Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Slain By the Spirit

Thread: Kerygmania: Slain By the Spirit Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000968

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

So, in this passage in Acts, we see in some sense the "original sin" of the New Testament, the first sign of a flaw in the Church. Clearly, it didn't take long.

What drew it to my attention was this post. It seemed to me, that "death to the traitors" didn't seem to describe the situation accurately. For one thing, the crime in this instance isn't betrayal of the group to some external threat, but something closer to embezzlement. These two were operating in a communistic system where everything was to be held in common, and they broke the social contract. Within the rules of that society, they were thieves.

Second, it doesn't appear in this story to be the case that anyone actually wanted to kill them. I suppose one could read between the lines and say "Oh, they skipped the bit where peter drew his sword and lopped the dude's head off," but there's no indication of human violence in the story. Peter tells the guy what he's done, and the guy drops dead. He repeats the process with the wife.

I suppose the question here is, "What killed him and why?"

Did Peter "magically" cause them to die? Did the Third Person of the trinity do it? Was it death by shame? A nocebo? Was this a story concocted by later authors to return the fear of God to people, or an historical event remembered by Luke (or an interlocutor)?

And to Croesus' thread, is this really an endorsement of religious violence?

[ 19. November 2013, 02:05: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog
For one thing, the crime in this instance isn't betrayal of the group to some external threat, but something closer to embezzlement. These two were operating in a communistic system where everything was to be held in common, and they broke the social contract. Within the rules of that society, they were thieves.

The text says that their crime was lying about the money. Peter said

quote:
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?

They were free to use their property and money as they chose, but they were not free to lie to the community about it. They wanted credit for a sacrificial deed without making the complete sacrifice.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh dear. At any minute now someone's going to pop up and insist that Peter killed 'em off with his murderous use of God's mojo. [Big Grin]

(that's usually how this topic goes!)

I take it as a personal (and highly unusual one-off, meant-to-be-a-horrible-warning) intervention of God, in both cases. Peter never mentions death to Ananias, so it isn't suggestion--> actuality. Even in Sapphira's case the statement about being "carried out like your husband" isn't terribly clear to someone who has no idea the man is dead. And I'm not sure she had any time at all to puzzle about it.

But on the whole communistic thing. There certainly was a strong flavor of that going on, but clearly there was also a very large contingent of people who still owned private property and were living at it. And from what Peter says, it appears that either option was totally acceptable in the church.

What was NOT acceptable was to tell lies about one's choices, particularly with the goal of making oneself look good in the community. They'd have done better to hang on to the property--or to honestly say that they were donating (say) half of the money and keeping the rest.

I'm not so sure about the original sin aspect (after all, at the ascension "they worshiped him, but some doubted"). And there's that whole (possibly) jumping the gun thing by appointing a new apostle BEFORE the Holy Spirit comes--and the poor guy promptly disappears from the pages of Holy Writ. Very much in character for Peter!

But the thing that strikes me is similar--I think this was the first time anyone blatantly tried to use the Church for this-worldly gain. A & S must have said to themselves, "Here's this up and coming new movement, gaining people and influence every day--I bet we could could get in on the ground floor of this and really do well for ourselves," or something similar. But before this time I think maybe no one thought the Church big or powerful enough to be used that way.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

And there are later instances in Acts of various persons trying to join the Church for the wrong reasons. This was just the first.

And there is, to me, a real heavy shift from "Everyone is happy, sold their possessions, and got along perfectly in a Christian utopia," and then in the very next chapter someone commits fraud and dies on the spot.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, on the subject of "did this really happen" and "Is this just a disguised retelling of what REALLY happened, which was that Peter strung 'em up by the nevermind"--

The only evidence we've got is the text itself--a very well-attested text if we start comparing it to others from the ancient world (or indeed, from much more recently). There are no contradictory witnesses, written or oral. There is no time machine [Waterworks]

. So it's all going to come down to our presuppositions about the text in the end. Assume the text is truthful, and you have one reading; or assume that it's not, and theorize in a vacuum--which is sometimes fun, but always clearly fantasy.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You're right, it's a HUGE shift (hadn't even thought about the people who came later, dang). In the back of my head I hear someone saying "Well, the honeymoon's over!" once A & S pop up.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think this was the first time anyone blatantly tried to use the Church for this-worldly gain. A & S must have said to themselves, "Here's this up and coming new movement, gaining people and influence every day--I bet we could could get in on the ground floor of this and really do well for ourselves," or something similar. But before this time I think maybe no one thought the Church big or powerful enough to be used that way.

Really intriguing analysis.

And of course the wondering why God doesn't similarly zap [insert name of favorite presumed fraudster] today. Maybe because there'd be no one left? Lot's of mixed motives for going to church, imagine getting zapped the one Sunday you are there just to please Grandma or to see if that cute boy shows up or to hear a piece the organist has been practicing. Those too are "worldly gains" of a sort.

It's puzzling why this one incident, was it worse than all others, or were there others and this one writeup was understood as a reminder that GOD DOES THIS! not as a report of a unique event?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

If it was God who killed Ananias,does it not then follow that it was God who inspired/instructed Peter to encourage Sapphira to repeat- or rather, confirm - the lie?

Was it God's will to make an example of both of them? Was it God's will that Peter should not tell the wife what had happened to her husband - or encourage her to confess? Was there ever any chance whatsoever of forgiveness for either of them? And was that God's will?

Spare me, for fuck's sake! The most charitable account of the death of Ananias would be that he died of fright. There is no charitable account available to any sane human being for the killing of Sapphira.

Jesus had said that only a sin against the Holy Spirit was unforgivable. In this story only Peter can logically be charged with that offence.

[ 24. September 2010, 19:41: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm working on the theory that God did it once, dramatically, with the intention of never having to do it again (therefore the write up in the New Testament). As for why this particular incident, who knows? Maybe it was the first and worst of its sort (up to then, I mean).

I don't know why Sapphira in particular got zapped other than a general sense of justice (this was a joint conspiracy). You'd have to ask God. I WILL mention that we have no idea what God did with them as far as eternal justice and mercy go--so there's hope.

As for Peter, I don't see him doing anything but giving her the microphone, so to speak, and free choice to say whatever she wishes to say.

Why do that, then? Simple. If she were innocent (or penitent!) saying the right thing THEN was her only chance at a decent happy life in this world.

Think it out for a moment. You know, from Peter's viewpoint, Sapphira could just as easily have been innocent. Not all husbands discussed financial matters with their wives in those days; not all women are willing to collude in a husband's fraud. In fact, given the male-dominated culture, I'd guess that Peter was expecting to find her ignorant (and therefore innocent).

If Sapphira had been innocent, she would have said "I don't know" or "I think it was about so much, but you'll have to ask him" or even "Um, I'd rather not discuss the matter" (out of family loyalty). Any of those answers would have resulted in her being led to a couch, handed a hanky, and offered the general sympathy of the whole community. I'm sure Peter was hoping for this outcome. I would have been!

Pity it didn't work out that way.

But, you may say, he could have assured it by warning her about the possible consequences. He could have said something like "Oh, by the way, if you lie you might drop dead, that kind of thing's going around lately." Sapphira would certainly have changed her answer at that warning. And most likely she would have lived.

Trouble is, you have to ask yourself what kind of a life she would have had. Offering a witness overwhelming inducements (life, in this case) to say X and not Y is coercive. It would invalidate anything Sapphira might say, true or not. No one could ever be sure that she had not really been in the scam with her husband, all the way up to her neck.

And human nature being what it is, everyone would assume the worst. I can tell you from personal experience that living under a cloud of suspicion is not much of a life. It has led some people to suicide. It might have done so for me, if I had not known that I was innocent, and had at least that much comfort.

