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

[rogue06]

FWIW, Witherington cites him several times in footnotes in his own commentary on Acts.

WRT Ananias and Sapphira, Witherington holds the view that most of the believers here have been defending: They were killed because they lied about holding back money, not because of the withholding per se.

That would count as a single citation. And from what you say, only to refute him.

Typically, the works of "reputed and respected scholars" are being repeatedly cited by others.

[rogue06]

In other words you do not appear to have any relevant information and you clearly have no idea about what you are claiming to know.

You have arrived on this thread rather in the manner of the proverbial barber's cat.

How exactly does one go about proving someone never received an honor?

I mean you can prove he was never honored by being given a special chair in his department or promoted to department head, but that's different.

[Sparko]

I know people don't like that,

I am speaking more about doing it just to make it harder to respond further. Like I am doing here and below (PS I am not serious below):

but for me,

Yes, for you. But not for everyone! Why are you more important than me?

it is the easiest

Ah so you are just doing it out of convenience!

and most sensible way

I disagree.

to respond

Why?

when I want to question or challenge multiple points.

Again, why? Why not address all points at once? Obviously you don't care about context!

[tabibito]

Your point? He lost both his parents in the Holocaust and continued in the priesthood until he left to marry the woman he loved. He initially reclaimed his Judaism and later converted to reform Judaism.

I am not sure from where you get the information that his position at Oxford outraged adherent Jews.

I haven't seen anything in biographical comments showing that he converted from Catholicism.

[rogue06]

I haven't seen anything in biographical comments showing that he converted from Catholicism.

Yeah this one is pretty thorough and there isn't even the slightest indication that he did so.

I guess it was one of those unsourced claims that she is always kvetching about.

[Mountain Man]

I am speaking more about doing it just to make it harder to respond further. Like I am doing here and below (PS I am not serious below):



Yes, for you. But not for everyone! Why are you more important than me?


Ah so you are just doing it out of convenience!



I disagree.


Why?

Again, why? Why not address all points at once? Obviously you don't care about context!

An amusingly accurate parody.

I describe this style of discourse as like having a face-to-face a conversation where the other party continually interrupts to interject their own comments. When a debate reaches that point, it's often best to just walk away, because any meaningful exchange of ideas has ceased.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

It would seem that you evidently regard "the Bible" as some kind of tombola which, after the appropriate number of turns of the handle, will churn out whatever verses you desire. You do not appear to understand that you are conflating various texts within the OT in order to support your own interpretation of those verses that contends "being rich is not a problem". Furthermore, your "evidence" does not support your contention.

This is you ignoring the context

No. I am stating a textual fact. The comment regarding the love of money being the root of all evil comes in 1Timothy the writer of that work was composing his text at a later period and a long time after the periods in history in which the characters of Abraham and David are supposed to have existed. Once again you attempt to quote mine examples from various texts in the Bible in order to support your own later view that "being rich is not a problem". That is eisegesis.

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

Are they? Then why does each Synoptic writer give us a different character? You also confused and conflated these three separate accounts when you wrote about a "rich young ruler". Not one of those texts mentions such a character. Mark refers to a "rich man"; Matthew refers to a "rich young man"; and Luke refers to a "rich ruler". Once again you conflate texts in order to support your own later opinions. That too is eisegesis.

Concerning the historical context of the character of Jesus, a belief in the End Times forms part of what we know of the socio-religious and political situation in the region at this period.

There were different currents of thought and behavior that joined certain groups together within Judaism. Grabbe has identified three that are of significance here. The first is the textual current, that is, those who emphasized interpretation of scripture. These include the priests and scribes who were responsible for cultic practice, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. The second current is the revolutionaries. These included the Sicarii and the Zealots who fomented the first Jewish Revolt. The third current is eschatological Judaism, which held to an apocalyptic viewpoint and expected a heavenly Messiah at the end times. [See Stanley E Porter “The Context of Jesus: Jewish and/or Hellenistic?” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Judging from several reports by Josephus, there were a number of prophetic figures that appeared among the people around the time of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus was understood as a prophet (See Mark 6.15-16). Although our sources are fragmentary and, in the case of Josephus, hostile, careful analysis indicates that these popular prophets were of two fairly distinct types. The principal function of the one, the oracular prophet, was to pronounce the impending judgment or redemption by God. The characteristic feature of the other, the action prophet, was to inspire and lead a popular movement to vigorous participation in an anticipated redemptive action by God. [...] The point to be recognized is that with the popular prophets who appeared at the time, we are dealing with more than simply a fulfillment of some particular expectation. Prophecy was very much alive among the Jewish people. [See Richard A. Horsley & John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Winston Press, 1985. pp. 135,161.]

