quote: I missed the part in the gospels where Jesus took money from rich people by force and redistributed it to the poor. Dagonee
Okay, so you've got this fellow Peter, says he's acting in the name of Jesus and filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:8).
He founds a community where everything is held in common, and distributed to each member according to his need, so that poverty was eliminated (Acts 4:34-35).
But then, one man decides to keep a portion of his wealth. He doesn't lie about it to Peter (Acts 5:4), but it is a violation of the spirit of the community he has chosen to be a part of. So Peter, or the Holy Spirit, strikes him dead. Then, Peter calls in the man's wife, and, when she freely confesses to being a party to this, she is struck dead as well, at Peter's word. (5:5-10)
So here we have Jesus's disciples enforcing a total redistribution of wealth among his followers through the threat of summary execution. Recant, Dagonee.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, he did lie about it (Acts 5:2,8). Peter specifically tells him that he was under no obligation to either sell the property, or give the money when he sold it (Acts 5:4). He dies, not because he doesn't give all the money, but because he lies about it. His wife is also struck dead because she lies about it as well, not because she confesses (which she doesn't).
Frankly, it's quite annoying when I have to correct people because they read wrong.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you started a community based on the idea that wealt would be evenly distributed, then I would think it would be reasonable to expect people to redsitribute the money. We do not live in such a community, perhaps we should, but saying that a statment like Dag's, one that specifically mentions taking by force, and which is refering to all the world and insisting that it is wrong ... well I don't think your Gospel example is really proof of this.
posted
Wow, a whole thread about a single line by me in another thread.
I feel honored.
I don't reject the notion that Christian principles can be used by a person to reach the conclusion that a western-European style social democracy is the ideal form of government.
But to claim that Jesus is against a particular tax plan is quite a different proposition altogether. And that's what my one-line was aimed at.
I think dh's summary of the Acts incident is closer to the original than yours, and Hobbes post distinguishes the situations quite well.
quote:But to claim that Jesus is against a particular tax plan is quite a different proposition altogether. And that's what my one-line was aimed at.
Perhaps, but there's no more evidence that Jesus would be against abortion, and yet people from certain circles assign that belief to him all the time.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biblical times were different, too. The context was different.
From Old Testament enjoinings: The gleanings of the field were left to the poor. There were third year tithings to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and those widowed. Free access to the fields was given during the Sabbatic year, and those hungery could always eat from the field (so long as they did not carry away). There were 50 Jubilees and a release of debts every seven years. And on and on.
Just as a current scripture would take it for granted that we all be permitted air to breathe (and so, it would not even be mentioned), so too were some of the ways we cared for others in the community taken for granted.
Different world, dfferent context.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
dh's interpretation seems more like the kind of story we're used to hearing. But it doesn't seem to be born out by the text.
From the KJV:
quote:thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
(5:4)
I think you're reading it as "not only lied unto men." But that's not the literal translation or the widely used one.
He hasn't lied. He's just failed to fulfill the obligation set by the community. I like pointing out when people are wrong. Hence the thread.
quote:We do not live in such a community
quote:Biblical times were different, too. The context was different.
quote:But to claim that Jesus is against a particular tax plan is quite a different proposition altogether. And that's what my one-line was aimed at.
This story demonstrates what Jesus's values were. I think it's fair to assume, for most Christian or Muslim worldviews, that they haven't changed. The United States is a voluntary community. If we vote socialist, and you don't leave, then you are obligated to pay up.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Acts 4:32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.
Acts 4:34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales
Acts 4:35 and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.
Acts 4:36 Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),
Acts 4:37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,
Acts 5:2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?
Acts 5:4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
It's clear he lied to God, and that this was the problem, since the land was under his control (not obligated to anyone else).
It's also clear in context that this was a community of believers. It's been pointed out time and again on this board that this is not a Christian nation. Clearly, the same rules don't apply.
quote:I like pointing out when people are wrong. Hence the thread.
Hmm. You seem to be doing a poor job of it. Does Acts contain some specific teaching on what the appropriate top marginal tax rate is?
quote:The United States is a voluntary community. If we vote socialist, and you don't leave, then you are obligated to pay up.
Yes, you are obligated to pay up. But in this case, of course, the complaint is that they aren't obligated to pay up, because the law has reduced the obligation. And, as part of the United States, you have the right to petition the government to have the laws changed. And if you are successful, then others who opposed the laws have the obligation to follow them.
This is without even going into efficacy issues, such as which economic policies are actually best for accomplishing the worldly goals of Christianity.
quote:This story demonstrates what Jesus's values were.