Well, then, should Peter have asked her nothing at all? The same problem would have happened, only in a messier and less-controlled way. After all, the subject's bound to come up, you know--there's a number of other Christians standing there, and the minute Sapphira says "Where's Ananias?" a whole load of explanations will have to be made, to her and by her. Even if everyone sews their lips together to stop themselves from asking "What did YOU know about it?" they would certainly be thinking it, and could hardly avoid communicating their doubts--if only by their body language.

From personal experience, I can tell you that the only hope for an innocent person under suspicion of great wrongdoing is a thorough, complete and public investigation conducted in the most unbiased way possible. That might possibly get you your reputation back. It's why we (my husband and I) pushed our district officials so hard to do a proper all-out investigation into the accusations that were laid against us. We knew that if they didn't do a mercilessly thorough investigation, people would start saying "cover-up" and "where there's smoke, there's always fire."

[ 25. September 2010, 04:08: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Thank you for your very calm reply, LC, which commands a detailed response. But first I need to get a new ink cartridge to print off your post (Really, I'm not being ironic or facetious) so I'll get back to you in a day or two.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

This is one of those passages that really makes me feel uncomfortable about the Bible. It always appears to be a hangover from the Old Testament to me and completely out of place in the NT. In my fevered thinkings I have only come up with the following ideas about the episode

1. That the story is not meant to be taken literally, placed here as a warning to being half-in, half-out and not comitting fully.

2. That it is a warning intended to facilitate control in the early church.

3. That it is a re-telling of an earlier story placed here out of context and attributed to Peter's leadership.

4. That Ananias and Sapphira were already weakened by prolonged stress and paranoia from the fear of being discovered and simply gave up and expired when confronted.

5. That Ananias and Sapphira were in fact simply expelled from the group and became "dead to them". Later retellings inflated the story until they were actually struck dead.

6. That there was something that caused paranoia in the group as a whole. Something such as ergot poisoning that not only caused widespread fear but weakened Ananias and Sapphira to the point where they could die of fear.

OK 6 was the product of too much time on my hands and reading Fortean Times in the library but my money is on 5, 4 or possibly 3.

It is a horrible story though.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Acts 5:12-16 continues with a description of the other signs and wonders the Holy Spirit was working through the apostles and Peter in particular. I assume there are no complaints about those... which is where I see the "solution". These times were "hypercharged" with the Spirit, our are not (why is a different question). You could get zapped to health or death, if you met those filled with the power of God.

Perhaps this story can help remind us that the gray zones will eventually disappear also for us. And perhaps this makes us a little bit less keen to exchange our "boring" spiritual life for that of the apostolic times. It is not all fun and games to meet the Holy Spirit undiluted...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Thank you for your very calm reply, LC, which commands a detailed response. But first I need to get a new ink cartridge to print off your post (Really, I'm not being ironic or facetious) so I'll get back to you in a day or two.

You're not being facetious, but if I showed your reply to Mr. Lamb, the huge "Amen" would split the heavens. [Snigger]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And there are later instances in Acts of various persons trying to join the Church for the wrong reasons. This was just the first.

And there is, to me, a real heavy shift from "Everyone is happy, sold their possessions, and got along perfectly in a Christian utopia," and then in the very next chapter someone commits fraud and dies on the spot.

We don't really know exactly how "spontaneous" the giving was. As Ingo says, Luke's early church was hypercharged with the Holy Spirit. Modern charismatic churches by and large expect sacrificial giving.

It started with Christian aid, didn't it? Alms for the poor. It needed organising, and a treasurer (Judas). But it seems to have been much more spontaneous in the days of Jesus's earthly ministry.

Then it all got too big for its boots. The mediaeval church needed stonemasons for cathedrals as well as soup kitchens for widows and orphans. Secularism had the answer to grudging givers - a tax! And many churched tithe to this day. Very pragmatic, and not to be sneered at. But answerability regarding the spending of all this new wealth becomes a problem. Sorry, back to A + S (next post)

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
This is one of those passages that really makes me feel uncomfortable about the Bible. It always appears to be a hangover from the Old Testament to me and completely out of place in the NT. In my fevered thinkings I have only come up with the following ideas about the episode

1. That the story is not meant to be taken literally, placed here as a warning to being half-in, half-out and not comitting fully.

2. That it is a warning intended to facilitate control in the early church.

3. That it is a re-telling of an earlier story placed here out of context and attributed to Peter's leadership.

4. That Ananias and Sapphira were already weakened by prolonged stress and paranoia from the fear of being discovered and simply gave up and expired when confronted.

5. That Ananias and Sapphira were in fact simply expelled from the group and became "dead to them". Later retellings inflated the story until they were actually struck dead.

6. That there was something that caused paranoia in the group as a whole. Something such as ergot poisoning that not only caused widespread fear but weakened Ananias and Sapphira to the point where they could die of fear.

OK 6 was the product of too much time on my hands and reading Fortean Times in the library but my money is on 5, 4 or possibly 3.

It is a horrible story though.

Awesome, certainly, as it was meant to be.
I don't think we need to over-egg the pudding. It's a simple enough story - worrying only to those who think anything to do with Christianity should be all sweetness and light.

There are two problems to contend with. Firstly the historical fact that these two "varmints" died and secondly, the way Luke (and, perhaps, Peter himself) retold the story. There's no written gloss, but the traditional interpretation is implied, that they were punished by God.

I think you are spot on with your reference to the Old Testament here. Anything associated closely with the Almighty is awesome, and I don't mean the sort of awe produced by pretty sunsets - more the shock and awe of the Iraq invasion - that sort of awe.

For instance when the Ark of the Covenant was being taken somewhere (sorry, could an OT scholar give me the reference?) and it looks like toppling over, a man reaches out to steady it. The shock of having touched something so holy kills him dead. On the spot. Remember that the emotion is there beforethe Ark topples - the act of carrying it - of being in its presence - isemotionally and spiritually hypercharged.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Certainly its a horrible story.

Whatever happened I think that any suggestion that God was involved is out of order.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Why did Luke include this story?
What is his message to his intended audience?
How do we use it today? Or doesn't it apply now because we don't have the concept of our possessions being in common?
Nor do we have a special concern over lying to the church. This appears to have been an isolated incident. It is certainly outside my experience.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, the one message I carry away from it (and apply to myself, duh) is that it doesn't do to mess around with God. Particularly if you're using him as another rung in your social climbing ladder.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Being slain in the Spirit is more like when the soldiers around the Tomb were overcome, or when faced with Jesus' admission of being there (C'mon, arrest me already) the ones who were sent to bother him fell over. It's also IMO what the people in charismatic/pentecostal churches claim to be doing when they fall over at a worship service. I assume all such is a power-of-suggestion/join the group thing, but would not ever say that it doesn't happen today. God's presence in a heavy over-taking thing.

I always thought of A & S's event as being slain by the Spirit, as the thread title says.

I hope the charismatic/pentecostal groups never try to emulate that. Unless they have someone on tap with the gift of raising the dead.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, the one message I carry away from it (and apply to myself, duh) is that it doesn't do to mess around with God. Particularly if you're using him as another rung in your social climbing ladder.

I agree that that is almost certanly Luke's intent, and if that is what you - and other Christians - take away from it, then some good has come out of it all.

But did the christians of Luke's day differentiate "don't mess with God" from "don't mess with Peter?" More to the point - did Peter?

I'm still working on your earlier post BTW.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And there are later instances in Acts of various persons trying to join the Church for the wrong reasons. This was just the first.

