"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[lak611]

Notice also, who it was that Ananias was actually trying to fool. Notice how it is that to lie to the Church that is under the authority of the Apostle Peter is the same thing as to lie to God the Holy Spirit.

The Haydock Bible Commentary does not give the interpretation that Ananias was punished for lying to the Church. From Haydock Bible Commentary: "Ver. 1. It is believed by many of the Fathers, that the resolution which the faithful made of selling their property, and laying the price at the feet of the apostles, implied a vow of reserving nothing for themselves, but giving all to the community; and that the crime of Ananias and Saphira consisted in the violation of this vow; on which account they regarded them as sacrilegious, and plunderers of sacred things. See St. Basil, Serm. i. de instit. Monac.; St. Cyprian, lib. i. ad Quir. &c. —For, without this supposition, we cannot, as Menochius justly remarks, account for the sudden and severe punishment inflicted on the offending parties.

Ver. 2. By fraud kept part.[1] Ananias, and his wife Saphira, had make a promise or vow, to put into the common stock the price of what they had to sell. When they had sold the field, they resolved by mutual consent to keep for their private use part of the money, and to bring in the rest, as if they had received no more. The whole price being promised, and by that means consecrated to God, St. Augustine calls it a sacrilegious fraud, and St. Chrysostom, a theft of what was already made sacred to God. (Witham)

Ver. 3. Why hath Satan tempted thy heart?[2] The present Greek copies, filled thy heart. (Witham)

Ver. 4. Did it not remain to thee? That is, no one forced thee to make such a promise. — And being sold, was it not in thy power, and at thy free disposal, before such a promise? but promises and vows must be kept. Thou hast not lied to men, but to God, by lying to the Holy Ghost. (Witham) — Thou hast not lied to men, only and principally, but to God also; for he had also lied to Peter, and the other apostles. (Menochius) — “If it displeased God,” says St. Augustine, “to withdraw part of the money they had vowed to God, how is he angry, when chastity is vowed and not performed! … let not such persons think to be condemned to corporal death, but to everlasting fire.” (Serm. x. de diversis.) — St. Gregory, on t his same subject, says: “Ananias had vowed money to God, which afterwards, overcome by diabolical persuasion, he withdrew; but with what death he was punished, thou knowest. See, then, what judgment thou art to expect, for withdrawing, not money, but thyself, from Almighty God.” (lib. i. ep. 33.)"

 

[jmcrae]

Ver. 4. Did it not remain to thee? That is, no one forced thee to make such a promise. — And being sold, was it not in thy power, and at thy free disposal, before such a promise? but promises and vows must be kept. Thou hast not lied to men, but to God, by lying to the Holy Ghost. (Witham) — Thou hast not lied to men, only and principally, but to God also; for he had also lied to Peter, and the other apostles. (Menochius) — “If it displeased God,” says St. Augustine, “to withdraw part of the money they had vowed to God, how is he angry, when chastity is vowed and not performed! … let not such persons think to be condemned to corporal death, but to everlasting fire.” (Serm. x. de diversis.) — St. Gregory, on t his same subject, says: “Ananias had vowed money to God, which afterwards, overcome by diabolical persuasion, he withdrew; but with what death he was punished, thou knowest. See, then, what judgment thou art to expect, for withdrawing, not money, but thyself, from Almighty God.” (lib. i. ep. 33.)"

Even here, the unspoken assumption is being made that what was vowed to the Church was, in being vowed to the Church, being vowed to God.

The world-view being presented here is that the Church is God’s representative - Ananias and Sapphira were “giving the money to God” by laying it at the feet of the Apostles. They were “withholding money from God” by keeping it back from the amount presented to the Apostles.

To not give it to the Apostles (the Church) is to not give it to God.

A Protestant (who doesn’t see his church as anything but a kind of human corporation) could say that all of his money goes to God, but some of it goes to God via his church, and some of it goes to God via his wife and family, etc., but Ananias and Sapphira were not “giving to God in a different way” by not giving to the Church; they were actually withholding from God whatever they withheld from the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

By the first one do you mean Psalms–which scripture are you referring to?

The one where Ananias and Sapphira were convicted by God for lying to the Holy Spirit, when they shorted St. Peter on the money that they had vowed to give to him.

 

[lak611]

By the first one do you mean Psalms–which scripture are you referring to?

The one where Ananias and Sapphira were convicted by God for lying to the Holy Spirit, when they shorted St. Peter on the money that they had vowed to give to him.

Now I am confused because I don’t see any references to Psalms in Acts 5 in my Bibles.

