Characteristics of a Cult

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

This is a list I ran across somewhere and found it useful.

  1. INTERNAL CONTROL, amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members.
  2. WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s), amount of infallibility declared about decisions.
  3. WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions made by leader(s).
  4. DOGMA, rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility.
  5. RECRUITING, emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing.
  6. FRONT GROUPS, number of subsidiary groups using names different from that of the main group.
  7. WEALTH, amount of money and/or property desired or obtained; emphasis on members’ donations.
  8. POLITICAL POWER, amount of external political influence desired or obtained.
  9. SEXUAL MANIPULATION of members by leader(s); amount of control of sex lives of members.
  10. CENSORSHIP, amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines, or its leader(s).
  11. DROPOUT CONTROL, intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
  12. ENDORSEMENT OF VIOLENCE when used by or for the group or its leader(s).
  13. PARANOIA, amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies, perceived power of opponents.
  14. GRIMNESS, amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines, or its leader(s).
  15. ISOLATION, attempts to separate members from family and friends who are not part of the group.
Posted in Popular Christianity | Leave a comment

A Field Guide to Heresies

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

This article catalogs some of the movements within early Christianity at variance with the orthodox faith. Material from this guide came from History of the Christian Church by Henry C. Sheldon, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and A History of Heresy by David Christie-Murray.

Ebionism

Ebionites considered Christianity as a sect of Judaism. The believed the Jesus was a mere man of exceptional righteousness and a superior endowment of the Spirit which came upon him at his baptism. Some Ebionites accepted, and some rejected, the supernatural conception of Christ. Ebionites were among the Judaizers who attempted to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians. Ebionites were millenialists–those who believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth.

The System of Cerinthus

Cerinthus (contemporary of the Apostle John) combined Gnostic views (separating the earthly Jesus who was the son of Joseph and Mary from the heavenly Christ) with the views of the Judaizers. Cerinthus was also a millinealist (also known as chiliasm).

The Pseudo-Clementine System

It is based on a 2nd century document claiming to be a collection of sermons by Clement of Rome. These writings emphasize the unity of God (as opposed to the Trinity), representing God as dwelling in bodily form at the center of the universe. The work is strongly dualist — dividing everything into a thing and its opposite (male-female, good-evil, Christ-antichrist, etc.).

Gnosticism

Predating Christianity, it is not correct to consider Gnosticism as merely a Christian heresy. Gnosticism may be considered a religion on its own. A syncretistic religion (a religion which borrows freely from and integrates elements of other religions), Gnosticism contains elements of Judaism, Jewish speculation, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and other Mediterranean and Eastern mystery religions. While there are many varieties of Gnosticism, they all shared an elitist view that some people are capable of knowing (hence the word Gnostic from the Greek word gnosis = knowledge) and understanding the secrets and those who were unredeemable. Salvation is a matter of knowledge rather than works or faith.

Gnostics had elaborate systems of heavenly beings and their relationships borrowed from Jewish speculation and such works as the Book of Enoch. Gnostics are strong dualists. They held that there is a Supreme Being, unknowable to the world, from whom unfolded attributes and powers who manifested in personal form. There is a chain of these beings, called AEons, linking the Supreme Being to the material world. “The Savior” was one of the AEons who united himself with Jesus of Nazareth in an un-real incarnation. Mankind is divided into immutable classes–some destined for salvation and some for destruction. Gnosticism was strongest in the 2nd century. Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine | Leave a comment

Bible Dates

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

For my own use, I consulted various Bible commentaries and reference books (including New Testament Introduction by Guthrie) to compile a table of Bible books, their authors and dates of composition. There are, of course, disagreements over these issues, but here is the best I could come up with.

