"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh? Then you can provide a quote where I said any such thing about "Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture". Put up or shut up.

I quoted you from your reply at post #342.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Assume? No, we know it - that's why in an early post after his conviction for possession of child images were revealed, you tried to suggest that perhaps his child pornography wasn't actually pornography.

I remarked that I did not know what images he had on his computer - you seem to be more expert on these things than I am.

However, I did note that some Americans considered Sally Mann's photographs of her children to be pornography.

Hence it should noted that what one person may deem pornographic another person may not.

Yes, he wrote a couple books.

More than a couple.

And yes, a Fetschrift can be organized by anyone for any 'scholar' these days. Your boy didn't get any honors didn't get any seats or honored positions, nothing. He was a middling scholar and a purveyor of child porn. But you can't drop it because your ego won't allow you so you continue to dig yourself a hole.

Yes you keep telling us this but you offer no evidence apart from your own suppositions. Therefore you continue in the guise of the barber's cat.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll take this bit of petulance as an admission that you have no source that supports your bizarre claim.

As you have cravenly ignored my request that you provide detailed citations for your sources and as this is by no means the first example of such behaviour on your part, I see no reason why, on this precise occasion, I should respond to your demands.

[rogue06]

As you have cravenly ignored my request that you provide detailed citations for your sources and as this is by no means the first example of such behaviour on your part, I see no reason why, on this precise occasion, I should respond to your demands.

I'm hardly the first person to notice how you look for excuses to cover up your colossal screw ups, often seeking to obfuscate them under a blizzard of irrelevant demands. The whole Acts 5 fiasco is testimony to that. And here again we see you vainly attempting to distract attention from your ignorant statement that Luke-Acts was written after the Christian-Jewish schism when in fact the overwhelming consensus was that it was written during its inception -- and that process took centuries to fully complete.

All I wanted was where you got your asinine assertion from. I wasn't demanding page numbers, publishers, editions... ad nauseum like you try to bury everyone here under when you're desperately seeking to escape another of your own goals. But this and your first response pretty much verify my initial conclusion, you pulled your assertion right from your nether regions and loathe being called out on it. That's why you can't cite any sources -- because there is none and never was one.

[Mountain Man]

I remarked that I did not know what images he had on his computer - you seem to be more expert on these things than I am.

It doesn't exactly take an expert to type "richard pervo conviction" into a search engine and click on a relevant result.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This is called nit-picking.

On the contrary, it is, in point of fact, a critical assessment of these various texts.

The stories are the same.

They are not the same. These three accounts are variants on a theme. There are details found in Matthew and Luke that do no appear in Mark. The rich young man in Matthew, when instructed to keep the commandments, has to ask "which ones? The account of the rich ruler in Luke, given the author's literary bent, gets further embellishment including Jesus' famous remark about camels and needles. Furthermore, neither Matthew nor Luke's accounts include the phrase found in Mark that "Jesus, looking at him, loved him".

No, I am including "possessions" in my "assumption" not just money. But you seem to be trying to exclude money.

I never attempted to exclude money. I pointed out that "possessions" are not automatically monetary.

Being RICH includes everything they own. And as I said, having money (or possessions) is never a problem in the bible

As we have already seen, your eisegetical assumptions are not actually borne out by the texts within their various historical contexts. And certainly your remark contradicts what Jesus said about personal possession and wealth in these three separate accounts and on several other occasions found within the Synoptic gospels.

Yes it does and it isn't eisegetical. It is right there in the text.

The text does not show Ananias stating he has given all the money to the apostles and nor does the text specify the exact amount of money either gained either through the sale, or deposited at the feet of the apostles.

It's in the context. And confirmed when Peter questions his wife. He point blank asks her if what they gave was what they sold it for. She said "yes" - she LIED. Why do you ignore that?

Look at the text. He asks her a question and the Greek word used for the amount of money is non-specific.

As I pointed out in an earlier reply, C.K. Barrett suggests that this incident is a literary creation based on examples from OT texts [Leviticus, Joshua, I Kings] and is constructed to illustrate that deceit does not pay. This scene also serves as a dramatic contrast within the narrative as it comes directly after the previous verses showing the devotion exhibited by Barnabas. It likewise serves to emphasise Peter's preternatural divine powers which grant him the ability to kill with a single look or word.