 

[jmcrae]

By the first one do you mean Psalms–which scripture are you referring to?Now I am confused because I don’t see any references to Psalms in Acts 5 in my Bibles.

Now I’m confused. When did I say anything about the Psalms?

 

[lak611]

Now I’m confused. When did I say anything about the Psalms?

I don’t know. I didn’t think you did. I don’t know how Psalms ended up being mentioned in the references to Acts 5.

BTW, I understand what you are saying about lying to God and the connection to the Church. Last year during Lent, I gave up something and was not able to keep my promise. I felt like it was really bad that I gave in to the temptation and confessed it to my priest. He said that it was not realistic and I was forgiven. But the whole point being, I understood the “binding and loosing” by the Church through the priest in Confession.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know. I didn’t think you did. I don’t know how Psalms ended up being mentioned in the references to Acts 5.

BTW, I understand what you are saying about lying to God and the connection to the Church. Last year during Lent, I gave up something and was not able to keep my promise. I felt like it was really bad that I gave in to the temptation and confessed it to my priest. He said that it was not realistic and I was forgiven. But the whole point being, I understood the “binding and loosing” by the Church through the priest in Confession.

That’s a good example of exactly what I mean. When you made a vow to God, the only way you could be released from it was to go to the priest.

Of course, he was glad to release you from the vow - but it’s not like you can make a vow to God on one day, and then on the next day say, “Oops, I changed my mind, God.” Even if God doesn’t actually strike you dead on the spot, you still feel on the inside like you have cheated God, and it’s not a very nice feeling to have, at all.

Ananias and Sapphira also could have been released from their vow to God, simply by going to the Apostles. But by not doing that, they were found guilty of offending the Holy Spirit.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

That’s a good example of exactly what I mean. When you made a vow to God, the only way you could be released from it was to go to the priest.

Of course, he was glad to release you from the vow - but it’s not like you can make a vow to God on one day, and then on the next day say, “Oops, I changed my mind, God.” Even if God doesn’t actually strike you dead on the spot, you still feel on the inside like you have cheated God, and it’s not a very nice feeling to have, at all.

Ananias and Sapphira also could have been released from their vow to God, simply by going to the Apostles. But by not doing that, they were found guilty of offending the Holy Spirit.

Hi,
Yes I understand what you are saying about Acts 5–apparently it is the first recorded sin within the church. They were not required or asked by anyone to give money to the Apostles. They pretended to totally dedicate all their money but held some back. This was God showing His displeasure at the first eruption of sin in His church. The point I was making with this scripture was just to point out that the HS is God(which we already believe anyway)

I maintain however, this is not proof of the heirarchy of the RCC. It is proof that we should not make promises we never intended to keep just for the sake of looking better in man’s eyes.

 

[Kay_Cee]

AFH, I read what you wrote, but I don’t see any answers to the questions I asked in post 174. Of course the Holy Spirit is God. Of course we receive Him when we become Christians. I’m not claiming you don’t have the Holy Spirit. What I’m questioning is whether that gives you–and all other Christians–the authority to interpret scripture.

In post 160, I listed all the definitions for “authority” in my dictionary. Would you please select whichever one fits your use of “authority” in this discussion? (Or, if you would rather, provide a definition of your own.)

 

[ALLFORHIM]

AFH, I read what you wrote, but I don’t see any answers to the questions I asked in post 174. Of course the Holy Spirit is God. Of course we receive Him when we become Christians. I’m not claiming you don’t have the Holy Spirit. What I’m questioning is whether that gives you–and all other Christians–the authority to interpret scripture.

In post 160, I listed all the definitions for “authority” in my dictionary. Would you please select whichever one fits your use of “authority” in this discussion? (Or, if you would rather, provide a definition of your own.)

Hi,
For me I would say #4 and #6. For ministers, priests and bishops and deacons and elders , I would say the rest. They were given those gifts from the HS. I was not given those gifts so whereas I have the ability to intrepret scripture, I would still give them more authority over me. I have no problem with that–hoever it doesnt mean they are above reproach from anyone including me. Christians should hold each other accountable as my church does. If someone is teaching something wrong they are to be rebuked in love.

Who has the authority in your church to rebuke the Pope if he should teach something wrong? Or a priest or a bishop?
The fact is we are all human and having the HS does not mean we are absolutely going to teach infallibly.The bible doesnt promise us we will teach infallibly. We still have our sinful nature which (as we all know) can create havoc within our minds. Which goes back to my initial 7 problems as to why there are different intrepretations.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi,
For me I would say #4 and #6. For ministers, priests and bishops and deacons and elders , I would say the rest. They were given those gifts from the HS. I was not given those gifts so whereas I have the ability to intrepret scripture, I would still give them more authority over me. I have no problem with that–hoever it doesnt mean they are above reproach from anyone including me. Christians should hold each other accountable as my church does. If someone is teaching something wrong they are to be rebuked in love.

