Baidarka

If we are talking about a real historical event then we must think in real and not mythical terms. That means that Satin and Yahweh can not be characters in our historical reinterpretation of this event.
So far no one has attempted to answer any of the questions that I asked in my opening post.
1)Why was this ugly story included in Acts?
2) Why were these unfortunate souls Murdered? (my guess is that they tried to back out of the deal so Peter had them iced)
3) Why was this ugly incident included in Acts?
4) Was it an attempt to intimidate more money out of the gullible victims of the cult?
5) Was it an attempt to explain away a current Murder charge against Peter and his goons?
6) Can well meaning modern people salvage anything good from a religion built on such a rotten foundation?
7) Is this a true story or a myth?
8) Does the vile nature of the story insure its veracity?

Please try to address these questions.

PS- As Bible readers know Peter is the dirty no good who lied when he denied Jesus 3 times. Paul tells us that Peter was a hypocrite who ate traife meals with Paul and his Goyem until the other Jews showed up… all of a sudden Peter turns into Mr. Holy Kosher. If you would believe the negative NT stories about Peter why would you believe him in this totally improbable case? I tell you Peter was a nasty murdering no good con man.

Picture

I'll tell you what i think abotu your questions.
First of all, we are talking about a story in the same book that talks about Jehovah and Satan, so I see no reasoin they can't take place in a story they are explicatly taking place in or mentioned in... ...but I'll follow your rules.


1) It was included to show that God knows the secrets of your heart and you can't lie to the Spirit of the Lord. It, in turn, shows the consequences for lying to Him.

2) I have to disagree with you. It says they fell down dead, like just dead. They may have been killed, but I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, in fact no one alive today was there, so the whole story may never come out.

3) See number one.

4) No, as I said on two, for the beleivers of Christ, it is to show the Lord's omniscience and rule over our lives...

5) I don't know of any murder charge against Peter...

6) It's only rotten if you take it that way... ...it could be some cons getting what they had worked for: punishment.

7) According to the Bible, it's true.

8) the nature of the story doesn't, but there are many much bloodier in the Bible....

Ps-Could you tell me where Peter turns coat at the dinner table? I can't find it just now, and since you probably have it referenced, you'd get it faster...

...that's what I think...

Baidarka

Picture
Sorry about that duplication my internal redactor was not paying attention. Please eliminate # 3 from my list, or if you please try applying some of that apologetic logic to explain how my scribal error was not really a mistake after all (“story “refers to a literary work while “incident” refers to something which happened).




Galatians
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

As I said that Peter was sure a squirrelly character.
Even if you believe that A + S were offed by Yahweh his self surely Peter’s nasty gloating was not very saint like

mike_decock

Look at how the Jerusalem group was described as living:

Acts 2:44-45
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

The early Christians practiced a form of communalism similar to other religious sects like the Essenes. For someone to hold back some of money for themselves would be a grievous crime and as the story indicates, it is worthy of death.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is like a "boy who cried wolf" moral tale to the early followers to hold nothing back. It's like a "once upon a time" tale where the people who tried to hold back literally dropped dead.

In the story they "drop dead", implying that "God did it". Assuming that there's a historical root to the story (which I doubt), suggesting that Peter iced them is pretty speculative.

Not just "more" money, but all their money.

I doubt it.

Sure. Picture suggested that it's an example of why you should never "lie to the Spirit" and I'm sure he's "well meaning" in his interpretation. Even so, I still think it should strike any person who values human life as an excessive punishment, just like getting eaten by bears for making fun of a bald guy is excessive.



I would put it in the myth category.



No. The author doesn't show any embarrassment of this story which seems quite vile to our sensibilities. In the mindset of one who believes such an offense deserves death, it serves a distinct purpose.

-Mike...

Scotsmanmatt

MB
I trust you intended to begin substantiating some of the assumptions you are making in this post?

Why don't you begin by:

A) Explaining why your title for this thread isn't guilty of the fallacy of complex question? It certainly appears that way to me as it assumes a positive answer to another unasked question [Were Ananias and Sapphira 'murdered'? Yes], that might well not be the case.

B) Show that Christianity is a cult [in the destructive and harmful manner that experts in the field use the word]?

When you've answered those question then perhaps your questions below [snipped for brevity] will warrant some attention.

Thanks
M.Bell

<snip>

Steven Carr

Please show that it was a lawful killing. What laws are Christians under?

Scotsmanmatt

MB
So to my charge against the initial poster of committing the logical fallacy of complex question you respond with the logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof? Please note carefully that my response did not make any claim one way or the other as to whether it was murder or lawful killing hence I bear no burden of proof at this point. The same can't be said for the initial poster who has made a claim for which I've asked for substantiation.

Thanks
M.Bell

Ellis14

Christianity isn't a cult in the classic sense of the word.

Although, it has been pointed out that delusions held by one are insanity, delusions held by a few are considered a cult, whilst delusions held by a majority are called religion.

Baidarka

Mike

Of course my title question and speculations are provocative, subjective and not at all scholarly. I am as Scottsmanmatt says guilty of “committing the logical fallacy of complex question”. It is like asking a presidential candidate “have you stopped beating your wife?” (Perhaps it’s not such a bad question if the candidate in question really does beat his wife) I assure every one that I am aware my terrible, transparent sin and that I expected everybody else to be aware of it too.
After reading Gershom Scholem’s book “Sabbatai Sevi,The Mystical Messiah”
I find many similarities between the mythology that grew out of this historical reality of the Middle ages and the first century Jesus myth. This similarity makes it easy for me to believe that at the core of the Jesus myth there may have a Historical Jesus, James and Peter.
If the story of A+S was based on a real historic incident (I know that this is a big if) what would the real story have been?

Imagine a first century TV news crew trying to uncover the truth about these deaths. An intrepid reporter chases after Peter and sticks a microphone in his face saying “excuse me sir would you please explain what happened to Ananias and Sapphira”.
Peter says “ They lied to the Lord God so he struck them dead”
IR- Are you saying that God did it?
P- Yes God did it!
IR- Haven’t you been telling people that the end of the world is coming and that they should give you all that they own to prepare for the end?

Peter’s goon squad pushes the reporter aside and knock over the camera man.

If it is a fact that 2 members of Peter’s congregation died dramatically while in a dispute with Peter over money then execution or murder is not far fetched.

mike_decock “The story of Ananias and Sapphira is like a "boy who cried wolf" moral tale to the early followers to hold nothing back. It's like a "once upon a time" tale where the people who tried to hold back literally dropped dead”

I agree but it works this way whether or not it is true.



mike_decock “In the story they "drop dead", implying that "God did it". Assuming that there's a historical root to the story (which I doubt), suggesting that Peter iced them is pretty speculative.”
Yes but assuming that there is a historical root what other rational explanation is there? Double guilty heart attacks?


mike_decock “Sure. Picture suggested that it's an example of why you should never "lie to the Spirit" and I'm sure he's "well meaning" in his interpretation. Even so, I still think it should strike any person who values human life as an excessive punishment, just like getting eaten by bears for making fun of a bald guy is excessive.”
Being a bald guy I’m all for that!


mike decock “I would put it in the myth category.”
Perhaps but evil and ugly none the less.

mike_decock

Just speculating off the top of my head:

1) They were cast out of the group and declared "dead", even though they were physically still alive.
2) They both died sometime later but the length of time got shortened as the story was retold.

Personally, I think something along the lines of the 1st scenario is most likely, assuming there is a historical root, that is.

-Mike...