The Bible – Dates and Authorship

Book

Author

Writing Completed
GENESIS Compiled from several oral traditions, Possibly by Ezra
J source 950 BCE
E source 750 BCE
P source 539
EXODUS J,E,P,D sources As above
LEVITICUS P source As above
NUMBERS J, E, P source As above
DEUTERONOMY D source 800 BCE?
JOSHUA Several 587 BCE
JUDGES Several + editor, some 8th and 9th Century BCE sources 6th Century BCE
RUTH Unknown as late as 3rd Cent BCE
1 SAMUEL Several + Editor Compiled around 560 BCE (some argue for 610)
2 SAMUEL As above As above
1 KINGS Unknown ca 560 BCE
2 KINGS As above As above
1 CHRONICLES Unknown ca 400 BCE
2 CHRONICLES Unknown early 4th century BCE
EZRA Ezra possibly early 4th century BCE
NEHEMIAH NEHEMIAH 4th century BCE
ESTHER Unknown 125 BCE
JOB Unknown 3rd-6th Century BCE
PSALMS Several before 586 BCE
PROVERBS Several 8th century BCE or later
ECCLESIATES Unknown 3rd Century BCE
SONG OF SOLOMON Unknown Unknown
ISAIAH (ch 1-39) Isaiah 6-7th Century BCE
  • (40-)
 Others 200-300 years later
JEREMIAH Jeremiah 626-586 BCE
  • (26-)
 Baruch ?
  • (46-51)
 Others 626-586 BCE
  • (52:1-34)
 Editor 626-586 BCE
LAMENTATIONS Jeremiah (?) 597 BCE
EZEKIEL Ezekiel + others after 597 BCE
DANIEL Unknown between 167-164 BCE
HOSEA Hosea 745 B.C.E
JOEL Joel 1st Half of 4th Century BCE
AMOS Amos 750 BCE
OBADIAH Obadiah after 586 BCE5th Century
JONAH Jonah (not the guy in the story) 5th Cen BCE
MICAH Micah et al 6th or Early 5th Cen BCE
NAHUM Nahum, et al Early 5th Century
HABAKKUK Habakkuk Early 5th Century
ZEPHANIAH Zephaniah 612-640 BCE
HAGGAI Haggai 520 BCE
ZECHARIAH Zechariah 518 BCE
MALACHI Unknown 450 BCE
MATTHEW Matthew (?) 80-85 CE
MARK Mark (?) 64-70 CE
LUKE Luke (?) 85-96 CE
JOHN John (which?) 85-90 CE
ACTS Same as Luke’s Gospel 90-100 CE
ROMANS Paul 55-59 CE
1 CORINTHIANS Paul 57 CE
2 CORINTHIANS Paul 58 CE
GALATIANS Paul 57-72 CE
EPHESIANS Paul (?) before 95 CE
PHILIPPIANS Paul 54-62 CE
COLOSSIANS Paul (probably) 60-61 CE
1 THESSALONIANS Paul 50-51 CE
2 THESSALONIANS Paul (?) 75-90 CE
1 TIMOTHY Paul (unlikely) 63-180 CE
2 TIMOTHY Paul (unlikely) 63-180 CE
TITUS Paul (unlikely) 63-180 CE
PHILEMON Paul 54-56
HEBREWS Unknown 60-96 CE
JAMES James (not the brother of Jesus) 100-125 CE
1 PETER Peter (?) 62-64 CE or later if not by Peter
2 PETER not Peter 125 or later
1 JOHN John 100 CE
2 JOHN John (which?) 100 CE
3 JOHN John (which?) 100 CE
JUDE not Jude 2nd century CE
REVELATION John (which?) Early 90’s
Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

The King James Version of the Bible

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

A visitor to my web site wrote: “I believe the King James Version is God’s Word perfected in English.”

This page discusses why I would take exception to the word “perfected.”

What if there were no King James Version? Let’s say all we had was the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Now think of someone producing the exact KJV that we have now and trying to publish it. Would anybody buy such a thing or take it seriously? The answer is “no.” People would immediately note that the language is obsolete, the text was confusing in places, there were errors in the translation and the Greek text underlying the New Testament was faulty. The unanimous view would be that this was a poor Bible version and that it had no place in study or worship.

The reason the King James Version continues to be published is simply tradition. A local preacher told a story of a man who got saved and went to the store to buy a Bible, asking the clerk “what do you recommend”? The new convert knew nothing of the Bible except what he had heard as a child at his grandmother’s knee. The clerk brought a Bible, but the man read it and knew it wasn’t what he wanted. Finally (to make a long story shorter), the clerk brought a KJV and the man said “this is the Bible.” Now my friend on the radio told the story to make the point that in one’s heart, one knows that the KJV is the Word of God. But I read the story to make the point, that the only reason the fellow picked the KJV was because that was what he was “used to.” There was no special virtue in the translation except that it reminded him of his grandmother. Now I have nothing against familiarity, tradition or grandmothers, but these have no bearing on the perfection of the translation. Continue reading →

Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

Bible Primer

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

An atheist once told me:

Don’t quote the Bible by numbers, I don’t have a bible and wouldn’t know how to use the numbers if I did.

