ohmi

To say that one possesses land does not exclude that one owns it , and in fact normally the one who possesses the land is the owner .

on a point of information: The old covenant was given to the House of Israel as well as the Jews [House of Judah] , Israel is far larger than the Jews.

But the other part is correct in essence, only Israelites can transgress the old covenant ... but then the new covenant states that it is only with those whose forefathers broke the old covenant , so that they also are only Israelites [by birth or by legal absorption into Israel].

Jesus explained that only the few whom God has given him can cease from sin in this world, and lists them as descendants of the sons of Jacob [Israel] , which should have settled the matter [but clearly does not in many people's eyes, that do not see what is clearly written]

Jesus also defined sin by means of his [summarised] command to Love , so that sin is any unlovingness to anyone ... and excluded any possibility of sinners being redeemed at his return [including most Jews and most of the House of Israel and all creedal 'christian' sinners]

Thus God does not indeed hold the vast majority of mankind accountable for sin in this world , but redeems the many [Rev 7:9-10] ,who go by the broad way [Matt 7], after death as sinners and thus after the second resurrection [of the unjust] , in the new earth after the kingdom is established on earth by the few [144,000] firstfruits of Israel [those Jesus takes at his return]

Sheshbazzar

Of course this little ditty begins with church's FAILED experimental foray into COMMUNISIM;
One might wonder whether it was "The Holy Spirit" or the "doctrines of men" that led to this fiasco? Whatever, the evidence of history shows that the church very quickly abandoned this failed "strong-arm" utopian communistic approach.


Then in Acts 5:1-11 we have Pete setting himself up as being both "Gawd" and the "Holy Ghost";
He, Pete, asks the questions, but to reply to him is equated with replying to "Gawd" and to the "Holy Ghost".
Perhaps if poor old Ananias or Sapphira had been informed that they were actually being questioned by Gawd, rather than by greedy old Pete posing as Gawd, and his gang of young extortioners, they might felt more obligated to honestly reveal all the details of their business transactions.
Actually the story makes it appear that they should have just told 'ol Pete and his gang of young mafia thugs to mind their own damn business and fuck off.

Love, love, love, and more mealy-mouthed "love", Yet 'twas all this alleged Christian "love" that caused Christians to burn their fellowman at the stake, torture, rob, murder and enslave millions "in the Name of Jezuz". some "love" that is.

'Ol Pete and gang were just a brimming over with that Christian "love" on that day, when rather than correcting and forgiving Ananias and Sapphira, they chose to murder them as a means of scaring and terrorising everyone else into obedience to their every whim, even to the turning over 100% of everything that they owned on Pete's demand.

Sheshbazzar

Rather obviously I find this section of The Acts to be reprehensible, but what might not be so obvious unless I declare it unambiguously, is;
I do not believe that the events that are related in this story ever actually took place within the first century, rather the tale was the fabrication of a much latter Greek-Roman church hierarchy intent on dominating, terrorising, and extorting from the flock.
Though my statements might appear to be disrespectful of the personage of Peter, it is not "Peter" of the NT that I scorn, but those low-life's that high-jacked his good name to carry out their corrupt and greedily extortionious religious ambitions.
After 4+ centuries of Christian "authorities" cooking the Books, adding to, removing from, revising, redacting and interpolating, there remains nothing left of the written NT that is trustworthy.
But it was not a precept of the original NT doctrines that men should ever place trust in any alleged NT "writings", but that their trust and their faith ought to stand sure upon the acceptance and beliefe in The Scriptural Promises of old.
No religious "authority" ought ever to impose through means of terrorism and tyranny, that Believers must accept any so called "New Testament" writings of unknown origin, and unknown authorship.
That some so did think to by such means, dictate The Faith, stands as a testimony against them, and against their perverted form of religion.

ohmi

It didn't fail [unlike the poor imposters to it of modern secular communism], the saints are still out there , one in a million scattered worldwide ferreting out the House of Israel's descendants from amongs the gentiles ...

As Peter pointed out, they could have done that instead of trying to lie to God [which proved such a shock when they found out that Peter knew straghtways that they were lying]

Not everyone who uses the name 'christian' is a Christian, but only those who do actually Love everyone, the very few Hebrew saints of thsi world [one in a million only]

Sinners CANNOT be Christians, but CAN say that they are , fooling themselves ...

