Jackalope

Butters, could you please learn to quote. That last post was really confusing to plough through at first, because there's no indication of where the quoted material ends and your comments begin.
It made me go back and check who posted it, because it sure didn't _sound_ like you. Then I realized you were quoting.

offa

Offa; Ananias is a pseudo name for Simon Magus and
Sapphira is his consort Helena. To "give up the ghost" means leaving the cult. The death of Ananias and Sapphira is metaphorical. If you do not belong to the author's cult you are dead (like the 185,000 "dead corpses" in
Kings 2-19:35.

BTW, this story about Ananias and Sapphira is also about simony.

Butters

Posted by Jackalope,

Yes, sorry about that Jack, I was in a hurry, after rereading, I see it was confusing.

Butters

Posted by Offa,
So when Matthew and John say that Jesus "gave up the ghost" on the cross, they only meant he was leaving the cult? (hey, who could blame him?)

And I guess it really sucked for Ananias and Sappheria to have been buried alive for trying to leave the cult.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Butters ]</p>

lpetrich

Butters, Offa is another Amos -- someone who constructs weird, off-the-wall interpretations that many of us find difficult to follow.

lpetrich

The idea that "hating sin" justifies gross vindictiveness is:

A defense of grossly unloving actions
Much like the doctrine that the end justifies the means

lpetrich

Actually, the thing I found really gross was Jesus Christ cursing a certain fig tree, simply because it had not borne figs for him when he had been hungry.

wardy

Biff and Butters,

Thousands of questions and really good ones as well. I will handle as much as i can right now and would love to come back each one of them. I first of all want to say that the two of you make great observations from the text. examples: Biff's mention of: Peter being good with a knife, and Butters mention of: "And I guess it really sucked for Ananias and Sappheria to have been buried alive for trying to leave the cult"

When making an interpretation of anything it's great to factor in all of the information, such as Peter being good with a knife. That's something i did not factor in when i gave my interpretation. I'm thankful that i'm still learning new things and for that i thank you. Butter's, i agree with your observation which makes one less question to address and i thank you as well for teaching me.

First of all, one question i'm not going to hit right away is the existence of God question. Not to avoid it but because it does not pertain to the current discussion in the field of Biblical Criticism. The Bible assumes the existence of one God who is supreme and unique.

My favorite question: What are the options???

When doing interpretation of anything it's best to list out all of the possible options that exist and then to deduct with investigation and reason (science) to determine the best possible conclusion or interpretation. Of course you all know this already. Christian or non-Christian it's a struggle to do this without bias. I want to be objective as possible and i trust that you guys will keep me accountable to this. (and i almost certain that you will)

What are all of the possible options for the death of A & S ???
1. Peter did it.
2. God did it.
3. the crowd did it.
4. (other possible options?)

First of all, like i said before, i think the Lord took His life. My reasons:
1. Ana. lied to God. (motive)
2. the text only mentions him hearing words, falling down, and breathing his last. (method of murder is not mentioned)
3. Luke was very detailed about describing death (Herod was eaten by worms and died) Stephen stoned, and Christ crucifixion.
4. others heard what was said and great fear came over them. Acts 5:5 (if they could hear they could see, eye witnesses)

I would not wager the house on this one. It's only my thought and my conclusion. I havn't looked at anything outside of the context to even see if A & S are mentioned. There could easily be more information.

Why was money given?
1. Peter was a cult leader who demanded it.
2. They gave it on their own free will to a cult leader.
3. They gave it on their own free will to Peter who was not a cult leader.
4. other possible options...

First of all is Peter a cult leader??? I would say no, you've already said yes. The way to find the answer would be to determine what is the definition of a cult. If your definition is different than mine of what a cult is, then we could both be right at the same time.


You don't mean to imply that if a thief says to you "Your money or your life" that that gives him the right to kill you if you keep a twenty for yourself?
I would definately not keep the 20, but i do not see how this scenerio applies. I see it more like a person who goes to court because he has agreed to pay something and didn't. God is the judge and the one prosecuting. God's standard with judging sin is death, both spiritual and physical. Mercy is a choice. God is very open about Himself giving and showing mercy on whom He wishes. I would imply that He reserves the right to show mercy how and to what degree He wishes to as well. This, however, does not negate the death penalty for sin. One of the main differences between believers and non-believers is that God see's the death of His only Son in the place of believers. (not something earned or deserved) This of coarse is biblically speaking. In the case of A & S they, as believers sinned against God, were immediately judged, and died. We know that not everybody immediately dies throughout scripture upon sin. Taking that into account does not mean that God changes in character. He consistently shows Mercy when and how He chooses through the scriptures.

I want to get to more of your questions and thank you for taking the detailed time to write them all out. I'm going to be traveling for the next week and will be computerless untill Monday a week from now. Thanks for the new information and teaching me. I honestly mean it.

Grad Student Humanist

Yeah, no kidding. God really needs a better editor. Why the hell is that story in the Bible. Even as a kid in Catholic school I found it appaling and of course none of my teachers could ever explain why he did it. Does that mean that if Jesus ever ran across a cow or a sheep who didn't give him milk he would have killed it too?

This is just one incident in the NT that really contradicts the idea that "God is Love" and that Jesus is so much better than any human being who ever lived. What rational person would kill a non-sentient tree just because it didn't have any fruit at the time? It's not the tree's fault and any rational, intelligent person would understand that. Why didn't Jesus just conjure up some food instead of killing another organism in some kind of divine hissy fit? Must be his mysterious ways again.

Biff the unclean

That fig tree thing is easy to explain if you are familiar with the popular religions of the 1st to 4th centuries.

Mithraism is usually presented as Christianity's closest rival. When Mithra was a child on Earth the sacred fig tree housed, clothed and nurtured him. So for the Mitrains it took on a great deal of symbolism. In Mithraism the fig tree represents the faith held by the followers. A rather pretty image--beats the executioners cross for good taste.

What Jesus is doing in this fable is finding a barren fig tree-which is a direct swipe at the Mithric Church (get it?)-and then he zapps it big time. Not too different from those nasty TV ads we all saw during the recent election.


[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>