This is a very introductory primer on the Bible for folks who know virtually nothing about it.

What “bible” means

By derivation, the word bible means “library.” The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of over 1000 years by many authors in three languages. At least some parts of the Bible are sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims. The books in the Bible differ widely in their literary form and historical context. There are laws, biography, history, poetry, short stories, parables, proverbs, songs, letters, prophecy, and more.

What’s the Bible about?

The Bible is about God, the creator of the earth and sky and humankind. The one God reveals himself to a Middle-Eastern man named Abraham to whom a promise is made. God’s self-revelation and the promise unfold through the story of Abraham’s descendants. The Bible then tells of God’s Son, Jesus, who came into the world to save it from sin and death and the early history of the “called out” followers of Jesus, the Christians. Continue reading →

Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

Faith and Works

Posted on June 5, 2003 by Kevin

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” [James 2:24 NRSV]

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” [Rom 3:28 NASB]

“‘Faith without works is dead,’ we are reminded. Quite true. But then what follows is usually some long and dreary description of works and what we should be about, as though the way to revive a dead faith were by putting up a good-works front. If the faith is dead, it is the faith that must be revived. No amount of works will do it.” [Gerhard O. Forde in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, Intervarsity 1988]

And so it goes around and around. We are justified by faith and not works–but faith without works is dead–but we are justified by faith–but faith without works is dead…

So an understanding results which seems to satisfy both views: we are justified by faith and works naturally result. The lack of works is a symptom of the lack of faith. Continue reading →

Posted in Faith | 1 Comment

Was Hitler a Christian?

Posted on February 1, 2003 by Kevin

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd. Nevertheless, no small number of people hold such a view. Why do they think this, and is there any truth to it?

This question has been vexing me for years. I’ve done a lot of research, read a number of books, written a pretty large web site to try to get at the issue (which is by no means simple and clear cut). Frankly, this is an area where objectivity is a severe challenge. The argument has become one between the Christian apologists and the anti-Christian propagandists. That’s not much of a formula for truth.

At this point (after years of debate) I believe that the question, as it is posed in the title of this page is meaningless. It is more a reflection of an individual’s bias than an assertion of historical fact. I view Jesus as a gentle man who taught love of God and neighbor, who said to turn the other cheek and give of oneself sacrificially. If that belief is “Christian”, then no one–not the staunchest anti-Christian — could claim Hitler was a Christian. If on the other hand, one classifies Christianity as any view which is derived from the Christian story, no matter how faithful or how perverted–however logical or illogical (or pathological), then Hitler did consider himself an admirer of Jesus (perverted though his view was), although the religion we popularly call Christianity disgusted him.

If then the question is not a historical question but a reflection of the bias of the one who asks, what is the value of the question? In a word, the answer is “propaganda”. To assert the statement (using an iconoclastic definition of “Christian”) serves to denigrate Christianity through “guilt by association”. To deny the statement is to defend Christianity’s “good name” by refusing to let Hitler’s twisted view of Jesus to be associated with Christian “main stream” views.

So what started as an apologists answer to the question “Was Hitler a Christian?”, is now an exploration of Hitler’s religions thinking and the issue of Christian anti-Semitism in general. But if you want an answer to the question, then mine is: Not any kind we would call “Christian” today. Continue reading →

Posted in Controversy | Leave a comment

Glossary

Posted on September 18, 2000 by Kevin

Documentary Hypothesis
A theory about the text of the first five books of the Bible that states that these books were assembled from multiple earlier sources.

Itacism
In Koine Greek [certain vowels and diphthongs] came to be pronounced all alike, all of the them sounding like ee in English ‘feet’. It is not surprising that one of the commonest kinds of scribal confusion involves the substitution of these seven vowels and diphthongs for one another. This kind of error, which is commonly called itacism, accounts for several extremely odd mistakes present in otherwise good manuscripts.

Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar is a group of Jesus scholars who meet to discuss aspects of the historical Jesus. Their most well-known work is The Five Gospels which is a translation of the Gospels (plus the Gospel of Thomas) which is color coded to indicate their conclusions as to how confident they are that the text is authentically from Jesus.

Miniscule
A Greek manuscript written in what we would call “lower case” script. Earlier manuscript were in all capital letters.

Moffatt Translation
A New Translation of the Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments by James Moffatt, Harper and Row Publishers, 1935. The Moffatt translation illustrates the Documentary Hypothesis by marking sections of the text as to source.

NRSV
New Revised Standard Version. This is a translation of the Bible copyright The National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. This translation is used by many churches for instruction and in public reading. Citations from the NSRV on this web site used by Permission.

Synoptic Gospels
Synoptic comes from the Greek meaning “same eye”. It refers to the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke which all have a similar view.

Synoptic Problem
The “synoptic problem” deals with the explanation of why the three Synoptic Gospels are similar in some respects and different in others.

Posted in Reference | Leave a comment

God will preserve his Word: The KJV Only controversy

Posted on December 22, 1996 by Kevin

Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, 1996

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. [James 3:17 NASB]

biblemtn.jpg (8742 bytes)A new translation of the Bible was published. It strove to make God’s word clearer using the best available ancient texts rendered in modern language. Nevertheless, it was met with a storm of opposition from those that claimed that it “changed God’s Word.” That new translation was what we call today the King James Version. The translators of this new Bible translation penned these words:

Whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be gloated upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that medleth with men’s Religion in any part, medleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.

From The Translator to the Reader in the 1611 edition of the Authorized King James Version.

Now, over 400 years later, the same attacks that were brought against the King James version have been marshaled against the translations of today.

One might think that the choice of a Bible translation was a personal thing. No one can fault those that choose the King James Version, whether for the beauty of its language or for the love of the words through which they first heard the Gospel of Christ. But the King James Only movement is more than a preference for a translation; it has become almost a religion in itself. The picture above, showing the Bible enthroned as king (instead of Christ) is from one of their web sites. Here are points where the King James Only movement has departed from what is acceptable Christian behavior:

Continue reading →

Posted in Bible, Controversy | 2 Comments

Original sin

Posted on August 16, 1996 by Kevin

I got nailed by my Sunday School class yesterday. It happened like this…

I was doing my part-time duty teaching Adult Sunday school and we were studying Psalm 51. When we got to the verse “in sin did my mother conceive me”, I asked whether David was expressing the depth of his sin (much as Job expressed the depth of his suffering by cursing the day of his birth) or whether this was a statement about “Original Sin”. (I should have been better prepared, but…) I defined Original sin as an inherited guilt from Adam which is removed by Baptism and then I went on to stick my foot in it by describing the doctrine as “Catholic” (which, it is). After which the good Lutherans in the class said this was Lutheran belief also. “Really?” My class then reminded me that (as an ex-Southern Baptist) I had never gone through Catechism.

So properly put in my place, I’ve poured through the Book of Concord and read extensively about Original Sin yesterday and today. Having studied these texts, I am left with one question I need to answer before class next week and another question for myself.

The first question deals technically with what Original Sin is. The reformers use the word “inherited” for Original Sin and then go on to talk about a human being being born without righteousness or the power to become so. What I wish to know, for the class, is whether original sin means that Adam sinned and was thereby transformed from a righteous person to an unrighteous person, and that trait has been inherited by all of his children, or whether the guilt of his particular sin is imputed to all of his descendents. I know the reformers teach the former, but I’m not sure about the latter.

The second question deals with my own encounter with the teaching. I gained a rather negative view of the idea of Original Sin (as I quoted it to my class up in the first paragraph) when I saw the theological knots it caused the Catholics who tried to answer the question of how Jesus avoided original sin (leading them to some strange [IMO] ideas about the Virgin Mary and formally to doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).

Now I fully appreciate that a bent towards sinning is universal among human beings and we cannot save ourselves from sin and death. But what does original sin mean if one believes (as I do) that Adam was not a historical person, and that (as all biologists do) that acquired traits are not inherited. If we cannot blame our sinful nature on a real historical Adam, then does that say (what the reformers denied) that mankind was created sinful? If the answer to that question is “no”, then how can I affirm original sin, either as inherited guilt or as pre-installed unrighteousness?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment