Importance of Original Sin

Ok explain whom i would hypothetically or actually sign my possessions over to?

That's an argument from popularity, which is worth nothing.But as I've said, I don't believe you anyway. There are some apologists who interpret the passage as you do but you haven't given us any reason to think that that interpretation is as popular as you claim. You have failed to show that I am misreading the text. All you've done is ignore the parts of the text that you don't like.

There's a book called the Bible:

quote:

---

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

---

It's really frustrating that you so-called "believers" have no clue about the book you pretend to believe in.

I've now looked up four reputable commentaries on this passage and they all disagree with you, saying Ananias and Sapphira had the right to dispose of their property as they pleased and that they were punished for lying to God about it: David Guzik at Blue Letter Bible, Jamieson Fausset and Browne at Blue Letter Bible, Matthew Henry at Blue Letter Bible, and John Gill. Gill and Henry go back a couple of centuries, JF &B go back about a century, and Guzik is a contemporary. I can't link to the commentaries at BLB so you'd have to look them up yourself (go to link and then "tools."), but I can link to John Gill.This is from J F and B: This is from John Gill: The point has been clear enough all along but with these notable Christian opinions you really need to concede the point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you quote doesn't disagree with me. I have already said that Ananias and Sapphira had a legal right to do what they chose with their property - i.e. they had the free will to obey God or disobey Him. They freely chose to disobey - and the disobedience was clearly in holding back the money and lying about it.

Obviously you do NOT agree with them as all the commentaries clearly say they were NOT in disobedience in holding back the money. I'm done with this.

What you quoted said that they had a legal right to hold back the money. I agree with that, I always have and I have said so explicitly. But legality is irrelevant, as I have also said, and you seem to agree.The only thing we disagree on is that you insist on ignoring the bloody obvious fact that Ananias and Sapphira were punished for holding back the money and lying about it. It's right there in the text. I've quoted it so many times that everybody reading this thread will have it memorized by now. I don't know how you can pervert the Bible by just pretending it isn't there. It is there. Why would it be there if you're just supposed to ignore it?

YOU ARE MISREADING THAT AND ALL THE COMMENTARIES DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT IT. THEY WERE NOT PUNISHED FOR HOLDING BACK THE MONEY, AS ALL THE COMMENTARIES EXPLICITLY SAY. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR THINKINJG AND I'M FED UP WITH IT.

Why did Peter say, "and to keep back part of the price of the land"? Why do you keep pretending that he didn't say it? Nothing that you quoted from your precious commentaries addresses that.

In context it cannot possibly mean that they were punished for it whatever Peter meant. All he could have meant is that they were morally wrong to hold back the money, but since they were not legally wrong to do it; since they were "under no obligation" to give it all; since Peter goes on to insist on their having complete authority over their possessions; since the giving was voluntary and not obligatory as the commentators all agree; and since Peter explicitly says their sin was lying to God, then it simply does not mean their holding on to some of the money was the cause of their punishment. Their pretending they weren't holding on to it and llying about it was the cause of their death. You are insisting on your own interpretation of one phrase that is contradicted by the whole context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But he doesn't. He explicitly adds, "and to keep back part of the price of the land." He makes no distinction between the two transgressions. Why would he say it if you're just supposed to ignore it?

I also believe in reality. I have yet to meet even one Christian (or anyone, for that matter) who has simply given everything away. I'll concede the point to you, but agree with Faith that what was told to the rich young ruler was not something that everyone needed to literally do. He had great wealth and it was this wealth and attitude towards it that was keeping him from the 100% goal. Did Jesus ever tell the Roman Centurion to sell everything? Apart from His Disciples, did He even need to preach such a message to crowds of largely poor folks? Most of them had nothing anyway.I wont argue with you on this one, however. I dont plan on selling the only house I have anytime soon, however. Based on your interpretation, no Christian would ever own anything.Thank God my Dad never believed that way!

There really are two ways to look at this.
I: The believers were in communion and agreement. Thus to be a member of the club, one couldn't own anything apart from the needs of that group. That much I can see. Faiths argument, if I interpret it correctly, is that God does not expect every Christian on Earth to have everything in common and own nothing. That's just the wishes of a dreamy Canadian Socialist.

Does every storry have to make every point? If you can find one story in the Bible that doesn't condemn sin, is that enough of a loophole to satisfy you? Exactly.Isn't the fact that the early churches practiced communal ownership enough to suggest that that was Jesus' message?

quote:

---

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

---

is in direct contradiction of what the Bible says. Apologists can try to weasel out of it but it says what it says.In all fairness, the early church apparently expected to be zapped up to heaven in their lifetime, so you could use that as an excuse to treat it as a short-term measure. If you can ignore what Peter said, you should also be able to double-think yourself into believing that two thousand years is too long for communal ownership but long enough for one generation.