Zeichman

Right, but I don't think almost any scholar would say it's that simple. Early Christianity, from the evidence, was pretty diverse. The Markan gospel is composed out of several sources, both oral and written. Each of these sources likely came from a distinct community which was pretty dissimilar from both modern orthodox Christianity, the early Church portrayed in Acts and in the gospels. I would reccomend that you familiarize yourself with source criticism (Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament I enjoy the hell out of). Several of these communities certainly did not revere Jesus himself, regard him as the Messiah, believe in his resurrection, or other things which are integral to modern orthodoxy.

Sarpedon

Can we just pretend he said "early christianity as reported in the Bible and cult characteristics?" You've made your point in other threads.

Zeichman

If one wants to say that Christianity portrayed in the Bible exhibits characteristics of "cults" then fine. That's not my interest.

If we're going to talk about the historical early Christians, then I am interested in discussing such.

triffidfood

Aren't we (or rather, isn't the opening poster) referring to the so-called Jerusalem Church ~ i.e. the people (real or imaginary) who supposedly knew Jss and who could be said to be the original cultists ~ here anyway, rather than all the myriad of 'Jesus/ Christ cult' variations that later emerged?

Also, please could someone explain "Q Community" ~ I understand (more-or-less) the concept of 'Q' as being a source of many of the sayings & ideas used by the writers of Matthew & Luke, which didn't come from Mark, but where does the idea of a community based on these come from? (Or is it simply the case of one being taken to imply the other...?)

Amaleq13

I think "community" refers to "those for whom the text was written" (ie the target audience).

jjramsey

The similarity between early Christianity and apocalyptic/millenial cults has been noted by several scholars. You may want to check out that angle.

mikem

I think if you read through the letters of Paul, and the catholic epistles, you will find all the correspondences you want. I'll give you a few examples. 1 corinthians 1:10 (no.2 in your list.), 1 Corinthians 1:26,27, (no.6), I Corinthians 4:1 (no.5 - in relation to leaders i.e Paul describing himself as a steward of the mysteries of God. In fact the whole notion of the Apostleship would fit here, and the idea of Apostolic succession in the RC church, with the Pope as the premier apostle), 1 Corinthians 5:1 (no9). Just for starters!

mikem

While writing my earlier post, it occured to me that really, there is no hard and fast demarcation line between a cult and a respectable religion. Don't all relgions have their hardline sectarian members and the "passive majority"? In relation to Christianity, (I am not able to speak of other faiths), it started out as a cult, and then with the conversion of Constantine, was aligned to the prevailing culture. Within the history of Christianity too, there have been new groups that started out as sects, until time and generation transformed them into respectable denominations - Quakers, Methodists, Baptists spring to mind, as does the so called "Great Awakning" under Jonathan Edwards.

At the beginning, these sects and movements attempt to practice a "pure" form of Christianity based on the New Testament, and that is when there are more recognizable cultic characteristics as described in the OP, but over time the original fervour dies down, and the denomination becomes more worldly and less fervent. However there are always elements of cultism there, and particularly the "us and them" mentality, which is always just below the surface, ready to rekindle when faced with perceived opposition from "the world".

I grew up in a cult (JWs), and converted to evangelicalism, then Catholicism. From the inside, I was surprised that in spite of their theological differences, the members of these different denominations are very similar in other ways - there are barriers that cannot be questioned and cannot be crossed. The barriers may be different, but when challenged, the response is usually the same, and that is that one either lacks faith or obedience, or both. In my experience, Christianity, in all it's forms, from fundamentalism to liberalism, has this mindset - a final resort to "faith beyond reason". Even the most sophisticated religious liberal will have his/her last resort position, be it the resurrection, (spiritual or physical), a historical Jesus, (although I think that question will never be resolved historically one way or the other), or religious experience.

yalla

It's refreshing to see the word "propaganda" being used openly and appropriately.
Do I recall a satirical cartoon in a thread a few months ago that showed a street preacher appealing for money to go up the scale from "cult" to "full religiion"...or similar?
Anyone got a link because IIRC there was a serious point being made?

hjalti

Best cartoon ever