Message 1083 of 1198 (840859)
10-04-2018 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by jaywill
10-03-2018 12:18 PM
Re: Jaywill first (Faith's points later,but not her ad hominems against unbelievers
I aasked this:
Just prior to this incident, it says ALL gave everything. Unmistakable words in the text. Do you, Jaywill, disagree with the literal interpretation of the chapter 4 text which says that ALL GAVE EVERYTHING?
No. I do not disagree with the general information.
To think there were NO exceptions may be unrealistic.
Ananias and his wife were exceptions.
The "all" already has a qualifier.
So, there are 2 possibilities:
They were THE exceptions or part of many exceptions?
Now, some logic.
I don't know if you will agree with my logic, but doesn't is seem LOGICAL to assume that there would have been lots, of the thousands of believers, who would have kept their property if it was voluntary?
Logically, I think we could compare it to the Israelites offering freely theur ornamants for the building of the tabernacle. Eventually they had so much that they needed no more.
I do not mean an exact parallel. I mean the over all general practice was a communal trust that all things could be combined into a common pool.
Peter's word indicates that some had freedom to keep a portion or perhaps all as their own if they did not have the faith to participate. Isn't that the tone of his rebuke of the couple?
The numbers of such similar cases can only be speculated upon.
My point really was that we should not understand that a "Thou Shalt Be Communal" like COMMANDMENT was issued. This was a spontaneous outpouring of good will and empathy.
So, it was not only a voluntary participation(in all possessions being made part of a collective community) and based on no rules set by any apostle(s)?
When you ask me if "some had freedom to keep a portion or perhaps all as their own if they did not have the faith to participate" because that was "the tone of his (Peter's) rebuke of the couple", then I have to respond with a _no_. No.
(Granted, my answer depends on what you mean by "some". There was some mark of a community member I suppose. Do you care to clarify? I am assuming you are referring to the "Christian" community of the day, whatever that meant, exactly.
I will tell you what I think about Peter's tone,when he says, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?"
But NOT NOW. Later in this response.
Taxes aren't voluntary today, for a reason.
You are going into an area beyond my interest.
This account was concerning the CHURCH - the called out community. She is in the world but not OF the world.
Superimposing all this on wordly government practices delves into practices which do not even require God or God's salvation.
Worldly government may IMITATE things read in the Bible.
This is somewhat like a dog walking on its hind legs "like" a man.
It is not the same thing for it does not require the grace of Christ within.
The Mormons know who pays their tithes, and they aren't part of the United States government. Mitt Romney was a member in good standing, so the media assumed he paid his tithes. There can be something of a religious "government" within a government.
Just like there was Zionist MOVEMENT while there was no Israel. But there were Zionist Jews still living in Ottoman Palestine (and the later British Palestine).
And there could have been an early Christian movement that desired some sort of sovereign temporal power.
Was the (Biblical period) nation Israel "worldly"?
Just what is "sacred" or "profane" when we are talking about the period when the very Apostles lived? Especially, when they are part of a movement (whatever exactly its goals were)?
People lie on their taxes, but it is the act of not paying them that is the issue.
The rebuke from the Apostle Peter to the couple, however, was about their under appreciating the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. Outwardly, they wanted to look good too. Peter showed them and all else that in the church there should not be play acting to look good. All was based on inward reality.
This is totally different from the IRS demanding that a citizen fork over the revenue being withheld against proportions demanded by law.
You can see the difference, can't you?
Peter didn't say "Ananias and Saphira, You OWE us, the church in Jerusalem such and such number of dollars!"
Back to the "tone" of Peter, which you brought up earlier.
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
It sounds like the tone of a judge telling somebody that "It is too late to make excuses"
"You knew what you were doing"
"Nobody made you do it"
"Nothing you say or do now makes a difference"
It sounds like the voice of somebody with the power of a governmental authority to me.
(Naturally, people will say, "Oh no, it wasn't a government, it was God who gave him the power")
He said that they had every right to withhold what they did. They should not PRETEND that they were doing otherwise for the sake of looking good to everyone.
What they were BEFORE GOD was what was important.
God the Holy Spirit knows all, sees all.
The local church was not being run by mere men.
It was being overseen by men in the Holy Spirit who cannot be deceived.
Where do you get this idea that "He said that they had every right to withhold what they did" from?
From this? (Acts 5:4 again)
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?
He said that they knew what they were doing:
AT THE TIME THEY DID WHAT THEY DID
NOW IT IS TOO LATE.
(The present situation, to Peter and the guilty couple(in Acts 5:3-10), was ex post facto relative to the time of the holy crime)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 1036 by jaywill, posted 10-03-2018 12:18 PM|| ||jaywill has not yet responded|