I’m a bit confused. Number 6 is “one who has special knowledge, an expert.” Yet you’ve already indicated there may be scripture passages you don’t know about–in fact, you’ve said others are more knowledgable than you. Is your expertise therefore limited?

Who has the authority in your church to rebuke the Pope if he should teach something wrong?

I’m glad you said “if.” See my answer below about this.

Or a priest or a bishop?

The pope.

The fact is we are all human and having the HS does not mean we are absolutely going to teach infallibly.The bible doesnt promise us we will teach infallibly. We still have our sinful nature which (as we all know) can create havoc within our minds. Which goes back to my initial 7 problems as to why there are different intrepretations.

1. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that sinfulness excludes someone from teaching infallibly. It doesn’t. If it did, we would have to exclude all the scripture Moses wrote (he was a murderer) and all the scripture David wrote (murder and adultery) and all the scripture Peter wrote (he denied Christ three times).
2. An authority that cannot be binding is meaningless. The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be able to say, “X is absolutely true, and Y is absolutely false.” Without such an authority to bind, we’re left with competing versions of the “truth” (which is exactly the state Protestantism is in). Now certainly God knew all this, so Jesus gave authority to bind (and to loose!)

This is why the pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra about faith and/or morals. I don’t think you really and truly understand what Catholicism means by infallibility. Yet, I bet you’re willing to say that the men who wrote scripture wrote it infallibly. So why do you think God could guide them that way and not grant the same gift–by his promises in Matthew 16–to someone now?

Above you asked, “Who has the authority in your church to rebuke the pope if he should teach something wrong?” I could ask you the same question about Paul, or James, or Mark, or any other writer of scripture. Who in your church has the authority to determine that what they wrote wasn’t wrong? After all, you did say, “The fact is we are all human and having the HS does not mean we are absolutely going to teach infallibly.” So, going by your statement, how can I tell that they taught infallibly when they wrote scripture?

 

[jmcrae]

I maintain however, this is not proof of the heirarchy of the RCC. It is proof that we should not make promises we never intended to keep just for the sake of looking better in man’s eyes.

What you maintain, or don’t, is beside the point - the plain sense of the text itself shows that Peter was the spokesman of the Holy Spirit in that particular instance.

 

[SusanL]

Yes, all Christians have the ability to able to interpret scripture. Whether or not they are genuine in their interpretation is another thing, though.

Pardon for me coming in so late to this discussion. Perhaps others have already commented on this.

What is this supposed to mean??

They all have the ability to interpret scripture but they might not all be genuine in their interpretation? This is a bit presumptious, in my opinion. There are people in pretty much every denomination that believe that they have the Holy Spirit working through them. They love God with all of their heart and to the best of their ability. Are you going to tell them that their interpretation is not genuine?? Because of what? You said that they have the ability.

Now this is getting sooo confusing. They all have the ability yet they can disagree on major topics but still they all can have the Holy Spirit working through them to interpret these scriptures because they have the ability? Unless they’re not genuine.

Your argument is simply not logical and I submit, not biblical.

 

[jmcrae]

Pardon for me coming in so late to this discussion. Perhaps others have already commented on this.

What is this supposed to mean??

They all have the ability to interpret scripture but they might not all be genuine in their interpretation? This is a bit presumptious, in my opinion.

Not to mention, ever so slightly cock-eyed.

If the Holy Spirit gives the ability to interpret Scripture, but not the ability to interpret it accurately, then what is the point?

I can mess it up without God’s help, I’m sure. What I need God for is to help me get it right. That’s why God gave us the Church - to help us be able to make sure that we get it right, without relying on the burnin’ in the bosom, or other inner feelings of “I just know that I’m right, and that’s that.” (In my case, that particular inner feeling is usually a precursor to me making a complete idiot out of myself, more often than not. )

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m a bit confused. Number 6 is “one who has special knowledge, an expert.” Yet you’ve already indicated there may be scripture passages you don’t know about–in fact, you’ve said others are more knowledgable than you. Is your expertise therefore limited?

I’m glad you said “if.” See my answer below about this.

The pope.

1. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that sinfulness excludes someone from teaching infallibly. It doesn’t. If it did, we would have to exclude all the scripture Moses wrote (he was a murderer) and all the scripture David wrote (murder and adultery) and all the scripture Peter wrote (he denied Christ three times).
2. An authority that cannot be binding is meaningless. The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be able to say, “X is absolutely true, and Y is absolutely false.” Without such an authority to bind, we’re left with competing versions of the “truth” (which is exactly the state Protestantism is in). Now certainly God knew all this, so Jesus gave authority to bind (and to loose!)

