time and place should not be accepted.
Matthew as we have it is apparently not the book written by Matthew Levi, one of the 12, of which Papias said, “First Matthew set forth the logia of Jesus, though not in order.” As used here, logia means “words” in the metaphorical sense of “teachings, oracles, inspirational statements.” (The strict plural would be logoi.)
Clearly an account of Jesus’s life and teachings that begins with a birth story (attn. Fenris: opportunity for an Origins of Jesus story) and concludes with post-Resurrection appearances is not a collection of logoi.
Nearly 90% of Mark is repeated verbatim in Matthew, with very minor wordage changes, such as “Kingdom of God” becoming “Kingdom of Heaven.” Most modern scholars think that the mysterious Q document, otherwise unattested, was a collection of Jesus’s teachings depended on by Matthew and Luke. However, aside from parallel teachings in those two gospels, there is no evidence for the existence of Q.
I suspect strongly that the original Matthew book is the real analog of Q, and was discarded after being redacted with Mark as a frame story.
Most of Jesus’ teachings included in Matthew are in five large globs that appear to be structured on the basis of content. These would be taken verbatim from Q or ur-Matthew.
Luke contains the vast majority of these teachings, but sometimes in quite different contexts and carrying quite different meanings given the context. Classic examples are “Blessed are the poor” in Luke vs. “…poor in spirit” in Matthew, and the quite different implications of the variant Parables of the Talents in the two gospels.
Luke places all this material in scattered places throughout his gospel. Why? Check out Luke 1:1-4 – where he says explicitly that others have tried to tell the story and he’s researched out what happened when and what was said when, and is now reporting that.
What this means, however, is that the Matthew predictions of the Last Days are by no means to be relied on as actual teachings of Jesus, particularly as they fall into context with each other.
Whenever there’s doubt, prefer Luke’s reading.