Acts 5:1-10, PR Campaign gone Wrong?

[AndyF]

How does it emulate Christ in it’s persuasive methods?
How does this event express tolerance,charity and love.?

What of the aftermath. One minute a congregation bound with one cause, through love and happiness and trust, the next a scene out of the Godfather, where there exists an uneasy alliance. Now the congregation has an added fear besides hiding in the catacombs from Romans, they must contend with the unpredicatability of their dangerous leader.

What of justification. Was the condition of the Church such that it necessitated murders to obtain funds for it’s coffers? Surely the state must have been a LOT worse than the fledgling Church of pre-crucifixion, where door to door handouts was the norm? What happened to all the lessons of faith and trust in God that He will provide, that early dogma that sustained them in even worst conditions?

I would guess this event caused more negative reactions than positive initially, and it must have taken some time for the dust of this event to settle, and memories faded. The number of Christians would not have grown too much in that time period, but it would not have lost any either, for fear of being next, not because they are bound to it’s ideals, which have just been proven unfounded. In any case follow up explainations in Acts are non-existant.

Is there any reason we cannot call this one of the dark episodes of our early Church.? How would you have reacted having witnessed this? Would you have thrown yourself down shouting Mercy!, hell-fire and brimstone!, God help me.??? Would you slowly make your way discreetly to the back door? Would you have taken your children’s life savings, not knowing what the amount is that tips the scale for dropping dead?

   Your thoughts?

    Andy

 

[Aaron_I]

Here’s the footnotes from my NAB

5, 1-11: The sin of Ananias and Sapphira did not consist in the withholding of part of the money but in their deception of the community. Their deaths rae ascribed to a lie to the Holy Spirit (vs 3, 9), i.e., they accepted the honor accorded them by the community for their generosity, but in reality they were not deserving of it.

 

[AndyF]

Aaron:

Yes I have them too.

Still, that would be overkill wouldn't you think? What of the benefit these parents had to their children and their need for parents? Was what they withheld of greater value than the benefit of the family unit? How would have the community been expected to react? Would we expect them to execute them, or show charity.

As regards to the holy spirit, I thought the only sin against it that carried true death was the unforgivable sin of despair and hopelessness. Was the deception so grave it did not warrant

absolution?

Does the reverse logic apply?. Does the deception of the individual by the community warrant collective damnation? If yes, what examples do we have of this? 

If no, why does an entity that has recognised form by God, can reason collectively, sin collectively, and even write it's sin by degree collectively and still find exemption from damnation?

Thanks for reply.

 AndyF

 

[Della]

AndyF:

How does it emulate Christ in it’s persuasive methods?
How does this event express tolerance,charity and love.?

What do you mean by the words “tolerance, charity and love?” And do you think they trump duty, responsibility, and accountability? If so, why?

What of the aftermath. One minute a congregation bound with one cause, through love and happiness and trust, the next a scene out of the Godfather, where there exists an uneasy alliance. Now the congregation has an added fear besides hiding in the catacombs from Romans, they must contend with the unpredicatability of their dangerous leader.

An interesting take on the situation–but it is fiction and not the reality. The Christians had not yet been persecuted by the Romans at this point in history, for starters. And to describe Peter as an unpredictable and dangerous leader is your attempt to influence any response–like asking a man how many times a day he beats his wife and then expecting him to justify himself to you. You are simply wrong to characterize Peter in this way from this passage. It is on your shoulders to prove your own words not for us to justify to you your accusations.

What of justification. Was the condition of the Church such that it necessitated murders to obtain funds for it’s coffers? Surely the state must have been a LOT worse than the fledgling Church of pre-crucifixion, where door to door handouts was the norm? What happened to all the lessons of faith and trust in God that He will provide, that early dogma that sustained them in even worst conditions?

Once again you provide us with lurid fiction and expect us to justify your interpretation of the event. Prove you have it right here instead of assuming you do. And what “murders” are you talking about? No one murdered anyone. Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead. A CSI investigation would probably conclude they died of heart attacks or some other natural cause since no one laid a hand on them.

I would guess this event caused more negative reactions than positive initially, and it must have taken some time for the dust of this event to settle, and memories faded. The number of Christians would not have grown too much in that time period, but it would not have lost any either, for fear of being next, not because they are bound to it’s ideals, which have just been proven unfounded. In any case follow up explainations in Acts are non-existant.

Well, you guess wrong. The passage itself tells us the result and it wasn’t what you guessed would happen.

