Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Pimple, we've had this conversation so often, and I still don't get why you insist that Peter is the big bad guy here.
Peter says very clearly that the issue is LYING, not failure to hand over the $, or failure to make a sufficiently large offering, or any offering at all. The problem has to do with waltzing up and announcing to the church/universe at large that you gave 100% of the cost when you really only gave 50% or whatever--bigging yourself up at the cost of a freaking lie about the facts.
And this in a case where there was no reasonable excuse for a lie. Nobody forced them to sell the land and bring an offering. They could have kept their land—others did. They could also have sold it and kept the price and gone on an all-expenses paid cruise round the Mediterranean. They could have sold it and kept part of the price (for their kids’ university tuition, no doubt) and freely made an offering of the other part. Whatever, it was entirely up to them. The church—and Peter—had nothing to do with the matter until the point where A & S showed up at offering time and had to open their big mouths and volunteer a freaking lie.
And Sapphira is no innocent victim, either. She obviously had enough power in that marriage that her husband involved her in the transaction. Otherwise it would have been, “Sorry, Peter, Ananias never talks to me about money.” She’s a big girl, and she has responsibility for her choices just as her husband does.

Seriously, if these two idiots had only managed to keep their mouths entirely SHUT when they made the offering (no boasts about “giving 100%” or whatever), there would have been no problem whatsoever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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. 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? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 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.
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 sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 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.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

---

The story starts off with A & S selling their property and bringing part of the price to donate to the church. So far, so good. No doubt many others did the same. (If they had only stuck with telling the truth at this point, they’d have been one more in the honorable parade of Christians donating to benefit their poorer brethren—like Barnabas, who is mentioned as a fellow giver. Peter himself points out that the money from the sale belonged to A & S, who could choose to do what they liked with it, and it was none of the church's business if they kept it, used it elsewhere, or divided it.)

There is an obvious gap in Luke’s reporting right at this point, between verses 2 and 3. Ananias clearly said something when he showed up in front of Peter and the other apostles—he didn’t just hand the money over wordlessly and leave. First of all, that would be downright weird and highly unusual (unless you are in a church of mimes, I suppose).

But we don’t need to rely on weak “what ifs” here. What did Ananias actually say? We can figure it out by looking at the exchange between Peter and Sapphira a few verses later. Both confirm that Ananias spoke at that point, and the content of what he said, both in their own independent ways.

Ananias clearly claimed that he had sold the land for a certain amount, an amount which Peter is able to quote to Sapphira. Peter didn’t pull that figure out of his ass, he must have gotten it from Ananias. And Sapphira recognizes the figure when he quotes it to her and confirms it, which shows that she had foreknowledge of what Ananias intended to say.

So now we know what Ananias said. And Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, calls it a lie. “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Worse than that, he points to an evil motive for lying: “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?”

A & S aren’t just trying to big themselves up, which is bad enough. They are also apparently trying to see whether the stuff they’re hearing at church is true—whether there really IS a Holy Spirit capable of knowing the truth and telling it to people—“Let’s find if this shit is real, if anybody at church realizes we’re pulling a fast one.”

Well, they found out. Bad, bad idea. Poor A & S.


--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
LC Look again at the bold passages yourself. The accusation of lying comes from Peter. How much was withheld we don't know. Nor for what reason. There is no indication that Peter bothered to find out. The FACT is that the money was withheld. Peter INTERPRETS this as a lie - and not just a lie against himself, but against the Holy Spirit. What justification he can possibly have for this over=reaction I cannot imagine.

Your quite attractive and plausible fiction is based, I believe, on your charitable feelings towards one of the church's early leaders, and you think I have been unfair to him. You are, perhaps, fighting for justice for Peter.

I could (and have, but not for these pages)also constructed a fiction around the death of Ananias and the vicious entrapment of his wife. That is MY subjective interpretation of the meagre facts we have. You are seeking justice for Peter. I am seeking justice for Ananias and Sapphira.

I think my fiction is more plausible. And I think I've posted enough of it to illustrate that. I'd need the hosts permission to expand it any further - it's in poetry - of a narrative and somewhat long-winded form.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem there is that in the story God clearly sides with Peter because both end up dead, apparently supernaturally.

That gives rise to far more problem than Peter getting it wrong.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
LC Look again at the bold passages yourself. The accusation of lying comes from Peter. How much was withheld we don't know. Nor for what reason. There is no indication that Peter bothered to find out. The FACT is that the money was withheld. Peter INTERPRETS this as a lie - and not just a lie against himself, but against the Holy Spirit. What justification he can possibly have for this over=reaction I cannot imagine.

Your quite attractive and plausible fiction is based, I believe, on your charitable feelings towards one of the church's early leaders, and you think I have been unfair to him. You are, perhaps, fighting for justice for Peter.

I could (and have, but not for these pages)also constructed a fiction around the death of Ananias and the vicious entrapment of his wife. That is MY subjective interpretation of the meagre facts we have. You are seeking justice for Peter. I am seeking justice for Ananias and Sapphira.

I think my fiction is more plausible. And I think I've posted enough of it to illustrate that. I'd need the hosts permission to expand it any further - it's in poetry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 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 [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I first heard about this verse, I tried to be careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit in my mind (with the same result as not trying to think about a pink elephant).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Pimple, the thing that puzzles me about your reading of the story is what Peter is actually supposed to have DONE. In the account in Acts 5 (for which the context btw is Acts 4. 32-37, he simply says

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 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 [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

In response Ananias simply falls down and dies. Even if Peter's statement is untrue, a false or mistaken accusation is not an act which amounts to murder. The situation is similar with Sapphira. I'm not at all clear, on your account how Peter is supposed to have killed either of them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
<snip>The naivety of people who think Peter was a nice kind old man in a long white beard who grieved at not being able to forgive these poor idiots just beggars belief!

---

quote:

---

Why did Ananias drop dead? We cannot tell for sure… We cannot say that Peter deliberately scared Ananias to death. What is pretty clear… must, if proven, have carried some sort of penalty…. Everyone must surely have known… So what is likely?… I have read the chilling words of Spinoza's excommunication [some 1500 years later]. And I imagine Ananias was expecting… Any one with a weak heart... What is Peter's intent… I surmise… Did they beat her…? When they buried her, how long did they wait to make sure she had stopped breathing…

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Pimple, the thing that puzzles me about your reading of the story is what Peter is actually supposed to have DONE. In the account in Acts 5 (for which the context btw is Acts 4. 32-37, he simply says

quote:

---

‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 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 [Gk anthropos = people/humans] but to God!.’

---

In response Ananias simply falls down and dies. Even if Peter's statement is untrue, a false or mistaken accusation is not an act which amounts to murder. The situation is similar with Sapphira. I'm not at all clear, on your account how Peter is supposed to have killed either of them.

---

Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that the charge of murder applies only to Sapphira. Why did Ananias drop dead? We cannot tell for sure. ied of fright, perhaps, like the man in the OT who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant.

We cannot say that Peter deliberately scared Ananias to death. What is pretty clear is that the charge of lying against the Holy Spirit must, if proven, have carried some sort of penalty in the community. Everyone must surely have known that Jesus said that a sin against the Holy Spirit was the only one that could not be forgiven. So what is likely? For cheating - telling off and a public humiliation, perhaps. But for the totally unforgiveable sin against the
Holy Spirit, surely the sanction would have been the severest available to the community. Not just a public telling off, but banishment.

Am I exaggerating things? Look, the man did drop dead. I have read the chilling words of Spinoza's excommunication. And I imagine Ananias was expecting something along those lines. Any one with a weak heart...

But then Sapphira appears. Three hours later, was it? Yes, Look at what Peter said, and did. Look first at what he didn't say. No warning not to lie, no news about her husband - that's kept in reserve. No encouragement to confess and seek forgiveness.

And the killer? What is Peter's intent -even before Sapphira turns up? He tells her: "The men who buried your husband are at the door - and they will carry you out."

Having seen - perhaps to his surprise - the demise of Ananias, I surmise (I think reasonably) that Peter saw no reason why the woman should get away with it. She must have been in cahoots with her husband (because that's the way women are - like Eve!) and he goes about making it easy for the Lord to take her spirit. Did they beat her, or just thump their shovels on the ground? When they buried her, how long did they wait to make sure she had stopped breathing. My God! The naivety of people who think Peter was a nice kind old man in a long white beard who grieved at not being able to forgive these poor idiots just beggars belief!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

It would have been far easier for Luke not to include this story in his 'account'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

You know, on second thoughts, it would have been far easier just to poison the pair of them. Quietly, off stage somewhere, and avoid the messy questions. If your theory that Peter had a grudge is correct.

---

It would have been far easier for Luke not to include this story in his 'account'.

---

I think the whole point of the story is included in the final verse: and great fear came upon the church and all who heard of these things.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
On the general subject of who killed Ananias and Sapphira, I think there are two particularly obvious possibilities.

God - because lying to the church about what you've given is a particularly terrible sin. I've seen little evidence that this is the sort of thing God regularly intervenes to do. Indeed it seems a curious set of priorities. Meanwhile Pol Pot, Hitler etc left alone.

Or Peter. Let's see, what do we know about Peter? 1. He has a pretty violent impetuous streak. 2. He lies.

If we changed the names and called them something other than Peter and A&S and set it in another place, I am pretty sure that the obvious suspect would be the human with a history of violence and lying.

How did he kill them? Who knows? They started arguing and he beat one of them to death. Or he strangled them? Or suffocated them.

Of the millions of unexpected premature deaths over the past 2000 years that would surely be what we would think the most likely explanation to explore initially.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Come on, somebody deconstruct THIS.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Could this be made sense of in the context of our refusal to forgive remembering that his forgiveness of our transgressions is contingent upon our forgiveness of the sins of others against us.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Could this be made sense of in the context of our refusal to forgive remembering that his forgiveness of our transgressions is contingent upon our forgiveness of the sins of others against us.

---

Is it contingent? I thought there was a general universal "Father, forgive them" from the cross days before anyone else got around to forgiving others.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
Jesus talks a lot in parables and exaggerated imagery, why wouldn't the thought that God is incapable of forgiving something or someone be one of the exaggerations?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
Jesus talks a lot in parables and exaggerated imagery, why wouldn't the thought that God is incapable of forgiving something or someone be one of the exaggerations?

---

I saw two teenagers do a skit once. One of them was just standing there when the other bounded in carrying a large, gift-wrapped package. He said,
"I've found the most wonderful present for you. As soon as I saw it I knew you would love it."
The other replied,
"You are always so generous and thoughtful"
The would-be giver said,
"This is such a perfect thing for you."
"You're one of the kindest and most generous people I know."
"I can't wait to see your face when you open it."

This went on for several more exchanges, but the intended recipient never reached out to accept the gift. The other finally put it down at his feet, while the other did not move a muscle.

The point of this is that you cannot give someone something if they will not reach out to receive it.

Moo

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer
To me the word "unforgiveable" means your begging to be forgiven is rejected. What you have done (or who you are) is too terrible to be forgiven. You must never be allowed to join society.

I don't see in your story any hint of *God* saying "I reject you, I refuse to love or accept you." [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi LC. Yes there is some speculation in there but there is a great deal of evidence to back up most of it.

Peter's violent streak and the fact he lies are both in the text - as you know. So no disagreement there.

Further people tend to be most dishonest when they have done something wrong. Also plenty of evidence that quite a few humans throughout history have acted as I suggest. Again hard to dispute.

Finally there is no evidence that I am aware of that God frequently punishes people who lie about their giving to the church. I even know people who have done this and are still alive.

Which brings me onto Ad Orientem's claim that if someone is an atheist or doesn't like Peter it is only to them that my take is plausible. I'd suggest that if you took 100 people at random then plenty of agnostics, moderate liberals and those of other faiths would find my take much more plausible as well as the out and out atheists. I'd guess at over 80%.

Be honest the vast majority of people outside conservative Christianity would find my take much more credible. Doesn't mean it is right but it should at least be considered seriously.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian forgiveness is unconditional.

And deliverance from evil does not have to involve any acceptance at all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
People keep bringing up the sin of lying and getting freaked out about the punishment...

...I'm going to emphasize the deliberate, preplanned corruption of this sin... It was a clear bid for illegitimate power in the young church.

They are also incidentally testing the apostles' leadership, most likely with an eye to future chess moves....

It might also be worth considering that death is not the worst possible fate that can happen to people. That would be damnation. And nothing in the text says that A & S were damned.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What I was asking is, if you are prepared to throw the text out the window in terms of its understanding-of-events (e.g. divine intervention, identity of wrongdoers, etc.), then why in the heck would you bother to keep the rest of the text--that is, its description of who-said-what and who-did-what-when?

---

quote:

---

If the text is as untrustworthy as you suppose, it would be more consistent to assume that the whole thing was fabricated.

---

quote:

---

(and please, PLEASE note that my argument against yours has nothing to do with me being a Christian, or orthodox, or a Peter-praiser. It has to do with me being a trained rhetorician.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian forgiveness is unconditional.

And deliverance from evil does not have to involve any acceptance at all.

---

That is like saying you can earn money without working. Grace of course is a gift. However we do have some work to do... IMV Christian forgiveness is not a free lunch.

---

"Free lunches" are common -- children, the sick, the infirm, people whose spouse earns enough to allow a non-earner to do charity or social activities instead of a job, investments, pensions, welfare support. If you get a job at 20, quit at 65, and die at 90, much of your lifetime is a free lunch. The analogy doesn't work.

I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

The idea that you have to repent before you can be forgiven causes resentments and wars to continue because *my* failure to repent (or to be aware there's anything to repent about) causes *you* to cling to anger at what I (unknowingly?) did wrong.

Forgiving when not asked to forgive opens the door to healthy relationship. (Healthy relationship includes being aware of the other person's personality defects so you can take steps to avoid getting hurt. And they need to protect themselves against your personality defects. With forgiveness and awareness you can be mutually supportive friends. Lacking either forgiveness or awareness can be dangerous.)

Jesus said to forgive again and again and again and again and again; he did not say "forgive only if they repent first, if they don't repent you get to nurse the grudge forever."

Forgiveness is a free lunch: I like that -- come feast at God's table! You are forgiven. Spread the Good News.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Belle Ringer:I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Belle Ringer:I don't see any reason to believe we have to "do something" to be acceptable to God.

---

I described it in legal terms as 'Offer and acceptance'. If God makes you an offer, do not you have to respond to seal the deal?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I agree with Martin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, going to address something else here--not because it's going to change anybody's mind, obviously, but because I have some extra pixels to burn, and that's just how I roll.

People keep bringing up the sin of lying and getting freaked out about the punishment. Either you say "It's way out of proportion, how could a good God do any such thing!" or you say "But people have been lying for 2000 years since then, and nobody else has gotten zapped that we know of."

Second point first, because it's simpler. There is such a thing as making an example of a situation--of dealing strongly with ONE typical instance of a thing, usually very very early in a community's history, in the hopes that you will never have to do so again. Or at least more rarely.

This is the principle that makes even some non-spanking parents (like me) swat their children's butts the first time they run into street traffic. The transgression is so dangerous that the first occurrence needs to be deal with memorably.

---