Jesus: The First Communist

a reply to: windword

actual must be kept in context when you don't you get false teaching and error.

The died because the lied.

the fear was nothing but honest by product that should follow.

Nowhere in the context does it suggest that Gods wrath had anything to do with the death of this man and his wife. You are adding to the text something that is not there. do you do that with everything you read or only the Bible?

Under the kingdom rule (of which these people were for a short time) when Christ is on the Throne, He (Christ/the Father/Holy Ghost) will judge instantly when someone does something wrong. That is why he says, if someone strike you on the right cheek turn to him your left. Because if Christ judges righteously on his throne, and that person who is striking is judged unrighteous in his actions, he will drop dead before his hand lands on your other cheek.

I am most glad this does not happen today or we all would be dead.

talk about name calling. You need a good dose of Grow up juice there.

Actually, it sounds more like they were a cult. The kind where all the members give all of their belongings to the cult, or sell them off and give the money to the cult. You left out verses 36 and 37, where Barnabas did such things as I just mentioned.

Nowhere does it say that everyone is to do this, just that this is what Jesus and his apostles were doing in their little group.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE "Jesus said to her it was not fit to give the food of the children (Israel) to the Dogs. she was a female what term would you call a female dog? You got it. But he said it politely though because God would not use vulgar speech. " UNQUOTE

I'm not sure what you mean by vulgar speech. His reference to gentiles (ha Goyim) as 'dogs' unfit to eat the children's bread shows that he harboured the same prejudice as many Zionists today who still hold to the outdated notion of the 'chosen people' or 'master race' where one group is superior to another (us v. them).

I do not think there was anything polite in his exchange with the Syro-Phonecian gentile woman who even called him 'son of David' in her entreaties for a healing for her daughter...moreover he seems to have healed her begrudgingly...at least that is what Matthew chapter 15 seems to be saying in all those Greek words placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef - who spoke Galilean Aramaic, not Greek.

At any rate, his interest seems to be the re-gathering of the lost sheep of the house of Yisro'el not any interest in saving gentiles.

This explainis why so many modern Christians today leave passages like this out of their study groups...

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE "Jesus said to her it was not fit to give the food of the children (Israel) to the Dogs. she was a female what term would you call a female dog? You got it. But he said it politely though because God would not use vulgar speech. " UNQUOTE

I'm not sure what you mean by vulgar speech. His reference to gentiles (ha Goyim) as 'dogs' unfit to eat the children's bread shows that he harboured the same prejudice as many Zionists today who still hold to the outdated notion of the 'chosen people' or 'master race' where one group is superior to another (us v. them).

I do not think there was anything polite in his exchange with the Syro-Phonecian gentile woman who even called him 'son of David' in her entreaties for a healing for her daughter...moreover he seems to have healed her begrudgingly...at least that is what Matthew chapter 15 seems to be saying in all those Greek words placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef - who spoke Galilean Aramaic, not Greek.

At any rate, his interest seems to be the re-gathering of the lost sheep of the house of Yisro'el not any interest in saving gentiles.

This explainis why so many modern Christians today leave passages like this out of their study groups...

As you're ignoring Matthew 3:9
"And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

It's all about what verses you emphasize.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

They lied about giving all their money to the church. That's the lesson that one takes away from this story.

The psychology around why they lied is another thing all together. The story is about promoting fear of violating "Church" policy, not God's law.

As far as your lecture about context......take another look at the title of the thread: Jesus: The First Communist

Please stop your demeaning proselytizing and try to stay on topic.

I often wonder what life would be like if money was never used as a motivator...of depravity and waste.

Money gives us motivation to be derogatory, and selfish...even have a title. Ugly socialist, guy who doesn't mind sharing with others.
Ugly capitalist, guy who hides in the dark eating the chocolate put aside for the group.

a reply to: loveguy
You have another currency exchange; immediately of use?

a reply to: windword
the text clearly states they lied to the Holy Ghost/God.

It had nothing to do with was in their hands as theirs to begin with the text is clear on that point. It was theirs to do with as they saw fit. the death was because they lied about giving all when they had not. the money was theirs to do they wished as explained by Peter. They had no reason to say they gave the whole amount when they had not. It wasn't about keeping some back or not giving it to the apostles (church not mentioned in the text) it was about lying period. They lied because the context seems to indicate they wanted the praise as if they gave all when they had not. It was a pride issue not a issue of not giving all. They gave all they intended to and if they had just said that there would be no harm. The point was they were claiming to give all when they hadn't and that was the lie.

But no where was the motive of their death that of inducing fear into the church (which at that time was ALL Jews). There was no policy on giving, the giving there was all voluntary, there was no command. Again you add to the text something not there. they were living in common because they thought Jesus would return soon and all they had to do was survive a few years and their Messiah would take care of them when he returned.

By the way no one has proselytized. We have been talking about getting the correct understanding from the text and COMMUNISM in the Russian or Chinese or any other kind is not in the text. It is ISRAEL holding on through the Tribulation for the return of their King.

And that is what I said in my original post.

a reply to: loveguy

not quite a correct view of either one.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

the text clearly states they lied to the Holy Ghost/God.

No it doesn't. Now who has reading comprehension problems?

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Ananias lied to Peter. Peter accuses him of lying to "The Holy Ghost". Peter nor his Church was "The Holy Ghost". Peter lied. Peter took the false position of having God's authority. Peter was a liar.

But no where was the motive of their death that of inducing fear into the church

Wrong!

Acts 5:11
And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Give the Church ALL of your money, not just what YOU want to give, or die from God's wrath for blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, the only unforgivable sin.

Jesus is not a Communist socialist capitalist or any other party member instead he was a humanist...

You see Christ COMMANDED us to love one another...

When you love someone you take care of them, you do anything for them to help them, you put their needs before your own...

Now if if we all did as he told us there would be no need of any government...

Further more while being questioned before he was crucified attempts were made to trick him so as to find him guilty of a crime... I'm sure most are familiar with how they tried to trick him into a stance against taxation...
He asked who's face was in the coin, Ceaser was the answer...
Aware of our plight responded with great wisdom...
"Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers, give unto God what is Gods"

The world needs to stop doubting God and questioning his word, and just do as he said...

Do unto others, watch the world change...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The common purse they had in the early days after Christs Ascension into heaven soon ran dry and the reason for that is those who believed were no longer working, used all their savings, sold all their possessions and there was no new income coming in.

Everybody of the common purse eventually became a receiver.

that common purse would have been fine if Christ had returned as they thought he would. Once they realized he was not coming back immediately they all might have felt they were a little over zealous in giving all they had. As I mentioned there was no command for them to sell everything and give all to the early church.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: 5StarOracle

The common purse they had in the early days after Christs Ascension into heaven soon ran dry and the reason for that is those who believed were no longer working, used all their savings, sold all their possessions and there was no new income coming in.
Everybody of the common purse eventually became a receiver.

that common purse would have been fine if Christ had returned as they thought he would. Once they realized he was not coming back immediately they all might have felt they were a little over zealous in giving all they had. As I mentioned there was no command for them to sell everything and give all to the early church.

He did not return in physicality; he was expressing himself as a metaphor describing '"Christ Conciousness" the 'eternal soul'. For whatever reason did not make this clear (and should have). Why? Those that sold/gave away possessions left nothing to their children's estate inheritance. If purposeful obtuseness was his reasoning he succeeded as the rich became spiritually wealthy but in body POOR.