Is there any reason we cannot call this one of the dark episodes of our early Church.? How would you have reacted having witnessed this? Would you have thrown yourself down shouting Mercy!, hell-fire and brimstone!, God help me.??? Would you slowly make your way discreetly to the back door? Would you have taken your children’s life savings, not knowing what the amount is that tips the scale for dropping dead?

   Your thoughts?

    Andy

Your odd fiction would have been a dark episode in Church history if the people involved and situation were what you what you described, but they weren’t. You need to stop reading things into the text that aren’t there and stop guessing and assuming your way into false teaching, personal slander and outright silliness.

 

[AndyF]

Hi Della:

Della:

What do you mean by the words “tolerance, charity and love?” And do you think they trump duty, responsibility, and accountability? If so, why?

Yes, the natural inclination of these to it’s object are meant to be the foundation of all other expressions of man.

An interesting take on the situation–but it is fiction and not the reality.

Not really. Lets see, where can we start. 1/Christ’s crucifixion 2/Peter’s denial outof fear after being accused in front of the Romans 2/ 4:5 Before the Sanhedrin 4/ at the tomb, 5/ Acts 4,17, discretion, 6/ Footnote Nab: 4:24-30 “It then appeals to members for courage to proclaim the Christian kerygma in a hostile world and pleads…”,etc,etc. I don’t know, but reason suggests to me they were definitely hiding and afraid, regardless who from. We can say for sure from the Romans who weren’t exactly allies to the cause of the Christian ideal. They sought out places for gathering, and some were, evidenced by fish symbols, tombs.

“And to describe Peter as an unpredictable and dangerous leader is your attempt to influence any response”

    The event stands on it's own merit. Everyone on this forum

attempts to influence response, and you are proof of that. And yes, at this event, he is perceivably dangerous, and yes, no one predicted this from a Christian standpoint. In fact I’m not ashamed to say I would quickly summon my children out of that place in a hurry too, and so would many others.! I doubt they changed the subject after the bodies were hauled away, and casually had a glass a wine and supper either.

It is on your shoulders to prove your own words not for us to justify to you your accusations.

Not for who? Us? No one is asking YOU to answer this thread if you feel uncomfortable with it. But I invite those who would like to continue a subjective study on this regress. It is not an accusation, but an observation that some most likely may have taken. It is not my place to accuse anyone.
like asking a man how many times a day he beats his wife and then expecting him to justify himself to you.

Of course!. As a member of society you and I have an interest in what the husband does. If he sins personally he does so against members of society as well. Basic dogma.

Once again you provide us with lurid fiction and expect us to justify your interpretation of the event.

Fiction? Well, the data I reference is from NAB, so if I’m using fiction, then you have a problem with the publisher, which I predict will lead you to confront the Church.

(Ans 2A)

 

[AndyF]

A CSI investigation would probably conclude they died of heart attacks or some other natural cause since no one laid a hand on them.

Proof, sure after you show me Noah’s arc.

He most likely had the desire to see them dead. I’ll let you call it what it is. Natural cause? No, but the first time around I don’t think it was premeditated. But his power did have an influence in it. Similiar to a weightlifter realizing his power after a deadly punch. Second time around, Billion to 1 chance. No way. He most defineltly was causitive in the result. But that’s a call to reason once again, something you forbid. But, in case we are mistaken, let’s go over it again…

1/ You have lied to God"
2/ Subject falls dead.
3/ 5:5 “Great fear came upon ALL WHO LATER HEARD OF IT”
4/Wife comes in.
5/ “How could you two scheme…”
6/ Subject falls dead.
7/ Great fear came on all…

In retrospect, I can find no reason to change. Even when the situation at least appeals for an explaination in the context of Christian precepts of initiation, none was given by the prophet.

To Peter’s credit though, I think he must have had misgivings about this, which would explain the lack of this being repeated. One can assume,(by your permission of course) that from this event on, he held his temper in check. I think we must give the man some leeway, even the Doctors of the Church evolved spiritually.

You are simply wrong to characterize Peter in this way from this passage.

The events do the characterization, it doesn’t need any help from me. The opportunity to shed off any stigma disappeared long ago.

stop guessing and assuming your way into false teaching, personal slander and outright silliness

Phewww, for a moment there I thought you were appealing to my reasoning. It is obvious you are upset with this post, perhaps you should refrain from it. All the same thanks for your thoughts.

Andy

 

[puzzleannie]

we will be asked this Sunday to make our pledge for the building fund drive for our new church, so I better be very, very careful about what we promise.