FWIW, HonoreDB, you won't be getting any argument from me. I was just noting that some things may not be explicated in the text because they were an assumed way of life. That is, not making a particular claim about poverty in such a context means something else than not saying it during current times.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee. He doesn't lie to Peter. Nor does his wife. His crime, which Peter describes as "lying to the Holy Spirit," physically is keeping back a portion of his money. That's what the crime is. He is struck dead for not turning over all his money from the sale of the land.
I understand the spirit of what you were saying: that Jesus might not want that obligation to be set for all communities. That's a seperate argument. I'm just trying to refute the idea, expressed by you and others in the thread, that Jesus is totally against social reform through force.
In other words, I can't argue, just on the basis of this story, that Jesus would be against the billionaire tax cut (as Thor names it). But I can refute your specific objection to Thor's thesis.
Say "Thor's thesis" ten times fast.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out Verse 8, it makes it pretty clear that at least Sapphira lied...
Acts 5
Fate of Ananias and Sapphira
1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife's full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?" And she said, "Yes, that was the price." 9 Then Peter said to her, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well." 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.
posted
I don't think Sapphira lies either. I think "such and such a price" is the actual price it was sold for, not the amount of money her husband turned over. It's ambiguous. But since they're punished equally, and Ananias "did not lie to men," I would guess her crime is just being complicit in his original decision.
ludosti, 'struth. But Peter does speak and act on behalf of Jesus, I would think. Note too that the executions are effected through miracles, implying divine consent.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee. He doesn't lie to Peter. Nor does his wife. His crime, which Peter describes as "lying to the Holy Spirit," physically is keeping back a portion of his money. That's what the crime is. He is struck dead for not turning over all his money from the sale of the land.
His crime is keeping back a portion of the money while claiming to have given it all.
It's clear he wasn't under obligation to sell the land (""While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?"). It's clear that, having sold the land, he wasn't obligated to turn it all over. He was obligated not to pretend that he had done so, however.
It's also clear, as AJ points out, that the wife at least was killed for lying.
quote:I understand the spirit of what you were saying: that Jesus might not want that obligation to be set for all communities. That's a seperate argument. I'm just trying to refute the idea, expressed by you and others in the thread, that Jesus is totally against social reform through force.
The one thing that's absolutely clear is that the man voluntarily entered into the community and hence incurred the obligation voluntarily. The use of force was either to enforce the mutually agreed rules of the community or to punish for lying. That's a far different proposition than "social reform through force."
Something I'm not opposed to in general, but when one is presuming to speak for Christ, one would do well to make sure he actually said what you say he did. (Speaking of Thor, not you).
posted
My understanding, after much study of that passage over the years, is that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down for lying to the Holy Spirit - for pretending to give all they had, while holding things back.
When Peter says he has not lied to men, he's stressing the fact that the lie is not to a man, but to God, someone who you can never lie to and get away with it.
And this has nothing at all to do with Peter's values or beliefs - Peter doesn't strike anyone dead. The Holy Spirit is the one that kills Ananias and Sapphira - and it is soley, I think, for their attempted deception.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Social reform through force" for me includes, for example, passing laws instructing the government to arrest people for insider trading. Just to make it clear that I'm not saying Jesus is for violent revolution.
But I guess this isn't as clear-cut an example as I had thought. I still think my interpretation is the correct one, but I can't really prove it. The text is just too ambiguous.
One line nobody has quoted:
Acts 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband [are] at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Peter is very much a participant in this. Not that this supports my point, really.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we would have to go to the Greek before declaring unequivocally that the text is "ambiguous" I'd love to hear what dkw says as a result. I don't know Greek myself.
posted
Actually Honore, you should read everyone's responses - because Banna did in fact quote that verse.
Peter is a participant, in that he is there, but he does nothing - the Holy Spirit tells him what is to happen, which is why he can tell Sapphira of her impending death, but Peter is not the one who strikes her down. And she is not being stricken for lying to Peter - but to the Holy Spirit.
How would Peter even know they kept anything back, had not the spirit told him?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's in Jesus's name and through the Holy Spirit, it's really close to being in the gospels, and it is forced. Because I say it is, and you will be struck dead if you disagree.
Jesus may not have been a socialist, but he had socialism-related program activities.
Edit to add:
quote:My point was that one speaking for Christ ought to be able to point to some pretty unequivocal backup evidence before doing so. Dagonee.
posted
God provides enough food for all people to eat.
God provides enough materials for all people to have homes.
God provides the means for almost all people to live a healthy life.
It's mans job how to figure out how to combine all things on Earth for mankind to have the best possible life.
At a time like this, War, Starvation, Aids, Terrorism, Hatred and Fear, it is against the way of God to go out of our way to give more wealth and power to the 1% of the Wealthiest and Most powerful people.
Money owns our government.
Money rules our people.
You cannot serve 2 masters.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