Really? He refuses to give up his possessions and you want to try to nit-pick the wording to exclude "money?"

Once again you engage in eisegetical assumptions that money was his sole concern. The text does not bear out your supposition. The rich man in Mark 10 had many possessions yes, but not automatically only monetary possessions. To follow an ascetic leader like Jesus would have required enouncing family and home as well as all material possessions and, like him becoming itinerant and homeless, reliant on the kindness of others. As far as the gospels tell us most of Jesus' disciples during his ministry were unmarried.

You are ignoring the plain text in front of your eyes.

I am looking at the verses in both English and Greek and I repeat that the "lie" you are all constantly emphasising was their deceit in holding back some of the money from their sale.

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?

The text does not bear out your eisegetical assumption.

Yet he gave part and then LIED and said he gave it all.

Again, where does the text show Ananias stating that he has given them all the money? Once again you offer your own ideas about what the text says rather than what the text actually says. That again is eisegesis.

Peter asks her if the amount they gave them was the full amount.

In point of fact he actually asks [5.8 NRSV translation] "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price" And she said "Yes that was the price".

There is no mention as to whether "such and such a price" refers to the money she and her husband gave to the apostlesor whether it refers to the price they got for the sale. The Greek word τοσούτου is non specific. [As a jocular aside one might surmise that perhaps Peter should have asked to see the bill of sale!]

We are perforce left to assume that Peter has preternatural divine powers bestowed upon him and this is only later emphasised by his shadow passing over and curing the sick and exorcising demons. Of course the belief in such things were part of the contemporary world view.

And such wondrous events also make for a very good story.

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.

In Philem. 23-24, Luke, along with Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas, is said to be with Paul, and they join him in sending greetings to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (v. 2). Epaphras is called Paul’s fellow prisoner (v.23) while Luke and the others are called his fellow workers, as is Philemon (v. 2). In Col.4.10-14, Luke, along with Demas, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, and others, joins Paul in sending greetings. Here Luke is called the “beloved physician”. In 2 Tim 4. 10-12 Paul is said to have been deserted by or to have sent to other places most of his former associates (Demas, Crescens, Titus, and Tychicus). Only Luke is with him, and Paul asks Timothy to join him with Mark. It seems clear that all three passages are intended to refer to the same person. Since, however, two of the references appear in Letters that may not have been written by Paul himself (Colossians and 2 Timothy), Philemon must be regarded as the most important reference. We should therefore put more weight on the image of Luke as a fellow worker with Paul than upon that of Luke as the beloved physician.[See entry on Luke in The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. Gen.Ed Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins, 1996. pp. 627,628]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I haven't seen anything in biographical comments showing that he converted from Catholicism.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articl...dr-geza-vermes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...s-8632969.html

If you can obtain the BBC radio service you can also listen to his Desert Island Discs.

One of his eight musical choices is Peggy Lee singing It Ain't Necessarily So from Porgy and Bess!

[Sparko]

It would seem that you evidently regard "the Bible" as some kind of tombola which, after the appropriate number of turns of the handle, will churn out whatever verses you desire. You do not appear to understand that you are conflating various texts within the OT in order to support your own interpretation of those verses that contends "being rich is not a problem". Furthermore, your "evidence" does not support your contention.

No. I am stating a textual fact. The comment regarding the love of money being the root of all evil comes in 1Timothy the writer of that work was composing his text at a later period and a long time after the periods in history in which the characters of Abraham and David are supposed to have existed. Once again you attempt to quote mine examples from various texts in the Bible in order to support your own later view that "being rich is not a problem". That is eisegesis.

