Re: Was there a squashed attempt at a "socialistic" Christian government pre 50/70 A.D.?
quote:
Do you see where it says they had the right to their possession? Clearly not. Context means nothing to you.
It says that he owned the land and had control of the money - the point being that he had no excuse for holding back. Nowhere does it say that holding some of the money back was acceptable - clearly it was not. That’s what you see if you read it in context.
Re: Was there a squashed attempt at a "socialistic" Christian government pre 50/70 A.D.?
Going back to the original point it is clear that they were expected to give everything to the nascent Church. Their failure to do so is even attributed to Satan’s influence.
I’ll also note that Peter is clearly setting himself up as God’s representative - to the point where lying to him (at least when he is acting as head of the Church) is lying to God.