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

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But in responseNo, H_A, it is you who has consistently shown a complete ignorance for the society and cultures of the ANE. You also are the one who regularly takes verses in isolation in complete disregard for the context.

Then you must provide evidence from what I have written [full posts] to support such a contention.

You are also the one who refuses to ever admit when you are mistaken or wrong, even when it is glaringly obvious to everyone, like it is in this instance.

You keep stating that I am mistaken but in what respect?

I already mentioned Job, Abraham, David, Solomon. All who were rich and were "God's Chosen" and could actually trace their riches to God's gifts.

You are now doing precisely the thing of which you accuse me. You are conflating and attempting to harmonise motives found for characters who appear in different sections of the OT and who are supposed to have existed at widely differing historical period as justification for your own later opinion that “ being rich is not a problem.”. This mere gloss on your part. And demonstrates your own lack of historical understanding concerning the ANE.

Being rich is not a curse.

Can you give me the textual references for that precise statement?

But as the bible says, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

In point of fact it is writer of Timothy who states that and that individual was writing at a later period and a long time after the periods of history in which Abraham and David are supposed to have existed.

The problem is making money your "god" - a false idol. That is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to give everything away and follow him.

[My emphasis]

You are conflating and confusing the three separate accounts found in the Synoptic texts.

Mark tells us of a rich man [Mark 10.17-22]

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him,
and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸ Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” ²⁰ He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” ²¹ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²² When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Matthew refers to a rich young man [Matthew 19.16-22]

¹⁶ Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ¹⁷ And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” ¹⁸ He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; ¹⁹ Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁰ The young man said to him, “I have kept all these;^[b] what do I still lack?” ²¹ Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²² When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

And Luke refers to a rich ruler [Luke 18.18-25]

A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁹ Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” ²¹ He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” ²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²³ But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. ²⁴ Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

The author of Luke then elaborates the story by adding further narrative details [26-30]

However, within the known historical context the character of Jesus was an ascetic Jewish teacher typical of his day. He believed the End Times were imminent when all wealth and earthly possessions would be superseded and no longer of any relevance in the forthcoming Jewish Messianic Kingdom of God.

It wasn't because he was rich, it was because he loved his money more than Jesus and Jesus said that to make him aware of it. His love of money was what was holding him back.

I am using Mark 10. 17.22 as my own reference as this is the earliest Synoptic gospel. In that text the man is shocked and leaves grieving because he has many possessions. However, there is no indication there that his "love of money" is what held him back. He could have had commitments and responsibilities including dependents that he did not feel able to relinquish. We do not know.

I think we can conclude that the underlying textual inference in those verses is that to inherit eternal life one should do as Jesus admonished in that exchange.

That they LIED about it. Holding the money back was fine if they admitted it.

They held back some of the money yes I have never denied that. I do not why you are persisting in this matter.

It clearly says that they are condemned for LYING about it. Peter says that it was theirs to dispose of and the money was theirs to use as they wanted. There was no command to give everything to the church.

That is an accusation made to Ananias by Peter in verse 3 where he accuses him of keeping "back part of the proceeds of the land". The two opening verses make no mention of either them lying, they were deceitful yes, but they did not lie. There is no verse where they state "This is all the money we got from the sale" when they laid it at the apostles' feet. That would have been lying.

Now you are making it way more complicated than it needs to be. Trying to find literary motivations and other nonsense that a first century writer would have no idea about

That remark amply demonstrates your total inability to understand the literary techniques employed within contemporary Graeco-Roman literature.

[rogue06]

Hypocrite_A hasn't figured out yet that those were instruction to a specific person and not to everyone.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yeah really.

On what evidence apart from your own personal animus? I think they are charlatans and snake oil merchants but I am asking you in what respect you consider this individual to be so.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But not if he has an orgasm, according to your prior posting

Gond a dribble of semen can result in a pregnancy. Hence the advice to put the condom on to the erect penis before letting it get anywhere near a vagina.

[Sparko]

Then you must provide evidence from what I have written [full posts] to support such a contention.

Oh, I must, must I? Your posts in this very thread are the evidence Hypatia. Despite with your dumb interpretation, you refuse to admit your mistake.
You did the same with your idiotic claim that Paul wasn't Jewish one of your very first thread here.

You keep stating that I am mistaken but in what respect?

In your interpretation of Acts 5. Are you not able to keep track of this conversation?