And there is, to me, a real heavy shift from "Everyone is happy, sold their possessions, and got along perfectly in a Christian utopia," and then in the very next chapter someone commits fraud and dies on the spot.
We don't really know exactly how "spontaneous" the giving was. As Ingo says, Luke's early church was hypercharged with the Holy Spirit. Modern charismatic churches by and large expect sacrificial giving.

It started with Christian aid, didn't it? Alms for the poor. It needed organising, and a treasurer (Judas). But it seems to have been much more spontaneous in the days of Jesus's earthly ministry.

How do modern charismatic churches get money from unwilling givers? And how does that relate to the early church? There might be an anachronism here...

I'm also not sure what we're seeing here is "alms." I tend to think of alms as rich people giving to "other" poor people out of their generosity. I might be idealistic, but the vision here seems to be a more equal sense of everyone sharing from what they have and living out of a common purse. It's more like idealized communism than socialist-lite charity.

This is probably a tangent, but I'm not sure that tithes were always voluntary, or that "secularism" invented taxes. One thing I've heard discussed in NT is how the Jews in Roman Palestine were screwed because they had to tithe to the temple and pay taxes to Rome, which was the closest thing to a secular government they had at the time. And I think the taxes were more to fund armies than social service agencies.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Certainly its a horrible story.

Whatever happened I think that any suggestion that God was involved is out of order.

What would you do under the circumstances?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm sure the early Christians knew the difference between Peter and God in terms of authority--they were no stupider than we are. And we have plenty of examples of, shall we call it unrest? in the early church. There was Paul's memorable telling-off of Peter in front of God and everybody, after he wimped out on his principles. And right around the same time as the whole A & S thing you have the Hellenic Jews having a hissy fit to ALL the apostles because their widows were getting a raw deal compared to the Judean Jews. Nobody zapped THEM dead--instead, the twelve (eleven? whatever) put their heads together and decided they had a point, and had the assembly (not themselves!) appoint a whole new RANK of church servants, the deacons (who incidentally were ALL from the complaining group if we go by their names).

I'm just not seeing dictatorial tendencies here.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

When Peter said "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have I give thee", I always figured there was power given.

Peter didn't have to go away and pray about anything; the fellow healed didn't have to pray any prayers (or donate any funds... being a beggar he'd have been up the creek, if his healing was waiting on a faith-seed-gift to an evangelist). Peter simply identified the source of the power and gave a command.

'Course people knew the difference between the apostles and gifted teachers and so on, and God. That doesn't mean people like Peter had no authority of their own to use God's power.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Any suggestion that God did not kill Ananias and Sapphira or was not appeased by Phinehas at the Heresy of Peor (where the idolatrous rites required excrementing) is out of order.

Any suggestion that God is not a killer full stop is out of order.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

The following posts have been copied from the Murder in the Early Church thread which was transferred from Purg.

------------------

Thread: Murder in the early Church?
Boogie - Posted 02 October, 2010 08:30

What happened here?

Did God strike them down?

Did they die of natural causes and the people thought it was a lesson from above?

Or was it murder?

Croesos got me thinking about this on another thread -

quote:Originally posted by Crœsos:
I know the traditional interpretation is that God just happened to be on hand that day in a manner He hasn't been since. (Guy's an absentee landlord!) Of course, scripture doesn't actually say this, it just says they "fell down and died" without giving any explanation as to how this happened. Just as with modern political speech writing, the passive voice can be used to cover up a lot of wrongdoing. ("Mistakes were made".)

What we do know from the Acts account is that Peter has some inside knowledge that Ananias and Sapphira are holding out on him. During the meeting where Peter confronts Ananias with this fact, Ananias ends up dead with no explanation. A similar meeting with Sapphira shortly afterward ends the same way, and Peter has the forethought to conveniently have a burial squad on hand! Next we're told that "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events", which is what you'd expect to happen when the leadership starts lethally cracking down on the lower ranks. And finally, the rest of the chapter deals mostly with the Apostles going to jail on some unspecified charge, portrayed as a result of Sadduceic(?) jealousy.

That whole passage has always read to me like a badly veiled warning about what happens if you defy the Church leadership.

Whichever way we look at this, it doesn't sit well with the notion of a God of forgiveness.

------------------

Barnabas 62 - Posted 02 October, 2010 12:29

There is a current thread in Keryg and Keryg Hosts are happy for this one to be transferred. Some kind of merging is likely. Moving day ....

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Responding to that thread mixing its water here:

The Holy Spirit is a consistent killer, but never a murderer.

Only demons and humans murder.

Or are you suggesting that Peter did it ?

That's not possible. No Christian can kill physically in the name of their faith.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Thanks Moo - I am sorry for the confusion, I hadn't even looked at this thread and assumed it was about somthing else entirely [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Spare me, for fuck's sake! The most charitable account of the death of Ananias would be that he died of fright. There is no charitable account available to any sane human being for the killing of Sapphira.

I think this is the conclusion I agree with.

The chances of them both dropping dead of natural causes is small.

If they did, including it in a passage about the workings of the Spirit seem to be scaremongering to me.

Atributing scaring a person to death (or worse) to God seems plain wrong to me.

The other possibility was that the story was a complete fabrication to keep the Church members on the (financial) straight and narrow.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Spare me, for fuck's sake! The most charitable account of the death of Ananias would be that he died of fright. There is no charitable account available to any sane human being for the killing of Sapphira.
I think this is the conclusion I agree with.

The chances of them both dropping dead of natural causes is small.

If they did, including it in a passage about the workings of the Spirit seem to be scaremongering to me.

Atributing scaring a person to death (or worse) to God seems plain wrong to me.

The other possibility was that the story was a complete fabrication to keep the Church members on the (financial) straight and narrow.

I've read that in cultures that really believe in curses, you can kill someone by telling them they're cursed. That's why I mentioned "nocebos" in the OP, which are like placebos, but harmful. It is possible to be frightened to death. Perhaps, thinking in a materialist vein, this fellow so earnestly believe in the Holy Spirit that to be told that he had lied to it could've literally killed him. The word "fear" certainly comes up a lot in the passage.

It does say in Proverbs that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Even in Greek, this word (related to our "phobia") also means reverence.

I'm not sure I'm willing to say that it's just a morality play. The placement in the text seems a bit more poignant, again, with that story of "everything was fine and dandy and they had the holy spirit" and then, almost out of the blue, someone commits fraud and dies. This happens even before the Church makes its break with the Synagogues. If it's merely a purely made-up morality play, why was it such a big deal? Should Christians not be afraid of the consequences of their mistakes?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What about attributing the Fall to God ? The Flood ? Sodom and Gomorrah ? Job ? Abraham and Isaac ? The Exodus ? The Heresy of Peor ? Uzzah ? All the nasties ? Through the Crucifixion and Herod devoured by parasitic worms ? The woes and viols plagues and bowls of God's wrath in Revelation ?

Wrong ?

Why, how does the assassination of Ananias and Sapphira stand out ?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Good point, bio. But I see the flood etc as a myth told by ancient tribes.

Attributing capital punishment to a God of love and forgiveness seems inconsistent and perverse to me.

I think murder is wrong, full stop - whatever the provocation.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Posted by Martin

"What about attributing the Fall to God ? The Flood ? Sodom and Gomorrah ? Job ? Abraham and Isaac ? The Exodus ? The Heresy of Peor ? Uzzah ? All the nasties ? Through the Crucifixion and Herod devoured by parasitic worms ? The woes and viols plagues and bowls of God's wrath in Revelation ?

Wrong ?

Yes wrong.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure I'm willing to say that it's just a morality play. The placement in the text seems a bit more poignant, again, with that story of "everything was fine and dandy and they had the holy spirit" and then, almost out of the blue, someone commits fraud and dies.

