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

[Sparko]

Listen up people. The only biblical interpretation that counts is the one that Hypatia proposes. The one that allows her to attack Christians about something or other. All other interpretations or explanations are null and void.

Carry on.

[CivilDiscourse]

Listen up people. The only biblical interpretation that counts is the one that Hypatia proposes. The one that allows her to attack Christians about something or other. All other interpretations or explanations are null and void.

Carry on.

Ah, I see after your solid trouncing due to not knowing an obscure word, you have realized who you should be working for.

Good work worm!

[CivilDiscourse]

And it isn't always "snipped for irrelevance" (Here and HERE as well). Occasionally it is "Snipped for having no relevance" and "Sniped for space" And those are the most recent examples I found. I didn't even go back to the one referred to.

Here's another sample of her variations....from a day or so ago.

No I addressed part of your post that was relevant to what I was referring i.e. the tabloid press.

[rogue06]

And of course no mention of posts #142 & # 143 on the last page of that thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...10#post1268901 that you studiously ignored.

Nor of course the last two posts [# 41 & # 42] on this thread https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e3#post1206511 that you also studiously ignored.

Or indeed post # 50 on this present thread.

I'm not the one pretending I never answer questions. I, as well as several others here, have made it clear that we've tumbled onto your never-ending question game and won't play any more. In your case you just refuse to answer thorny questions.

[Sparko]

Ah, I see after your solid trouncing due to not knowing an obscure word, you have realized who you should be working for.

Good work worm!

She has proven her smartitude by her grasp of Theology and Thesaurus. Us lowly peons must not question her intelligenciness.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm not the one pretending I never answer questions.

You do not answer questions. That is patently apparent.

I, as well as several others here, have made it clear that we've tumbled onto your never-ending question game and won't play any more. In your case you just refuse to answer thorny questions.

What "thorny questions" do you have in mind?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You may think that, but the others based theirs on what the text said, while you based yours on things like "Well that is Peter's opinion."

Peter's opinion as alleged by the author of Luke-Acts.

[Mountain Man]

Peter's opinion as alleged by the author of Luke-Acts.

The fact that both Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead on the spot for their lies would seem to indicate that it was more than just Peter's opinion.

Or maybe you'd like to embarrass yourself again by quoting from the writings of a convicted pedophile?

[RumTumTugger]

Pardon? What do you think you are reading? Every translation by its very nature is an interpretation especially from a language as highly inflected as Greek.

Then why did you say this? hmm?

Let us forget the various translations.

no one esle was making a big deal about the different translations but we digress now to get to the meat (Context)of the the discussion.

And the context is clear. They held back some of the money that their "lie" to God

That is their crime/misdemeanour. Peter then berates Ananias

Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us^[a] but to God!

Ananias then drops down dead,

First I'm glad you agree that context matters. But no where in the above passage does it directly say that Ananais was obligated to give all the proceeds of the sale to the Apostles in fact the opposite is said that the property and the proceeds were Ananais's to do with what he wanted. Still no death. you left that out the verse where Ananais died I wonder why.

To save time and posts so you don't have to give us and attempt to parse the passage 1 verse at a time using different sources, here is the Full Context from both your sources 2 versions will be enough*
Full context in NIV from Blue letter bible site you used in your previous post

[Act 5:1-9 NIV] 1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God." 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 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." 9 Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

Full Context in the NRSV from bible gateway, which you did not give a direct link to.**

5 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; ² with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³ “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? ⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us^[a] but to God!” ⁵ Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. ⁶ The young men came and wrapped up his body,^[b] then carried him out and buried him.

⁷ After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” ⁹ Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”

And now for the rest of the story. In verse 5-6 we now get to Ananais dropping down dead and how they handled the body. It is not until we get to verse 7 with the interaction between Peter and Sapphira do we get an understanding of what the crime/misdemeanor was. Peter asks Sapphira if the money Ananais gave was what they got for the sell of the property she lies and says yes that is what we got for it. Peter then asks why did they both agree to trick God into thinking they were giving all the proceeds she then drops dead. Notice there was no mention of being obligated to give all the proceeds in verses 5-9 Peter has already said in verse 4 the money was theirs to do with what they wanted. So since it is clear here that the crime/misdemeanor was not that they only gave a part of the proceeds what was it? It was because they lied and said they were giving all so they could seem to be as pious as those that did. so this passage in Context does Not prove your contention that Christians who are not giving the majority of thier money to the poor are hypocrites, which is how you were trying to use Acts 5:1-3.


*Context means constancy in sources not to be consistent brings up questions about what you are hiding?

**Are you hiding something else.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact that both Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead on the spot for their lies would seem to indicate that it was more than just Peter's opinion.

Well it makes for a good tale doesn't it?

Or maybe you'd like to embarrass yourself again by quoting from the writings of a convicted pedophile?

As I wrote to you earlier today his horrendous personal life does not affect his scholarship and he is still respected for his work on Acts.

Would you denounce Einstein because of his atrocious behaviour towards his wives and children?

How about Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell Jnr and their indiscretions?

[Mountain Man]

Well it makes for a good tale doesn't it?



As I wrote to you earlier today his horrendous personal life does not affect his scholarship and he is still respected for his work on Acts.

Would you denounce Einstein because of his atrocious behaviour towards his wives and children?

How about Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell Jnr and their indiscretions?

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...24#post1274024

[mossrose]

Well it makes for a good tale doesn't it?



As I wrote to you earlier today his horrendous personal life does not affect his scholarship and he is still respected for his work on Acts.

Would you denounce Einstein because of his atrocious behaviour towards his wives and children?

How about Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell Jnr and their indiscretions?

According to your logic the horrendous personal lives of these men does not affect their message.

[rogue06]

According to your logic the horrendous personal lives of these men does not affect their message.

It is a difference between the secular world and the religious one.

[mossrose]

It is a difference between the secular world and the religious one.

Yeah. I'm just trying to point out HA's inconsistency.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

According to your logic the horrendous personal lives of these men does not affect their message.

Why should it? Are you going to denounce the importance and value of Einstein's work because he was loathsome husband and father?

Newton was also an extremely unpleasant man being, on occasion, both cruelly vindictive and spiteful. Perhaps you should reject Newtonian physics as well!