You are now doing precisely the thing of which you accuse me. You are conflating and attempting to harmonise motives found for characters who appear in different sections of the OT and who are supposed to have existed at widely differing historical period as justification for your own later opinion that “ being rich is not a problem.”. This mere gloss on your part. And demonstrates your own lack of historical understanding concerning the ANE.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? You asked for evidence that the bible doesn't condemn being rich and I gave you evidence, then you dismiss it with some ignorant excuse.

Can you give me the textual references for that precise statement?

Sure. Sparko, This thread, post #284.

In point of fact it is writer of Timothy who states that and that individual was writing at a later period and a long time after the periods of history in which Abraham and David are supposed to have existed.

This is you ignoring the context in order to isolate a passage in order to shovel in your own interpretation of Acts 5. Repeat after me: EISEGESIS.

[My emphasis]

You are conflating and confusing the three separate accounts found in the Synoptic texts.

Mark tells us of a rich man [Mark 10.17-22]

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him,
and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸ Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” ²⁰ He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” ²¹ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²² When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Matthew refers to a rich young man [Matthew 19.16-22]

¹⁶ Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ¹⁷ And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” ¹⁸ He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; ¹⁹ Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁰ The young man said to him, “I have kept all these;^[b] what do I still lack?” ²¹ Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²² When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

And Luke refers to a rich ruler [Luke 18.18-25]

A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁹ Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ²⁰ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” ²¹ He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” ²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²³ But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. ²⁴ Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Are you that dense? They are all three writing about the same event.

The author of Luke then elaborates the story by adding further narrative details [26-30]

However, within the known historical context the character of Jesus was an ascetic Jewish teacher typical of his day. He believed the End Times were imminent when all wealth and earthly possessions would be superseded and no longer of any relevance in the forthcoming Jewish Messianic Kingdom of God.

Again: EISEGESIS.

I am using Mark 10. 17.22 as my own reference as this is the earliest Synoptic gospel. In that text the man is shocked and leaves grieving because he has many possessions. However, there is no indication there that his "love of money" is what held him back. He could have had commitments and responsibilities including dependents that he did not feel able to relinquish. We do not know.

Really? He refuses to give up his possessions and you want to try to nit-pick the wording to exclude "money?" Come on, H_A - You are sounding desperate. I thought you were supposed to be some really smart scholar here. Yet you keep resorting to silly and childish argument techniques to try to score a point, to avoid giving an inch in a debate. In doing so, all you do is lessen any respect anyone has for you, or your intelligence.

They held back some of the money yes I have never denied that. I do not why you are persisting in this matter.

That is an accusation made to Ananias by Peter in verse 3 where he accuses him of keeping "back part of the proceeds of the land". The two opening verses make no mention of either them lying, they were deceitful yes, but they did not lie. There is no verse where they state "This is all the money we got from the sale" when they laid it at the apostles' feet. That would have been lying.

You are ignoring the plain text in front of your eyes. At this point I can't tell if you are really that stupid or just pretending to be in order to drag out the thread and not admit to being wrong.

-----------

(ESV translation. But we can go over any translation you wish if you don't like the ESV.)

5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, ² and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Here we see that Ananias and his wife sold some property and kept back some of the selling price and laid the rest at Peter's feet. Agreed?



³ But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?


Here Peter says that Ananias lied (to God) and kept back part of the proceeds. So what was the lie, Hypatia? It could only be that they had claimed that what they gave the Church was the WHOLE selling price and keeping some for themselves. Agreed?




⁴ While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?

Here we see Peter saying that the property belonged to Ananias and that after he sold it, the money belonged to him too and it was his to do with what he wanted. Agreed?


Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” ⁵

Here we see that the problem was not the money, but the LIE about the money. He could have kept all of the money if he wanted. Or he could have given half to the church or any other amount. It was at his disposal. Yet he gave part and then LIED and said he gave it all.



When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. ⁶ The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

He was killed for the LIE.


⁷ After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you^[a] sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.^"

Peter asks her if the amount they gave them was the full amount. Sapphira claimed it was. Again she lied about it. Claiming to sell it for X, when they actually sold it for X+Y.


9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”


Again, she was killed for lying about it. It was the lie, not the holding back of any money.

That remark amply demonstrates your total inability to understand the literary techniques employed within contemporary Graeco-Roman literature.

No, it shows your total lack of understanding of the author Luke. A man known for carefully investigating what he reported. A doctor. Not a novelist.

[Gondwanaland]

Gond a dribble of semen can result in a pregnancy. Hence the advice to put the condom on to the erect penis before letting it get anywhere near a vagina.

The hell does that have to do with anything?