This makes sense - Holy Spirit is newly all over the place and people are delighted and excited, so God decides to point out it's not all the fun and games of healing the sick in this life, there's a serious eternal issue in who we are; and we can't fool God, he knows the truth and deals with the truth, not with who we pretend to be.

Proving it once should be enough, from God's viewpoint. Which does not mean A&S went to hell, only that they became in a sense God's public messengers of the message "don't try to fool God, you'll get hurt." The hurt to fear is, of course, not death of the body but damage you do to your own soul.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

If this was God making a point then I am bound to say that S(h)e has been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting people to see the point.

Does God act out of character in achieving a one-off?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Proving it once should be enough, from God's viewpoint. Which does not mean A&S went to hell, only that they became in a sense God's public messengers of the message "don't try to fool God, you'll get hurt." The hurt to fear is, of course, not death of the body but damage you do to your own soul.

So God killed two people to get the message across - nice.

[Roll Eyes]

So murder IS OK then if the message is important enough?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You won't agree with me, but I'm used to that!

[Biased]

Look, if we take the biblical text as accurate in what it says about God (and I do), then A & S were hardly the first to suffer as examples. There are Korah and his followers, an unnamed prophet who disobeys extremely clear orders to get out of Dodge, poor Uzzah who touched the ark--here a case of somebody (like David????) ignoring the very clear directions that only Levites were to get within touching range of the holy things, but they thought they knew better, oh dear...

It is not God's USUAL way of dealing with sin, thank God. But as someone in the New Testament puts it, "These things all happend to them for examples, to us upon whom the consummation of ages has come."

So yes, by the biblical evidence, God is not above using occasional sinners as Horrid Warnings to the rest of his people. And sometimes that Horrid Warning goes as far as death. (I see no reason to think it also includes hell--that seems to be a purely personal matter, since nobody else sees or realizes what happens once the public bit is over).

Does this make me recoil? Well, yes. But it does remind me not to mess around with God or his holy things (and that includes his people, you know--I have recently seen a Horrid Warning of my own, in the shape of what happens to people who abuse the fellowship, use the Lord's Supper as a political weapon, and wind up excommunicating innocents in God's name. Believe me, the payback for those actions was pretty unmistakable--and a warning to me and everyone else not to be assholes among God's flock.)

God is not "just" forgiving--he is also just and holy. In a way it's like dealing with electricity--respect it and good things happen. Fool around with it, and you're gonna get hurt. To be sure we hope that everyone will heed the very clear warnings, and nobody will learn the hard way. But then when was the human race ever sensible?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

On the "murder" issue--

Killing someone is only murder if the killing was unlawful. That means that God cannot murder and remain himself, true to his nature (good, holy, just). So either you posit an evil god, or we have to take another look at those killings and see if they do in fact constitute unlawful death.

I will agree that if Peter had personally "done in" Ananias and Sapphhira, that would have been murder. Peter did not constitute a lawful authority--for that you'd need Pontius Pilate, I suppose. Or his successor.

But God DOES constitute a lawful authority. He made us, he is our ultimate judge, and he has the right to deal with us and our issues. He has the right of both high and low justice, and can pass a capital sentence if he deems it necessary.

So at this point, the onus would be on us, to prove that God acted unjustly. That's the only way a lawful authority acting within his office can be guilty of murder.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I dont recall the Commandment saying "Thou shalt not kill (murder) except upon a lawful authority".

Nor do I read it as God saying "Thou shalt not kill/murder except Me"

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It doesn't have to. That's just what "murder" means. And if "thou" were meant to include God, it would have been "we".

[ 02. October 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

So God is exempt from His/Her own laws?

And what if God's law is an expression of His/her character and purpose ?

A capricious God is not much use to anyone

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So God is exempt from His/Her own laws?

No. When God kills, it is in accordance with God's laws and hence not murder.

We live in a capricious world created by God. Why should a capricious God be a stumbling block?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
So God is exempt from His/Her own laws?

And what if God's law is an expression of His/her character and purpose ?

A capricious God is not much use to anyone

As stated, there's a difference between kill and murder.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And neither do you recall what the penalty for murder was, shamwari.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So God killed two people to get the message across - nice.

So murder IS OK then if the message is important enough?

That's why religions that are build on falsehood, like Christianity, make people's moral compass go broken. It is immoral, yet it is what monotheism has been doing for thousands of years. Injustice and amoralism were promoted because god wanted people to behave in that way.

Thankfully, many Christians, especially liberal secularized Anglo-Saxons, moved on, let the strict and fundamentalist Christian theology of the Acts behind them, and embraced friendlier approaches believing in a much cooler god than the biblical one.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah, they're called atheists.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yeah, they're called atheists.

Says you. Thankfully, you represent a marginalized view.

And your predecessors in the faith called atheists all believers of other faiths, even the believers of their faith that disagreed with them on hair-splitting issues about the inner workings of the divine.

An even cursory glance on the theological documents of the controversies that shook the ancient Christendom will tell you that the accusation of atheism was spat upon all, from Jews to Pagans, from Arians to Nestorians, from Trinitarians to Monothelites, from Iconoclasts to Iconophiles...

I do prefer the more friendly view of those moderners that have evolved out of the middle ages to your views, Martin.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Host hat on

Martin and El Greco, if you want to fight take it to Hell. This board is for the discussion of Bible passages.

Host hat off

Moo

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yes ma'am, sorry.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

From such a short passage, with so little detail, the only real conclusion is 'we don't know what happened'

We can guess why it was included in Acts.

But our interpretation of it is certainly going to be dependant on our view of God. If we believe God will smite people down, then our view will be different than if we don't.

Assuming that (like me) you don't think God does one off killings - and that they died of natural causes - then it must have been included as a warning not to rip off the Church.

Some warning! 'God will kill you on the spot if you do this'

[Eek!]

[ 03. October 2010, 07:34: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From such a short passage, with so little detail, the only real conclusion is 'we don't know what happened'

This passage doesn't stand in isolation. When it was written, there were about a thousand pages speaking authoritatively about God, what we now call the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God kills )or commands the extermination of) people quite often. So, this passage is to be read in that context, and it's not open to our interpretations of God.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Absolutely Andy.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I would rather be an atheist (Martin already thinks I am) than have to believe the hundreds of OT references to God commanding the extermination of peoples.

I refuse to believe in a monster, immoral Deity.

And Jesus would too I think.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
And Jesus would too I think.

Same Jesus who is recorded in the New Testament to foretell unspeakable tortures those that don't follow him will have to endure eternally?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I dont recall the Commandment saying "Thou shalt not kill (murder) except upon a lawful authority".

Nor do I read it as God saying "Thou shalt not kill/murder except Me"

The "kill" rendering is traditional King James, but it's not a good translation. "Murder" is clearly what the Hebrew means.

Even ordinary human beings are permitted to "kill" in some cases, such as self-defense, military service, service as a state appointed executioner, etc. (Desperate attempt to not derail thread: you may disagree, this is just what the Old Testament says--read the Pentateuch and those forms of killing are clearly permitted)

You're absolutely right to say that God must obey his own laws (else he's not God, right?) since the flow out of his own nature. God cannot commit murder. If he did, I suppose he'd vanish in a puff of logic.

But the law in question forbids murder, not killing. Not all killing is murder. And the case of A & S falls under one of those other categories.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

For God, might makes right. It's his world and if he wants to break his toys he may.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

So we just accept whatever is recorded as God's activity - either breaking his rules and throwing His toys out of the pram or (sometimes) acting consistently within the rules He made?

I just happen to believe we live in a Uni-verse. That God is both consistent and rational. That what applies to one (Uni) applies to all.