This is why the pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra about faith and/or morals. I don’t think you really and truly understand what Catholicism means by infallibility. Yet, I bet you’re willing to say that the men who wrote scripture wrote it infallibly. So why do you think God could guide them that way and not grant the same gift–by his promises in Matthew 16–to someone now?

Above you asked, “Who has the authority in your church to rebuke the pope if he should teach something wrong?” I could ask you the same question about Paul, or James, or Mark, or any other writer of scripture. Who in your church has the authority to determine that what they wrote wasn’t wrong? After all, you did say, “The fact is we are all human and having the HS does not mean we are absolutely going to teach infallibly.” So, going by your statement, how can I tell that they taught infallibly when they wrote scripture?

So, who has the authority to rebuke the Pope?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

What you maintain, or don’t, is beside the point - the plain sense of the text itself shows that Peter was the spokesman of the Holy Spirit in that particular instance.

Hi,
What do you mean the spokesman?There is no such thing as a spokesperson for the HS(that I have ever heard of before. Why would the HS need a spokesperson? Peter didnt do anything except rebuke Ananias. I could and have done this with my sister who is also a born again believer. Thank the Lord He didnt strike her dead We are all suppose to rebuke people in love and let them know they are sinning not just to man but to God. Peter didnt do anything that we ,as a priesthood of believers, cant do as well.

 

[jmcrae]

So, who has the authority to rebuke the Pope?

Do you know the story of St. Catharine of Sienna? She was a humble teen-aged peasant girl who famously walked all the way to Avignon, where the Pope was hiding out from fear of his enemies. She went to where he was and she gave him what-for for his cowardice, and told him to go back to Rome and resume his duties.

He did.

So, who has the power to rebuke the Pope? We all do.

Protestants often bring up the fact that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter - we know. He deserved it, too.

The Pope is not some kind of all-powerful secular ruler who can’t ever be spoken to. People speak to the Pope all the time. I have a friend who has had several audiences with the Pope. She isn’t anybody “special” as far as the world is concerned - she’s a Filipino nanny.

But the Pope likes to hear her point of view on things. Not that she is setting policy for the Church, or anything grandiose like that. She just tells him about her life, and he enjoys listening to her, and he tells her things, and they talk about stuff for about 20 minutes or so, and then someone comes to tell them that the time is up, and she catches her bus and buys a new purse and some shoes in Rome before coming home again.

 

[jmcrae]

Why would the HS need a spokesperson?

So that we can know what He is saying.

You keep saying that you have the Holy Spirit. What is the use of “having” the Holy Spirit, if He doesn’t use you as His instrument to tell other people what is right and wrong?

 

[Kay_Cee]

So, who has the authority to rebuke the Pope?

Anyone can rebuke the pope for sinfulness or stupidity, as jmcrae already pointed out to you.

But if you mean rebuking him for teaching heresy, I’ll answer that when you tell me who has the authority to rebuke any of the scripture writers.

The fact is, AFH, you believe in infallibility. You believe the writers of scripture had it when they wrote (either that or scripture is full of errors). So, if my request above seems ridiculous to you, it’s because you probably find it silly to rebuke someone in an area where he’s infallible.

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Do you know the story of St. Catharine of Sienna? She was a humble teen-aged peasant girl who famously walked all the way to Avignon, where the Pope was hiding out from fear of his enemies. She went to where he was and she gave him what-for for his cowardice, and told him to go back to Rome and resume his duties.

He did.

So, who has the power to rebuke the Pope? We all do.

Protestants often bring up the fact that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter - we know. He deserved it, too.

The Pope is not some kind of all-powerful secular ruler who can’t ever be spoken to. People speak to the Pope all the time. I have a friend who has had several audiences with the Pope. She isn’t anybody “special” as far as the world is concerned - she’s a Filipino nanny.

But the Pope likes to hear her point of view on things. Not that she is setting policy for the Church, or anything grandiose like that. She just tells him about her life, and he enjoys listening to her, and he tells her things, and they talk about stuff for about 20 minutes or so, and then someone comes to tell them that the time is up, and she catches her bus and buys a new purse and some shoes in Rome before coming home again.

Hi,
No I did not know the story thank you for telling me. I would love to sit down and talk with the Pope. That would be awesome.

But, what if he is talking ex-cathedra and he is wrong and what he is saying is not biblical, then who has the authority to tell him he is wrong or to just question whether he is wrong?