However, I really think we have now worried this particular section of text to death and I would make the polite request that if you [or anyone else] wishes to further discuss Acts 5.1-11 you do so on another thread.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm hardly the first person to notice how you look for excuses to cover up your colossal screw ups[, often seeking to obfuscate them under a blizzard of irrelevant demands. The whole Acts 5 fiasco is testimony to that. And here again we see you vainly attempting to distract attention from your ignorant statement that Luke-Acts was written after the Christian-Jewish schism when in fact the overwhelming consensus was that it was written during its inception -- and that process took centuries to fully complete.

All I wanted was where you got your asinine assertion from. I wasn't demanding page numbers, publishers, editions... ad nauseum like you try to bury everyone here under when you're desperately seeking to escape another of your own goals. But this and your first response pretty much verify my initial conclusion, you pulled your assertion right from your nether regions and loathe being called out on it. That's why you can't cite any sources -- because there is none and never was one.

Why won't you ever cite sources?

I have noted in previous threads that you like to pose as some kind of TheologyWeb polymath. We both know you go fishing on the net in order to find your quotes and comments but you do not appear to have the courage to admit that the internet is your only source because it would detract from your scholarly affectation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It doesn't exactly take an expert to type "richard pervo conviction" into a search engine and click on a relevant result.

Well you are clearly more interested in the details concerning child pornography than I am.

[Mountain Man]

Well you are clearly more interested in the details concerning child pornography than I am.

Rather, I was interested in the details concerning Richard Perverts conviction after your suggestion that what he was guilty of wouldn't even raise eyebrows in your corner of the globe, which certainly raises some interesting questions about your own country's apparent comfort with sexually explicit images of young children.

[Sparko]

\
However, I really think we have now worried this particular section of text to death and I would make the polite request that if you [or anyone else] wishes to further discuss Acts 5.1-11 you do so on another thread.

Brave Sir Robin bravely runs away.

Sorry H_A, you are the one who brought it up. It is fair game now. We don't allow thread starters to stop people from correcting them just because they realize they are losing a debate that they started.

[Sparko]

Repeat:

As I wrote to Sparko there is no verse where Ananias and Sapphira state to the apostles "here are the entire proceeds from the sale " - or words to that effect. That would have been a lie.

and as I and others keep saying, that is what is said in verses 8-9
⁷ About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”



"the price" is obviously referring to the amount they lay at the apostle's feet (gave the church). So he is asking her if what they gave the church was the full amount they sold it for.

Sapphira says, "Yes, that is the price"

So she is saying that they gave the full amount to the church when in fact they did not. THAT WAS THE LIE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Rather, I was interested in the details concerning Richard Perverts conviction after your suggestion that what he was guilty of wouldn't even raise eyebrows in your corner of the globe, which certainly raises some interesting questions about your own country's apparent comfort with sexually explicit images of young children.

Please do not misquote me.

What I actually wrote was:

"I would also remark that the term "pornography" is thrown about a lot in the USA for things that in Europe would not even raise an eyebrow."

It does not follow from that remark that I was exonerating Pervo. I was simply making an observation about different cultural reactions to nudity.

For example, here many of us sunbathe nude in our public parks. I suspect most Americans do not. I also suspect that if an individual did attempt to sunbathe nude in an American public park s/he would be subject to some rather unpleasant comments from passers-by and would be arrested.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Brave Sir Robin bravely runs away.

Sorry H_A, you are the one who brought it up. It is fair game now. We don't allow thread starters to stop people from correcting them just because they realize they are losing a debate that they started.

Then feel free to carry on without me. You can discuss it amongst yourselves.

Edited. Do you personally believe that Acts 5.11 is a record of real events?

[rogue06]

Please stop pointing out how many massive errors I keep making about basic facts. It really makes it difficult to keep pretending to be an actual historian when people realize that I often don't know my elbow from my... sphincter muscle surrounding a void, about much of what I pontificate about.

FIFY, n/c

[Mountain Man]

Please do not misquote me.

What I actually wrote was:

"I would also remark that the term "pornography" is thrown about a lot in the USA for things that in Europe would not even raise an eyebrow."

It does not follow from that remark that I was exonerating Pervo. I was simply making an observation about different cultural reactions to nudity.

For example, here many of us sunbathe nude in our public parks. I suspect most Americans do not. I also suspect that if an individual did attempt to sunbathe nude in an American public park s/he would be subject to some rather unpleasant comments from passers-by and would be arrested.

You later implied that you were, in fact, familiar with the details of Richard Pervert's fondness for kiddie porn, so one can only wonder about your attempts to downplay the seriousness of his crime.