Else we opt for a Chaos Theory with a Chaotic God in charge of operations.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

As a "toy" I might not like it, but it seems to be true.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is love rational ? And guys your positions ARE literally a-theist. Not theist. Untheist. Antitheist. Spong-iform. Surely ? (That's rhetorical chaps.)

I await the descent of Moo with bated breath. Will I have to pay the Ferryman ?

You guys are deists. Not theists. Atheists. Jesus is utterly and completely unnecessary for you. You will evolve to Godhood, theosis, deification without Him. He's there as a sort of coach on the bleachers encouraging us to go for transcendence guys, we can do it ! It's cool He's there. But we don't really NEED Him. The universe doesn't. Why should we ? Originless dirt can glorify itself. It always has.

"I would rather be an atheist (Martin already thinks I am) than have to believe the hundreds of OT references to God commanding the extermination of peoples.

I refuse to believe in a monster, immoral Deity.

And Jesus would too I think."

Don't you KNOW ?

Then He would not believe in Himself, as Andreas would point out. Because you only have that dichotomy.

By His grace I don't.

You guys HAVE to rationalize the unsafe but good, terrifyingly pragmatic God of the Bible.

I DARE not.

Not because He'll zot me.

But because there is NO reason to do so.
Apart from for the tiny, arrogant, modernist, Enlightenment, minority, deluded, projected, anthropic veggie view.

He is ultimately the best case God because He will include, glorify ALL the people He has MERCIFULLY, righteously, purposefully, lovingly, essentially, perfectly killed directly or indirectly - which is all - if they assent to be included at the start of the eternal increase of His government.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
For God, might makes right. It's his world and if he wants to break his toys he may.

Um, I wouldn't go THAT far! I know Paul did, but I take that to be a smack upside the head to a few people who were getting a bit big for their britches. As a fundamental doctrinal statement it seems a bit [Eek!]

I'm starting to think one of the basic problems is that we tend to see death as the Ultimate Evil, and so anyone who inflicts it (for whatever reason) is the Ultimate Evildoer. I'm off to start a thread in Purg about it--I disagree.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Host hat on

Martin and El Greco, if you want to fight take it to Hell. This board is for the discussion of Bible passages.

Host hat off

Which part of this was unclear? Martin: desist, or be deceased.

-RooK
Admin

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Sir. May I query this in Styx ? Would you and / or Moo respond there ?

I'm honestly using what I understand to be correct terms here.

I'm not accusing anyone of Godlessness.

Perhaps that's irrelevant on Kerygmania ?

I will comply and thought I was.

Sorry.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Martin, of course you are free to bring this to the Styx.

Moo

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
... These two were operating in a communistic system where everything was to be held in common, and they broke the social contract. Within the rules of that society, they were thieves.

Except for this:

quote:
... While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.

What law said these people were living in what we'd call communism today? I.E., what's yours is the State's and what's the State's is the State's? The problem wasn't that the couple didn't give it all -- the sale and the profits were theirs to control -- the problem was that they claimed to have given all, IMO.

quote:
Peter tells the guy what he's done, and the guy drops dead. He repeats the process with the wife. I suppose the question here is, "What killed him and why?"

Why is it so hard for some people to see that God did it? He can kill or authorize the killing of thousands all across the OT, but not a couple of enemies in the NT?

quote:
And to Croesus' thread, is this really an endorsement of religious violence?

If God's providing the violence, sure.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Why is it so hard for some people to see that God did it?

If there is a God with the powers you suggest he has, he was certainly ultimately responsible. But the next question for many people might be "How is it so many people find it possible to worship such a god?" or "Do the words and actions of Peter in this story provide us with a role model in how we should show God to the world?"

I've just printed off the whole thread so far and will come back with something a little more useful than the above in a bit.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Janine, if we can't, God can't. Even if He says He can.

Even when God says we can. We mustn't and He mustn't.

Because we say so.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Janine, if we can't, God can't. Even if He says He can.

Even when God says we can. We mustn't and He mustn't.

Because we say so.

This is not an issue about God but about his followers. Why worship a deity that does those things, even if you believe that to be God? Why not oppose such a deity? What is it that makes people's moral compass go broken once God enters the play? If anything, God is supposed to enhance the human moral compass, not break it. I think this is one of the evils monotheistic religion brought to the world.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

What we have here is one of a number of stories told by Luke to illustrate the workings of the Holy Spirit in the early church.

For those who claim "context is all", this is the only context we need to address. However, the story is about real people, however sketchily portrayed, and although this is a Christian website, not all contributors to this thread are Christians, so I do not feel it necessary to focus too narrowly on the theological implications of the story (even if I had the scholarship to do so). Where people want to keep to that narrow focus, I am happy to listen and learn, but I'd also like to widen it a bit for the sake of a useful discussion.

The OPer asks if this was an indication of a failed attempt at some sort of communism. I think it is more likely to have been a successful attempt at communal living ruined by a misguided attempt to establish a theocracy.

Can we get back to the text in question (in the OP version). It begins thus:

quote:
But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife's knowledge, he kept back someof the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. 'Ananias,' Peter asked, 'why has Satan filled your heart....

The repeated insistence on the wife's complicity may sound a tad mysogynistic, but we find out later why it is stressed at the outset.

Ananias lays the (inaccurate) proceeds at the Apostles' feet. Is this just a conventional way of saying he gave it to the church? It sounds more like part of a rite. It's reasonable to imagine this happening at a public meeting but the text gives us no clue here. Certainly (according to the text) there was more than one apostle present.

It is not unusual for biblical stories to jump from one scene to another or to leave undetailed passages of time during the story, or for characters to appear "unannounced" as it were. But literalists would have to say that Luke's account has Ananias making his phoney gift to Peter and others, and immediately being charged with fraud. Well, no. Before he's charged with fraud, he's accused of being possessed by Satan. Straight away. Which implies that Peter somehow knew in advance what Ananias and Sapphira were up to. I'll pause there in case anyone wishes to correct or challenge whatI have said so far.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

By "theocratic," do you mean that God is totally in charge, or the more modern sense that a group of people who confuse themselves with God are in charge?

I'm not sure giving a woman responsibility for her own actions on equal footing with a man is misogynistic. A misogynistic culture would assume she had no responsibility for her actions and perhaps pass her onto the next available male. Saying that she has agency seems to raise her personal power, not decrease it, IMO.

Also, I think there's at least a hint that these are upper-class folks, which changes the dynamics a bit as well.

IIRC, lots of business transactions in the ancient world were accompanied with rites. Heck, even in the medieval period the king's power was expressed liturgically. Even today, there's a ceremony for lots of acts of public office. I'm not sure trying to say "this was a ritual act and not a merely economic one" is that meaningful a thing to say.

The publicity of the even seems pretty obvious at any rate.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's also a Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite/ whatever tradition (sorry, can't ever remember the right word to use!) about handling legal and family business at the city gate, where the elders sit. At least SOME of that business involved feet in a very literal way (see for example the transactions at the end of Ruth). There's also Paul's boast of having studied "at the feet of Gamaliel," and Mary's sitting at Jesus' feet--in both cases, clearly the traditional place of a student. All in all, I would think that in such a culture, to lay something at the feet of an authority was most likely a well-understood way of expressing that you were consigning the matter to that authority to deal with. It need not have been literal, anymore than "I'll drop that legal case in your lap after lunch" means that the file folder will end up atop your thighs.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

I'm not sure giving a woman responsibility for her own actions on equal footing with a man is misogynistic. A misogynistic culture would assume she had no responsibility for her actions and perhaps pass her onto the next available male. Saying that she has agency seems to raise her personal power, not decrease it, IMO.

