Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As you can see by the bold part above, your argument sucks.I never brought up "Anais"(sic). (It's Ananais.)
In Acts you will learn that everyone was required to pool all their resources. It was a socialist model of communal living. This precedes the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
Yes, my congregation died out as we killed off the greedy bastards one by one.
and yet the fact remains that your claim is disproved....you said they were not free to hold back a penny.....the quote I provided says "wasn't the money at your disposal".......two contradictory statements.....
not to mention the story isn't talking about them selling everything they had and living communally....
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles feet.
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
nowhere does it say that the field of Joseph or the property of Ananias was everything they owned....
If you continue with the story you find what the lie they were assassinated over was. They are asked if they held anything back. The clear expectation was that EVERYTHING was to be turned into the general coffers. Nothing was to be held back. If it was cool to wet your own beak a little bit there would be no shame and no reason to lie.
They most assuredly were expected to.As you can see by the bold part above, your argument sucks.and yet the fact remains that your claim is disproved....you said they were not free to hold back a penny.....the quote I provided says "wasn't the money at your disposal".......two contradictory statements.....
not to mention the story isn't talking about them selling everything they had and living communally....
nowhere does it say that the field of Joseph or the property of Ananias was everything they owned....
If you continue with the story you find what the lie they were assassinated over was. They are asked if they held anything back. The clear expectation was that EVERYTHING was to be turned into the general coffers. Nothing was to be held back. If it was cool to wet your own beak a little bit there would be no shame and no reason to lie.
I can see why you no longer lead a church.....you can't read......they were NOT expected to turn everything into the general coffers......as Peter said "wasn't the money at your disposal".....they didn't die because of what they lied about, they died because they lied.....
They most assuredly were expected to.As you can see by the bold part above, your argument sucks.
If you continue with the story you find what the lie they were assassinated over was. They are asked if they held anything back. The clear expectation was that EVERYTHING was to be turned into the general coffers. Nothing was to be held back. If it was cool to wet your own beak a little bit there would be no shame and no reason to lie.
I can see why you no longer lead a church.....you can't read......they were NOT expected to turn everything into the general coffers......as Peter said "wasn't the money at your disposal".....they didn't die because of what they lied about, they died because they lied.....
I am not suggesting they were murdered for any other reason. This is what everyone runs to in this argument when they are out of bullets.
Why would they have to lie about the issue is what I asked. If keeping a little walk around scratch was no big deal, why the shame? Why the lies?
Because they went against the agreed upon rules of the community.
it does not say that the community agreed the members would sell everything they had and contribute it to the community.....and no where in the book of Acts does it say they all lived communally in a single house.....that's simply silly conjecture....For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
They most assuredly were expected to.I can see why you no longer lead a church.....you can't read......they were NOT expected to turn everything into the general coffers......as Peter said "wasn't the money at your disposal".....they didn't die because of what they lied about, they died because they lied.....
I am not suggesting they were murdered for any other reason. This is what everyone runs to in this argument when they are out of bullets.
Why would they have to lie about the issue is what I asked. If keeping a little walk around scratch was no big deal, why the shame? Why the lies?
Because they went against the agreed upon rules of the community.
obviously you are wrong.....there were no such "agreed upon rules".....
the passage saysit does not say that the community agreed the members would sell everything they had and contribute it to the community.....and no where in the book of Acts does it say they all lived communally in a single house.....that's simply silly conjecture....For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Where is the mockery?
More ridiculous defensive attacks.
Very funny.
Ya ok sure.
Couldn't find any mockery, huh?
I understand.
I'm not mocking charity. It is wonderful and noble and service to others is the highest use we have for our lives.
I encourage charity.
It just isn't enough.
Ya ok sure.
Couldn't find any mockery, huh?
I understand.
I'm not mocking charity. It is wonderful and noble and service to others is the highest use we have for our lives.
I encourage charity.
It just isn't enough.
Then get up and do it sometime. Or encourage others to do it as well. Persuade them.
Using violence to take from others and give to others (which usually turns out to be oneself) is not charity. It's not good. The ends do not justify the means. The means justify the ends.
Work at helping others voluntarily instead of compelling others to do so. You will be blessed and society at large will benefit far more than any government program.
There seems to be two arguments from the Right here: 1) that charity breeds dependence and is therefor bad policy and 2) charity does help but should be done but by private organizations. Several on the Right are making both arguments.
They didn't take anything. Money was freely given. No force was involved.
Do you understand the difference between freely donating your property and having it taken by the use of force?
I notice he didn't answer this question but went on to answer others.....
Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.
LOL!I notice he didn't answer this question but went on to answer others.....
Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.
That's not what Peter said in acts. He specifically said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4)
It was clearly their property to use and give or sell freely. Their sin was lying to God saying "This is all of it" when it wasn't.
Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.
????....never been a church member I see.....
Led one.
Been a member of several.
Have you ever read Acts?
They most assuredly were expected to.
I am not suggesting they were murdered for any other reason. This is what everyone runs to in this argument when they are out of bullets.
Why would they have to lie about the issue is what I asked. If keeping a little walk around scratch was no big deal, why the shame? Why the lies?
Because they went against the agreed upon rules of the community.
obviously you are wrong.....there were no such "agreed upon rules".....
the passage saysit does not say that the community agreed the members would sell everything they had and contribute it to the community.....and no where in the book of Acts does it say they all lived communally in a single house.....that's simply silly conjecture....For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
A single house? Where is that suggested, anywhere?
I s that what you think communal living means?
Do you think all the people in a kibbutz live in the same room?
You are painting yourself as an intellectual child.
Couldn't find any mockery, huh?
I understand.