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

The proof comes when Jesus returns and simply will NOT take any who are still sinners :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Peter didn't kill them, nor did he demand money from anyone ... any contribution to the saints was voluntary ... but if one lies to God it will cost one this life [and perhaps also the next life, in a second death for continued unlovingness in the new earth kingdom] whenever one finds out the real truth about oneself.

storytime

"The proof comes when Jesus returns and simply will NOT take any who are still sinners."

We already know the road to hell is paved with dead Christians, so the whole body of bastards - who are not sons of Jacob - will burn in everlasting fire.

Peter was an egotistical old fart who thought to lie against the commandments of God. He was probably trying to hide his "living in the manner of the Gentiles" from the Pharisees, knowing that their judgement by Jewish law meant his death. So he climbed upon a roof top, smoked some dope to calm his nerves and constructed a story to fool the Gentile Cornelius. Cornelius was a wealthy Gentile, evidently, and had already been giving much to the Jerusalem Temple. Cornelius "loved the Jews". Which reminds me of John Hagee, the six-million dollar man who recently donated that amount from his church to the Jews , his idols, at Jerusalem- Israel. Why are Gentiles so gullable?

storytime

Sheshbazzar your interpretation of the story is quite refreshing. And as we are allowed to speculate on the "true" interpretation, I see yours as being as good as they come.

Sheshbazzar

"One in a million scattered worldwide" does Not constitute;
"neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
The COMMUNISIM that is explicitly set forth in these verse as being the only acceptable form of "Christian" conduct and association, most certainly FAILED, it is no longer done, except among a very minute minority of "mind control" extremist cults.

They weren't "trying to lie to Gawd" They were talking to "Peter" a fellow human being. And an instant "Death Penalty" for a minor infraction of "lying" is hardly rational or just, whether such execution is performed by "Gawd" or performed by his mafia henchmen, Peter and his "young" thugs.
Some "Gawd", that "forgives all manner of sin" except a few shekels short of a 100% "donation", Such a "Gawd", and his evil extortionist cult is not worthy of any respect, much less worship.
Trot out the old "No true Scotsman" line.


The demand was for everything "all things in common", total COMMUNISIM, nothing at all held back. Some "voluntary" that is.
They went into a private "business meeting" with Peter and his "young men" they did not come out alive. hmmm....."Gawd done it" no evidence presented except Pete and gangs claim.
In any human court of law, that excuse for a "testimony" would warrant a murder conviction for Peter and his gang of of young men.

ohmi

Yes it does , the Christian saints were not scattered worldwide until the seven churches of God were burnt to the ground... Jesus tells us in Rev 7:3-8 that there are to be but 144,000 saints in the period up to his return [amounting to one in a million] and their task was given as finding the scattered House of Israel amongst the gentiles ... with only some two thousand then alive at any time [on average] it was inevitable that they become scattered, no longer able to congregate .

You cannot possibly say how the one in a three million, who are saints today , lives ... the scripture shows us the way of equality set for them by Jesus , something they cannot change.

Peter says otherwise ... he didn't care if they witheld all their money and never joined the Christians, but to join and pretend that half their money was all of it was trying to deceive God ... pretty foolish, and perhaps the shock of being found out was what killed them ...

As I say, they may simply have died of shock... but in any case they could not have become saints because they were not honest and were committed to Mammon, so they were bound to die for sin eventually... so it was merciful, an easy death as a living parable instead of a life of miserable conflict serving (a) false god(s).

If you actually read the new covenant of grace [unmerited forgiveness] in Jeremiah 31:31-34, then you will see that it is ONLY with the descendants of those who broke the old covenant , the House of Judah [Jews] and The House of Israel [paganised, living as gentiles scattered amongst the gentiles, worshipping idols, not Judaists , not Jews]

The demand was for everything "all things in common", total COMMUNISIM, nothing at all held back. Some "voluntary" that is.
[/quote]

It is voluntary to become a Christian , no-one forced them to apply , but those who did choose to join the band had to share their all with the others...

An autopsy might have proven that they died of shock...

ohmi

'Hell' is not a problem to anyone , Jesus promises that all will be resurrected from 'hell' [Revelation 20:13] and that the many who go by the broad way through hell will also be saved , but later of course than the few firstfruits who later serve as priesthood and kings to the many [Rev 7:9-10]

ohmi

Private interpretations are however not valid :-

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.