I agree. To me the language seemed very careful and legalistic-- this is exactly what each party did in the matter to warrent punishment. Given that at some times in history punishment of entire families for the sins of the head of the family was popular, it seems a minor, but significant, step forward.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Wish I could think of things before I hit "reply"-- [brick wall]

Anyway--

If I'm correct, then you are quite right in suggesting this was part of a rite--in fact it was part of a quasi-legal rite, and to deliberately lie in the context of such a rite would be akin to perjury. Which might make Peter's response a bit more understandable I hope?

This wasn't a casual "Hey, dude, here's a check for the land we sold last week, see if the food pantry needs it, wouldja?"

Much more like certain official presidential statements to the nation / Congress / grand juries etc--"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "I am not a crook." Except Ananias didn't get the chance to waffle on forever about what "is" means.

Oh, by the way--it's been pointed out before by lots of people, but I think a couple of us are still confused. Ananias was under no obligation to give all of the sale price to the church. He was under no obligation to give 100%, or 50%, or anything at all. The text makes that clear, and Peter's rebuke makes that clear as well.

The only obligation he had was to speak the truth about whatever he DID choose to do (in this case, to donate part of the proceeds, not the whole enchilada). He did not speak the truth. He lied about the sale price, and he did it in a (possibly ritual) context where it was not just lying to mere human beings, but to the Holy Spirit as well. It's really as simple as that.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
By "theocratic," do you mean that God is totally in charge, or the more modern sense that a group of people who confuse themselves with God are in charge?

I'm not sure giving a woman responsibility for her own actions on equal footing with a man is misogynistic. A misogynistic culture would assume she had no responsibility for her actions and perhaps pass her onto the next available male. Saying that she has agency seems to raise her personal power, not decrease it, IMO.

Also, I think there's at least a hint that these are upper-class folks, which changes the dynamics a bit as well.

IIRC, lots of business transactions in the ancient world were accompanied with rites. Heck, even in the medieval period the king's power was expressed liturgically. Even today, there's a ceremony for lots of acts of public office. I'm not sure trying to say "this was a ritual act and not a merely economic one" is that meaningful a thing to say.

The publicity of the even seems pretty obvious at any rate.

By "theocracy" I meant rule by God (or a god) through a priestly caste or religious elite.
Bit of a tangent I think.

I'm not sure giving a woman...yadyadayada
is misogynistic, either. My comment started with a 'may' and ended with a 'but'. And it was aimed at the writer of the text, not at any "culture".
Probably missed by a mile. No, certainly, not probably [Biased]

You could be right about the class thing. Could Peter have been envious of Ananias's wealth? (Not what you were suggesting, of course) It's possible, but I think it more likely that Peter didn't like anyone trying to make a fool of him.

And I'm not sure trying to say "this was a riual act...etc" is that meaningful a thing to say, either. Who was trying to say it. I'd rather you addressed what I actually do say, however badly. I do not always express myself clearly, and for this I apologize. I sometimes seem to take as self-evident things which other people do not see at all. In a previous incarnation as 'chemincreux' some years ago, I said the A & S story sounded like entrapment and murder to me.

On both counts I was totally wrong. WE just cannot - on the Ship or anywhere else - get away with using words that have a specific meaning inaacurately, just for effect. I'm working on it. Meanwhile, now I've shifted the beam in my own eye out of the way, you may like to reassess the appropriateness of your use of the expression "original sin" in the OP. [Devil]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog
For one thing, the crime in this instance isn't betrayal of the group to some external threat, but something closer to embezzlement. These two were operating in a communistic system where everything was to be held in common, and they broke the social contract. Within the rules of that society, they were thieves.
The text says that their crime was lying about the money. Peter said
quote:
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?
They were free to use their property and money as they chose, but they were not free to lie to the community about it. They wanted credit for a sacrificial deed without making the complete sacrifice.

Moo

I think you've pulled the wrong quote, Moo, or more likely overlooked a significant part of the right one. The initial charge faced by Ananias was

quote:
why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds of the land/

All in one breath, so to speak. The inference is clearly (IMO) that Satan has filled his heart to do both - cheat and lie about it. The qualifying statement that follows this sounds to me like a fairly conventional "softening up" process, allowing the victim - sorry, interviewee, to relax and drop his guard before delivering the (metaphorical) killer punch.

This is a point I'll develop shortly but my computer is not being very co-operatice at the moment. Forgive the delay.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure giving a woman responsibility for her own actions on equal footing with a man is misogynistic. A misogynistic culture would assume she had no responsibility for her actions and perhaps pass her onto the next available male. Saying that she has agency seems to raise her personal power, not decrease it, IMO.

That's not misogynistic. That's a culture that doesn't see women to be equal with men. Hatred towards women means that you attribute to them quite many things, even the entire suffering of the human race. "If it wasn't for Eve..."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's actually two parts of the same utterance:

quote:
3Then 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? 4Didn'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 to men but to God."

As a general rule, you must interpret the part in light of the whole. The bit in bold clearly shows that Peter considered the sale money to be completely at the disposal of A & S. The "have kept for yourself" bit would not have been a sin if Ananias hadn't lied about it. That's what turned the whole situation sour.

Just to be sure we understand, Luke gives us Sapphira's interview too:

quote:
8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?"

Again, she makes an outright false statement, and Peter calls her on it. He does not accuse her of greed or withholding from the community, which is what you'd expect if there was some rule about forced giving. No, instead his whole focus is on the facts of the transaction--whether they are being reported truthfully or not.

Third piece of evidence. Peter calls this "agreeing together to test the Spirit of the Lord." Take this statement in its natural sense and what do you get? An accusation that the married couple has decided together to deliberately make false statements in order to find out whether God will know if they lie. In other words, a case of truth vs. lie again. Absolutely nothing about "withholding" goods from a needy community.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Upthread was asked, basically, "How could you worship a God who would kill?" Might as well ask how anyone could love me or like me or value me, since I'm a killer. I eat my dead, too, evil atop evil, hmm?

The simple fact of unredeemed sin standing in His presence is a killing situation. Not through any action of His, either, but because that which is not holy cannot exist in the face of that which is All Holiness. The less-than-holy is burned away as with purifying fire.

No wonder we human beings are always trying to hide behind the skirts of priests. To stand naked before God -- which is what happens when you address Him, there is nothing between you and your Maker -- that's scary.

Whether He tells you to commit genocide, or whether He tells you to slit your only son's throat and burn him as one would an animal sacrifice, or whether He tells you to basically "kill" yourself, by giving up your plans and your will to follow Him -- it's do or die. It's make or break time. Make up your mind about Him while there's still time.

I start hearing voices telling me it's time to go kill the Canaanites, I'm gonna go see a shrink for some schizophrenia medicine. If it's really God, He'll be able to talk louder than the pills.

Seriously, why would we expect to understand everything all about God? Why would we make Him over into our own image?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
The simple fact of unredeemed sin standing in His presence is a killing situation. Not through any action of His, either, but because that which is not holy cannot exist in the face of that which is All Holiness. The less-than-holy is burned away as with purifying fire.

I'm always hearing stuff like this and it confuses me because in his time on this earth, God hung around chiefly with sinners and prostitutes and turncoats. And when the rich young ruler didn't repent of his greed, he wasn't killed; he was allowed to walk away.

Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm always hearing stuff like this and it confuses me because in his time on this earth, God hung around chiefly with sinners and prostitutes and turncoats. And when the rich young ruler didn't repent of his greed, he wasn't killed; he was allowed to walk away.

That's half the picture. The other half is when he will come "in glory to judge the living and the dead", when "the gnashing of teeth" will be, and the "worm that doesn't die" will eat people's flesh.