I'm not mocking charity. It is wonderful and noble and service to others is the highest use we have for our lives.
I encourage charity.
It just isn't enough.
Then get up and do it sometime. Or encourage others to do it as well. Persuade them.
Using violence to take from others and give to others (which usually turns out to be oneself) is not charity. It's not good. The ends do not justify the means. The means justify the ends.
Work at helping others voluntarily instead of compelling others to do so. You will be blessed and society at large will benefit far more than any government program.
The data clearly shows the opposite.
Again, your assumptions that I don't contribute have no basis.
LOL!Sorry. I didn't notice this one in the onslaught of hysteria.
What they freely did was join the church.
They were not free to hold back a penny of their income.
That's not what Peter said in acts. He specifically said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4)
It was clearly their property to use and give or sell freely. Their sin was lying to God saying "This is all of it" when it wasn't.
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't. They are wholly responsible for what they did.
Otherwise, where was the shame that led to their lie?
Unbelievable!
When you tithe, you are supporting whatever the church chooses to do with the money they are given. A small group within the church makes those decisions.There seems to be two arguments from the Right here: 1) that charity breeds dependence and is therefor bad policy and 2) charity does help but should be done but by private organizations. Several on the Right are making both arguments.
You're incorrect. The government cannot provide charity. The government only has money by forcing it's citizens to give it money through taxes, tarriffs, etc. enforced by various forms of compulsion. Charity by definition is voluntary. The second compulsion is involved, it ceases to be charity. Thus no government can give charity.
Those programs governments do create don't actually try to fix the problems. They throw money at problems and act as if that is enough to "do something". But it's not. It simply creates dependence on those holding the purse strings.
Charity on the other hand lifts people up. It not only helps them with individual needs but empowers them to eventually provide for themselves. It's voluntary and done without compulsion or force.
No expectation to give it all, no necessity to lie.LOL!That's not what Peter said in acts. He specifically said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4)
It was clearly their property to use and give or sell freely. Their sin was lying to God saying "This is all of it" when it wasn't.
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't. They are wholly responsible for what they did.
Otherwise, where was the shame that led to their lie?
Unbelievable!
No. The whole point is that they shouldn't have lied and said they gave all when they didn't have to.
They lied because like many people they wanted to look like they were giving and compassionate instead of actually being giving and compassionate. There was no compulsion to give money. Instead, they pretended to give all they had held part back. That was the lie.
The fact that you don't understand this really easy concept is beyond me. The Lord wants us to be sincere, honest, and not a hypocrite.
I suggest you don't make really stupid statements about single houses holding entire communes if you want any kind of credibility.obviously you are wrong.....there were no such "agreed upon rules".....
the passage says
it does not say that the community agreed the members would sell everything they had and contribute it to the community.....and no where in the book of Acts does it say they all lived communally in a single house.....that's simply silly conjecture....
A single house? Where is that suggested, anywhere?
I s that what you think communal living means?
Do you think all the people in a kibbutz live in the same room?
You are painting yourself as an intellectual child.
I apologize. I assumed you were a rational and literate individual. I can tell from this conversation where you refuse to acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say and continue to argue for your perversion of the text that you are not. I suggest you reread the scriptures sometime for what they actually say.
No expectation to give it all, no necessity to lie.LOL!
The whole point Peter is making is that they had full control of the funds after selling the property and could have given it all but didn't. They are wholly responsible for what they did.
Otherwise, where was the shame that led to their lie?
Unbelievable!
No. The whole point is that they shouldn't have lied and said they gave all when they didn't have to.
They lied because like many people they wanted to look like they were giving and compassionate instead of actually being giving and compassionate. There was no compulsion to give money. Instead, they pretended to give all they had held part back. That was the lie.
The fact that you don't understand this really easy concept is beyond me. The Lord wants us to be sincere, honest, and not a hypocrite.
I am equally amazed that you would contort what Peter said to support a specious argument.
I suggest you don't make really stupid statements about single houses holding entire communes if you want any kind of credibility.A single house? Where is that suggested, anywhere?
I s that what you think communal living means?
Do you think all the people in a kibbutz live in the same room?
You are painting yourself as an intellectual child.
I apologize. I assumed you were a rational and literate individual. I can tell from this conversation where you refuse to acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say and continue to argue for your perversion of the text that you are not. I suggest you reread the scriptures sometime for what they actually say.
If you are so inane to make that argument your discernment of scripture is pretty much worthless.
I think I have clearly pointed out how you have completely abused the words of Peter. The very clear text of his admonition.I suggest you don't make really stupid statements about single houses holding entire communes if you want any kind of credibility.I apologize. I assumed you were a rational and literate individual. I can tell from this conversation where you refuse to acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say and continue to argue for your perversion of the text that you are not. I suggest you reread the scriptures sometime for what they actually say.
If you are so inane to make that argument your discernment of scripture is pretty much worthless.
When you actually pay attention to the clear text when it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, you might be in a better position to criticize someone else's credibility.
No expectation to give it all, no necessity to lie.No. The whole point is that they shouldn't have lied and said they gave all when they didn't have to.
They lied because like many people they wanted to look like they were giving and compassionate instead of actually being giving and compassionate. There was no compulsion to give money. Instead, they pretended to give all they had held part back. That was the lie.
The fact that you don't understand this really easy concept is beyond me. The Lord wants us to be sincere, honest, and not a hypocrite.
I am equally amazed that you would contort what Peter said to support a specious argument.
Unless of course you want to look like you are super righteous by "giving everything" when you really don't want to give everything. Are you seriously suggesting no one ever has said one thing and done another? Because I'm pretty sure that Jesus mentioned all the problems with hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount specifically because many people do act like self righteous hypocrites.