Are they? Then why does each Synoptic writer give us a different character? You also confused and conflated these three separate accounts when you wrote about a "rich young ruler". Not one of those texts mentions such a character. Mark refers to a "rich man"; Matthew refers to a "rich young man"; and Luke refers to a "rich ruler". Once again you conflate texts in order to support your own later opinions. That too is eisegesis.

This is called nit-picking. The stories are the same. Who cares if they all used the exact same label for the guy? He was "rich" he was "male" he was "young" and he was a "ruler" - eyewitness recountings rarely are going to use the exact same details and words. That is to be expected. If two people see an accident and one says it was caused by the "big red car" and the other says it was caused by the "red cadillac" I suppose you would try to claim they were not talking about the same accident.

Once again you engage in eisegetical assumptions that money was his sole concern. The text does not bear out your supposition. The rich man in Mark 10 had many possessions yes, but not automatically only monetary possessions. To follow an ascetic leader like Jesus would have required enouncing family and home as well as all material possessions and, like him becoming itinerant and homeless, reliant on the kindness of others. As far as the gospels tell us most of Jesus' disciples during his ministry were unmarried

.
No, I am including "possessions" in my "assumption" not just money. But you seem to be trying to exclude money. Being RICH includes everything they own. And as I said, having money (or possessions) is never a problem in the bible, only making them more important than God. Making them an idol.

I am looking at the verses in both English and Greek and I repeat that the "lie" you are all constantly emphasising was their deceit in holding back some of the money from their sale.

they had to claim that they gave all of the money and then not in order to be lying, yes? Which means that the lie was claiming to give it all while not giving it all. If they have part and only claimed to give part then it would not be a lie, would it?

The text does not bear out your eisegetical assumption.

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

Again, where does the text show Ananias stating that he has given them all the money? Once again you offer your own ideas about what the text says rather than what the text actually says. That again is eisegesis.

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?

In point of fact he actually asks [5.8 NRSV translation] "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price" And she said "Yes that was the price".

There is no mention as to whether "such and such a price" refers to the money she and her husband gave to the apostlesor whether it refers to the price they got for the sale. The Greek word τοσούτου is non specific. [As a jocular aside one might surmise that perhaps Peter should have asked to see the bill of sale!]

We are perforce left to assume that Peter has preternatural divine powers bestowed upon him and this is only later emphasised by his shadow passing over and curing the sick and exorcising demons. Of course the belief in such things were part of the contemporary world view.

And such wondrous events also make for a very good story.

The lengths you go to to ignore a plain text and the context is astounding. Again you show how omnuscient you are.

[rogue06]

This is called nit-picking. The stories are the same. Who cares if they all used the exact same label for the guy? He was "rich" he was "male" he was "young" and he was a "ruler" - eyewitness recountings rarely are going to use the exact same details and words. That is to be expected. If two people see an accident and one says it was caused by the "big red car" and the other says it was caused by the "red cadillac" I suppose you would try to claim they were not talking about the same accident.

Good luck. I've had these sort of conversations wrt various alleged discrepancies concerning the Resurrection in the Gospels. It's like talking to a stone wall. Worse. It actually seemed to distress her for some unknown reason.

[tabibito]

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articl...dr-geza-vermes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...s-8632969.html

OK - the citations are solid.

[tabibito]

No. I am stating a textual fact. The comment regarding the love of money being the root of all evil comes in 1Timothy the writer of that work was composing his text at a later period and a long time after the periods in history in which the characters of Abraham and David are supposed to have existed. Once again you attempt to quote mine examples from various texts in the Bible in order to support your own later view that "being rich is not a problem".

You cited it yourself - LOVE of money is the root of evil, or rather, 1Tim 6:10 ριζα γαρ παντων των κακων εστιν η φιλαργυρια "for the root of all evil is avarice ...," so in that, by strict attention to textual detail, no criticism of riches per se is inferred .

