When Did Cultism Start in Christianity? (page 2)

onacruse

Dantheman, very interesting. I've got this impression in my heart of Jesus' teachings as being positive, inclusive and generally non-judgmental. Your Scriptural outline does not present the same picture.

I'll have to think about this.

Thanks,

Craig

Trauma_Hound

Considering how many Mesiah's came about in that day, how do we not know that Jesus, wasn't simply just another man, starting a new religion. Considering many of the bible stories resemble ancient sumarian, and babylonian storys.

cellomould

Hey Craig,

I'd postulate that the cult was alive and kicking as soon as Jesus died, if not sooner.

I think the resurrection was simply that his followers kept sensing his presence in strangers... Why did 'doubting' Thomas not recognize him at first?

How many people saw him? At first, only a few...then he kept 'appearing' to various people.

I think the early disciples had reincarnation or spiritual presence in mind more than bodily resurrection. Needless to say, I think they were all operating under the influence of powerful suggestion and/or other factors.

cellmould

{edited to add this link: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm

read that article, it's quite insightful...about what Jesus' objective just may have been.}

Edited by - cellomould on 18 January 2003 6:29:17

onacruse

TH and cello: You both raise good questions.

As far as Jesus starting a "new" religion: I don't think that starting a new approach to spirituality is necessarily the same as starting a cult. But, it's obviously true that the new way to spirituality that Jesus introduced was centered on himself. Interesting.

As far as possible auto-hypnotic delusions: Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that people demonstrated a "lemming syndrome." Mass hysteria based on rampant desire, all too common in human experience. And there's no doubt that the Jewish state was ripe for a "deliverer." Again, interesting.

Two more thoughts I've never considered before. I must admit, this thread is not going where I thought it would go...

but I like it.

Craig

PS: cello, thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Edited by - onacruse on 18 January 2003 6:46:21

JosephMalik

Consider the next 20 years: Paul (a former Pharisee) comes along and starts formulating all kinds of rules and regulations--how to select elders, how to select deacons, how to practice disfellowshipping, insisting on "unity of thought," being busy busy busy in the "work of the Lord." Conformity begins to be imposed.

Onacruse,

The reason Paul did all this is because cultism was already flourishing and he tried his best to stop it. He even had names for them like the man of lawlessness. John called them the antichrist. James was largely responsible for much of it and the letter that bears his name was a lame attempt on his part at repentance. The letter to the Hebrews did him in and now he was trying to repair the damage he had already done.

Joseph

onacruse

Joseph:

Are you referring to James' possible connection to the Judaizing element? That James was a fleshly brother of Jesus would certainly give rise to the possibility that he could be a major player in the development of a cult. A few thoughts:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal 2:11-13)

The commentaries are split on whether these men were really authorized by James or were acting on their own accord. On the one hand, James' actions as the chairman of the Jerusalem Synod (Acts 15:13-21) would suggest that he did not support the Judaizers. On the other hand, he (as well as the rest of the elders in Jerusalem) did constrain Paul to support a conciliating act toward Christians who were zealous for the Law (Acts 21:18-26) And James (5:14) shows a deference to the autonomy of each congregation, rather than inferring a centralization of authority.

All that being said, the behavior of the Judaizers in general certainly had some of the earmarks of a cult: centralized authority, sense of superiority, exclusivism, charismatic leadership. Now, Paul may have indeed simply been trying to stop that cult, but I surmise that the "tactics" he used produced essentially the same conditions.

Please correct me if I'm way off the mark in making this connection between your comment and Judaizing.

Craig

PS: Would you care to elaborate on the book of James being "a lame attempt on his part at repentance." I've not found that proposition in any of the literature I have available.

heathen

One more thing that comes to mind is that Paul refered to the divisions of christianity as sects . I think more of what you are after is when did apostasy happen within the church? I would have to guess it was the sect of nicolaus that is mentinoned in revelation 2:6 where not only the members of the congregation condemned them but Jesus here states his complete dislike for them .

onacruse

heathen, that's a good distinction. It would be a little easier to focus the scope of my inquiry if there was a clearer generally accepted definition of "cult" (There probably is and I just don't know it ) In a way, the Judaizers might well be considered more of a sect than a cult, but that begs the question: Who came first, the Jewish Christians or the non-Jewish Christians? So much of the early Christian congregation followed, by default, the Jewish pattern. Insofar as they had independence and were not constrained to do this, then it was not cultic. Judaizing per se was not necessarily cultic, though it certainly may have been. The power struggle (for lack of a better term) between the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations also plays into this possibility.

I'm thinking of "cult" particularly in the sense of how the WTS operates: 1) thought control; 2) centralized authority and command structure; 3) exclusivism and intolerance. In this sense, there's not much evidence that the various schisms, heresies and apostasies in the 1st century were cults.

That's why I'm seeing Paul as more of a cult starter than a cult fighter.

Craig

heathen

onacruse- You have raised an interesting question . The apostle paul may have been responsible for many people being confused over the issue thus the term babylon comes to mind . He had a habit of saying stuff and then trying to clearify it but he was also talking to mostly uneducated people, this is the perfect combinatioin for divisions in the congregation .

When Did Cultism Start in Christianity?

Share this