In any case, just come back with an actual respected scholar, not some pervert priest/professor you found and are now trying to puff up as some respected scholar that he isn't because:
1. you didn't bother to look into who he was and
2. ou have too much ego to just say "hey, my bad, should have looked into him, here's another scholar on the subject who doesn't collect kidporn images."

[RumTumTugger]

There's a habit of chopping up a single connected paragraph into chuncks, and then acting like they are in isolation.

My favorite one so far, is I've had her chop up and remove a post, only to ask a question that was actually answered in the parts of the post she cut out.

Much like my conversation with her on the Acts 5:1-9 passage where she posted a verse or 2 at a time and still didn't get it right since none of the verses she cited said anything about being obligated to give all or that Ananias dropped dead. I had to point out verse 5 where it said that.

[RumTumTugger]

See my replies above to Sparko and Mountain Man.

Your argument in the replies to Sparko and MM is a non-sequitur. What does whether the passage in question or Bible is historical matter to whether Christians are following their doctrine which is found in the bible. how does it not being historical prove that Christians are being hypocritical when not giving all to the church, it doesn't if we arwe following what is in the bible we are not hypocrits you did not prove christian weren't following the bible regarding charity and giving to the church. You are not happy because we showed that a citation from the Bble you chose to use did not prove what you thought it did, Now you are trying to discount your own citation because it does not prove your argument. Which begs the question are you here for honest discussions with opposing views or not?

now lets look at the context in Acts 4 which actually begins at verse 32

[Act 4:32-37 NIV] 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. 36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

Nothing in the Acts 4:32-5:11 passage says the Believers were obligated to give all the money to God all it says in acts 4:32-is that the believers being of one heart and mind shared what they had with each other and in verse 34-33 and those with it selling land and giving to the Apostles to distribute when ever and where ever there was need. On the other hand Peter's statement in Act's 5:4 shows there was no obligation on the Believers of the that time, if there was such an obligation what Peter would have said is the property was Ananais's but once they sold it the money was Gods but he didn't; He said to Ananais he property was yours and the money from the sale of said property was yours to dispose of as you would. and it is further clarified that the lying about giving all was hte problem in his question to Saphira later did you sell hte land for this price(the money Ananais laid at his feet} Saphira then lied and said yes. Iit was not the amount they gave but that they hypocritically lied about the amount .

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't think that anyone has said he was a nobody. It's just that his advocate here felt it necessary to exaggerate his credentials a bit.

Pervo was a recognised authority on the various books of Acts.

And you have still not answered my question,. Do you know what a Festschrift is?

[tabibito]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The hell does that have to do with anything?

Simple fact of biology. A man does not need to ejaculate in order to impregnate a woman.

In any case, just come back with an actual respected scholar,

Pervo was a respected scholar. A Festschrift is not produced for a nonentity or a mediocre academic.

Like others here you dismiss the integrity of the work because of the behaviour of the individual. Do you also boycott all Miramax films?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

To show you how silly this is all becoming, here's what I wrote:



There's no point continuing this conversation if you're not going to bother to read and comprehend the posts you're responding to.

Ah the excuse to avoid having to comment on the rest of Dunn's text!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypocrite_A hasn't figured out yet that those were instruction to a specific person and not to everyone.

If you are referring to the three textual references re the rich man and gaining eternal life, were they?

[Gondwanaland]

Simple fact of biology. A man does not need to ejaculate in order to impregnate a woman.

Again: The hell does that have to do with anything?

Pervo was a respected scholar. A Festschrift is not produced for a nonentity or a mediocre academic.

No, he was not. He didn't receive honors, didn't get honorary degrees for his work, wasn't widely cited for his work, didn't produce a large amount of work for that case, didn't go on speaking tours of his work or big conferences to display and educate about his work, didn't get department head or other positions beyond a lowly professor, etc.. A Festschrift is simply something produced by some fellow colleagues that knew you, in this day and age. It is not some magical high honor. He had some fellow colleagues that wrote some things about him. Literally anyone can go do that these days, hun.

Like others here you dismiss the integrity of the work because of the behaviour of the individual. Do you also boycott all Miramax films?

Don't watch much of anything from Hollywood.
And I did not dismiss integrity of work, I suggested you not be dumb enough to die on this hill for your ego, defending and weakly puffing up the credentials of a middling scholar who you mistakenly cited not realizing he was a pedo, when there are plenty better, non-pedo scholars out there on the topic but hey, you go ahead and keep looking like a twit.

[tabibito]

Respected scholars abound. Worthy exegetes are rarely numbered among them.