Judging from several reports by Josephus, there were a number of prophetic figures that appeared among the people around the time of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus was understood as a prophet (See Mark 6.15-16).

True - right up to the crucifixion even, the disciples did not understand Jesus to be anything more than the quintessential prophet.

I am looking at the verses in both English and Greek and I repeat that the "lie" you are all constantly emphasising was their deceit in holding back some of the money from their sale.

read again - did Peter assert that Ananias and Sapphira had the right to do whatever they wanted with the property or money? (Acts 5:4) and - oh my - I can see how you get the impression that withholding some of the proceeds constituted the lie (5:3): that interpretation only works if 5:4 is ignored, nor is it viable in the Koine Greek: δια τι επληρωσεν ο σατανας την καρδιαν σου ψευσασθαι σε το πνευμα το αγιον και νοσφισασθαι σε απο της τιμης του χωριου. Through what did Satan fill your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit AND TO sequester (part) from proceeds of the sale of the field.

Again, where does the text show Ananias stating that he has given them all the money? Once again you offer your own ideas about what the text says rather than what the text actually says.

Ananias lay some of the money that he received for the field at the apostles' feet. Peter says that he had sequestered some of the money, which Peter says Ananias had every right to do (v4). So - what lie was involved in the mere withholding some of the proceeds from the sale?

In point of fact he actually asks [5.8 NRSV translation] "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price" And she said "Yes that was the price".

We are perforce left to assume that Peter has preternatural divine powers bestowed upon him

Those particular powers fall within the ambit of prophecy, and yes, those powers are conferred on people by God, sometimes as an occasional or a one-off occurrence, sometimes as an office - whereupon the person is called a prophet, sometimes as part of a set of authorities, in which case the person is most likely an apostle.

[Sparko]

Good luck. I've had these sort of conversations wrt various alleged discrepancies concerning the Resurrection in the Gospels. It's like talking to a stone wall. Worse. It actually seemed to distress her for some unknown reason.

It's a childish argument technique to take things to ridiculously literal levels - but only when it suits her purposes. Like ignoring the context of Acts 5 and demanding a specific wording that Ananias said he gave the full sales amount, while completely ignoring the verse a few lines later where his wife tells Peter that they gave the full amount.

I have zero respect for someone who has to resort to such games in order to avoid admitting being wrong.


Another of her favorite tactics is called "sealioning:"

Trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate."


As depicted in this cartoon (where it got it's name from):

sealioning.jpg

[RumTumTugger]

I made the point that those first two verses make no mention of either character lying. And Peter in verse 3 states that they kept "back part of the proceeds". That is nothing to do with lying that is withholding money.

He then blames Satan for making them lie to the Holy Spirit, presumably this refers to them holding back some of the proceeds, which is deceit.

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.

The lie they commit is to keep back some of the money.

You are still ignoring the context and still cherry picking Hypatia you are ignoring that fact that Peter was talking about Ananais LYING about how much the land sold for and that he was giving all the proceeds and totally ignoring verse 4 where Peter said they had to right to do what ever they wanted with the property and the money they got from the sale. You are also totally ignoring Sapphira's LIE about How much the land went for in verse 8.

If what you are contending was true verse 3 would have Peter would only said why has Satan caused you Sin and to hold back some of the money from the church; instead he why did you LIE.to the Holy Spirit. If as you contend it the was not giving all the proceeds to the church Peter would have said the land was Gods the money was Gods, what he actually said the land and the money gotten from the sale of said land was yours to and you could have done anything you wanted to with it(none of the translations say anything different although the NIV translation actually clarified what was meant using dispose of which is why I suspect you switched versions.) In verses 8-11 where Peter asked specifically of Sapphira whether the money they were giving was what the land sold for she LIED and before you try and say that Peter was asking about the actual price it then it would not have been a LIE. when Sapphira said yes, would it.

From this exchange I've had with you about Acts 5 and exchanges I've seen between you and other members of this forum I have to wonder if you are interested having HONEST discussions what those whose views you disagree with. Are you or aren't you, I need to know so I can decide whether to continue to throw Pearls your way?

[Sparko]

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.