Your cool Jesus is the same with the Jesus that won't admit rich people on heaven, or idolaters, or prostitutes or homosexuals.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Janine, usually I agree with you but here I've got to make a caveat--

What you describe is the way it USED to be (well, minor quibbles, but I won't mess with them here). But the Incarnation has changed that in a really major, major way.

No more "refiner's fire" for those who are in Christ. No more having to deal with the holiness an purity of God untempered for sinful humanity. For that matter, no more sin--Christ has taken that, and now we CAN actually stand before the Holy One. The danger is past, the temple safety curtain is taken down, and even the priesthood itself is dismantled--or rather, extended to every human being of any age, gender or background, who is in Christ. Now we can stand in the fire and not be burned--because there stands with us "a fourth man who looks like a son of God" (passage is in Daniel something).

And for God, too, things have changed.* No longer does he have to take exquisite care not to wipe us out by his mere presence, let alone communication and living with us. Remember the bit with the people of Israel traveling through the wilderness, and God has to bow out, saying, "If I traveled among you, I would probably end up destroying you"? No more of that. Now he can be among us, a man among men--someone who can speak to us, care for us, share in our lives, and even be denied, ignored, ridiculed and crucified by us. Now he can be rejected. Now his own creation can give him the finger if we choose. Or we can freely love him, not under compulsion ("love me or burn!") but with the love that everyone wishes to be loved with, that which is freely given.

And this IMHO is the reason why our Lord doesn't do many miracles nowadays. You get a few in the days of the early church and on the mission field even today, just to validate the message and illustrate a few key points (in this case, "Don't try to screw around with God and God's people just to climb the social ladder"). Once those key points are in place, that seems to be the end of the obvious miracles. After all, if God were doing this kind of thing on every major occasion (never mind the minor ones!) that would be a bit coercive, wouldn't it? And then so much for the willingness of your followers.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
After all, if God were doing this kind of thing on every major occasion (never mind the minor ones!) that would be a bit coercive, wouldn't it? And then so much for the willingness of your followers.

The thing is, this wasn't a major occasion at all. They lied about their contribution. When you look at some of the things the early popes did (with no smiting from God in sight) one small lie about the cash they gave pales into total insignificance.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Truly, truly. And yet this WAS major in a sense that the early (middle, whatever) popes' shenanigans weren't, because this was AFAIK the first major fuckup in the early church community. Pardon my not-French.

Prior to this point we've had arguments and quarrels, weak faith, refusal to believe brothers and sisters speaking in good faith, and so on. But we haven't yet (AFAIK) had the kind of outright cynical "what's in it for me" crap that this episode shows.

There's also the fact that the kind of thing A & S did is precisely the kind of thing people can and DO do, every day, all around us, in every branch of the church. To sin like a pope requires papal circumstances, at least as far as sheer scope goes. To sin like Ananias does not. It merely requires the intent to do so.

So (imaginary case) if you're God and you're sitting down to figure out where you're going to place the (mercifully few) unmistakable Divine slapdowns, you might very well go after the sin that is a real temptation to the most people. More bang for your buck, as I so unfeelingly say.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

The way I see Ananias's charge is like this. Peter immediately accuses him of allowing Satan into his heart. What's going on in the mind of Ananias at this point? Is it reasonable to make one or two intelligent guesses? I think it is.

He'll be shocked. He'll be scared. What happens to Christians who allow Satan to enters their hearts? We cannot know precisely, but it's not likely to be a slap on he wrist is it? Hasn't Peter effectively put Ananias on a par with Judas Iscariot?

Perhaps there will be an exorcism. Perhaps he'll be expelled. Whatever happens, it is not going to be fun. And he might think that, after all, his sin was not so great.

Christians on this thread have pointed out that his fault was by no means minor, however. In Ananias's pre-Christian days (if he was a convert) he would have known that anything dedicated to god was holy and untouchable.
In that sense, withholding part of the money would be akin to snatching back a haunch from a temple sacrifice and eating it himself.

But Peter then seems partly to allay his fears. What was his was his. To do with as he pleases. I'm not at all happy with Peter's next assertion though - that even after the sale Ananias could do what he liked with the proceeds. If the property was sold with the intention of providing funds for the community - especially if the buyer knew that was the intention, then the money was no longer Ananias's to do what he like with - non of it.

But Peter's delivering his little homily for a specific effect. It allows Ananias to relax, to feel a moment of relief, before Peter says

quote:
You have not lied to men but to God!

This jolts Ananias back to the awful reality of his condemnation. A sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable. Which means. Lamb Chopped, that however much hope you have for his immortal soul. Ananias saw none.

Apart from the emotional roller-coaster that Peter's apparently kind words produce, they also have the added effect of cutting the ground (metaphorically) under the feet of the accused.
This sort of interrogation technique is not solely the stuff of comics, blockbuster films and romantic novels. It appears in great dramas, in real life, and elsewhere in the bible.

Nathan, for instance when he wants to charge David with adultery and murder, first presents the king with a "hypothetical" situation. Only when the king condemns the hypothetical culprit does Nathan say "you are that man" The king's caught out, and Nathan has the initiative. If he had barged straight in with the accusation, God's anointed would probably have killed him on the spot.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
I'm not at all happy with Peter's next assertion though - that even after the sale Ananias could do what he liked with the proceeds. If the property was sold with the intention of providing funds for the community - especially if the buyer knew that was the intention, then the money was no longer Ananias's to do what he like with - non of it.

Wait a minute. You're being more stringent than PETER, now? I thought you considered him overly harsh.

And I'm sorry, but I fail to see what the buyer's knowledge (or lack thereof) has to do with anything. Why would the property buyer have any idea how Ananias planned to use the money, anyway? Even today, it's rare that someone negotiating a house or land sale says confidentially, "Oh, by the way, I plan to use your purchase money for ____________." Isn't that none of his business?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

You've never seen anything advertised with the added incentive that "all proceeds will be donated to charity" or "for every burger we sell we shall donate 5p to the Heart Foundation"? [Big Grin]

I'd like to add a note about ritual, in case I touched a nerve a while back. As I see it, charismatic communities of all denominations (perhaps of all faiths, including pagan ones) have always relied on a carefully structured, minutely orchestrated, highly charged emotional ambience. Effective ritual always involves a certain amount of manipulation of one's own and/or other people's emotions, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, per se . But those who control such events have a responsibility to ensure that susceptible and vulnerable people are not abused, and to react honestly and caringly when mistakes occur.

And a note to explain why "God did it" has never been a wholly satisfactory explanation for me - even in my more tradionally believing days - especially when human agency is evident.

God's agents, whether self-appointed or chosen by the communities they serve, may act independently. Prophets claim to be the voice of God, Judges his arm. But their words and actions are also their own; they are not automatons or puppets. Ergo they should be accountable for what they say and do. In religious communities, however, an appeal for accountability is frequently seen as basphemy - an attempt to hold God himself to account (though at times, more often in Jewish than in Christian tradition, such healthy demands meet with God's own approval or acquiescence).

Some "acts of God" are undoubtedly nothing more than personal, human, revenge-taking. For instance, in II Kings 2;23 Elisha is followed by a bunch of yobs (little children in KJV, small boys in NRSV!) who call him "baldy". Elisha turns round and curses them, whereupon two sh-bears come out of the woods and maul 42 of the kids to death.

Leaving aside the disturbing fact that forty-odd little buggers of any age on the loose are a force to be reckoned with, who killed the forty-two? The bears? Surely. God? Well, Elisha asked for God's intervention. Elisha?

Who else initiated the process? Well of course, the little perishers. And possibly, Elisha's
fear. But he didn't ask God for his own safety - he demanded retribution.

And retribution used to be seen as inevitable - the purifying fire which cleanses the community.
The only modern equivalent that comes quickly to mind is "honour" killing.

I have forgotten the exact passage, but somewhere Paul exacts revenge by making someone blind (mercifully, only for a while). Now whether or not you see any correlation between that acts of Elisha, Paul, and Peter, it does rather challenge the cosy assumption that saints don't hurt people, they only go around healing and preaching.

I've not quite finished my long and tedious point, but I'll post this before my clumsy thumb hits the delete button by mistake ("Pity" I hear! [Razz]

)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Drat you, now you've got me picturing Ananias and Sapphira behind a lemonade stand. [Big Grin]

I'd be surprised, though--I mean, selling real estate, that's sort of out of the fundraising sphere, at least where I live. If the folks who sold their house to me had said, "Oh, by the way, we'll be donating the proceeds to the Cancer Campaign," I would have probably shuffled my feet and said, "How nice for you," or similar inane and embarrassed response. I mean, on that level of serious money, I'm in the deal for the land, I think most people are (past and present). Not to be an inadvertant contributor to anybody's charity. In fact, I'd start having suspicions that they only told me in order to hike the price higher. [Eek!]

If it was me you were worried about, don't be (the nerve thing, I mean). I've got no problem with calling this ritual, in fact I'm grateful to you for opening my eyes to a possibility I hadn't seen before. The possible OT connection is interesting to me, and I'd like to see if any commentaries have more to say about it.

I agree with you that leaders must be held accountable, all the more if they end up involved in a Very Bad Scene. And yes, there are always blasphemers who will attempt to cover evil with the name of God. I just don't think Peter & co. are among them.

I hold no brief for Elisha's temper, though I think (haven't looked yet) that the 42 in question were considerably older than "small boys." But maybe you should start a thread on it?

ETA: oh, and of course the saints hurt people. It comes with the "defend and protect" territory.

[ 12. October 2010, 04:08: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Going back a bit, someone has very kindly given me the reference for Paul's peculiar style of conversion in Cyprus:

quote:
When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a certain magician, a jewish false prophet , named Bar-Jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul , AKA Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now listen - the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind for a while, unable to see the sun."Immediately mist and darkness overcame him....

[Acts 13:6-11a]

Now I know it's a different place and a different time and a different apostle, but put this beside Peter's treatment of A&S and can we see some sort of link, however tenuous - and some insight into the way authority was sometimes wielded in the early church. What's particularly interesting here is that Saul, AKA Paul, knows exactly what the Holy Spirit has in mind for Elyma, just as Peter knows that Sapphira is about to suffer the same fate as her husband.

Well we who hanged children for stealing bread not so long ago can hardly throw stones, I guess, but at least our hanging judges asked for mercy on their victims' souls.

Back soon.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
You did not lie to us but to God!!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

- said Peter. And Ananias fell down and died (gave up the ghost in KJV). And everybody who heard about it were very scared.

But what about those who were there? Were they scared too? Too scared to help?

The young men come in, wrap up Ananias, take him out and bury him. Before his wife comes. Why?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
- said Peter. And Ananias fell down and died (gave up the ghost in KJV). And everybody who heard about it were very scared.

But what about those who were there? Were they scared too? Too scared to help?

The young men come in, wrap up Ananias, take him out and bury him. Before his wife comes. Why?

To hide the evidence?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

No comprendo. Too scared to help how? I mean, the guy is dead. [Waterworks]

Not much to be done but bury him.

As for um, hiding the evidence--

You HAVE considered that this is a hot country where burial the same day as death is the norm, and where the presence of a dead body is held to automatically defile the entire house and everyone in it?

I'm not sure what you expected Peter to do under these circs--just leaving him lying around seems a bit cold-blooded, not to mention problematic, since no one had any idea where his wife was or when she was going to show up. Not like they could call her on her cell phone, I mean. And carrying a corpse through the street is apt to provoke comment, and not just of the "you murderer!" type.

Let's consider this for a moment. Where should they have taken him? His house, perhaps. But we have no idea how distant that was. If it were more than a couple of streets away, the city authorities would be bound to hear about it, and and would have strong views on unnecessary defilement being spread hither, thither and yon. Recall that anyone and anything the corpse touches is going to be in for a seven-day quarantine and cleansing ceremony involving rather expensive sacrifices.

Under those circs, I expect that the usual custom was to bury a person from wherever he died, unless it was obviously ineligible (such as someone who dropped dead in the middle of the road). That would keep defilement to a minimum. Peter and co. are already well and truly exposed, so there's no advantage to them in removing the corpse elsewhere.

I hesitate to point out the obvious, but ... from the text (which is all the evidence we have) it appears that there were NO official repercussions to this whole affair at all. Certainly the authorities would have heard of it, and since some hours elapsed between Ananias' death and Sapphira's arrival, there would have been plenty of time to have a first-century cop equivalent show up and say "Wot's all this?" In fact I suspect one (or more) did, and the number of witnesses was what protected Peter from arrest. Hard to pin a crime on someone when maybe a couple dozen people can testify he never touched the guy.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Sorry, but where in the text to you find any indication that they didn't have any idea where Sapphira was or when she was going to turn up?

I take your point about the necessity for a quick burial. But isn't that usually done by the next of kin? - and see my question above.

Death was immediate, of course, I didn't see that. No question of Ananias merely having a heart attack or fainting. They did sometimes bury people a bit too soon - even the nicest people. Jesus got there in the nick of time on more than one occasion, didn't he?

But no. The decent thing here would have been
to wrap Ananias up and put him in the shade and tell his wife at the earliest opportunity what had happened. But the young men were already there, were they not, waiting ? NRSV (and perhaps other modern translations, i don't know) have some pretty idiosyncratic bits of editing to explain. KJV has the young men "getting up" and wrapping up Ananias. NRSV says they "came". Bullshit! They were there already. It's in the Greek. And there's an even worse error later on.

[ 17. October 2010, 16:32: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

P.S. A negative cannot be proved by its absence from the text. But you've not only tried that - you have made several conjectures that can only be regarded as "might-have-beens". ISTM that is.

[ 17. October 2010, 16:44: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, the OP seems to me to be requesting just that--reasonable extrapolations from the evidence we do have, which is a fairly brief text. I aim to please.

But really, in the end it's going to come down to what you deem more likely. I find it very difficult to believe that the early church and its leaders were such a frightening, dictatorial and even criminal set as you seem to suggest, mainly because I can't see how such people would ever have been tolerated by Jesus. And we're talking about the same generation of people, only a few years after Jesus' passion. So it's not at all the same thing as the corruption of the medieval popes, etc.

I suppose we COULD imagine that Peter et al had complete personality transplants after Jesus' Passion, but I can't see that either. Human beings very rarely change that much. Even Paul, the about-face par excellence, kept the same personality he had to begin with--just aimed in a new direction.

The other thing that I find difficult to imagine is that the Christian church as we know and experience it today could ever have grown out of such a horribly cultish situation as you postulate. Again, in my experience and education, institutions normally get worse, not better. And bad as the current Church may be (and in so many ways), lopping off people's heads to maintain a leader's authority is really not a major defining characteristic of Christianity.

Another thing that enters in to this whole "what really happened" debate is the old catechism explanation of the eighth commandment:

quote:
The Eighth Commandment

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

It seems to me that Peter deserves the same courtesy from me that I would show--well, to a Shipmate, for example. The text says what it says, and we have no evidence to the contrary. Why then paint Peter as a criminal? Whatever you think of Peter's character, it will make no difference to Ananias. He stands or falls on his own behavior.

Peter is my neighbor, just as you are; therefore he deserves the benefit of whatever doubt may exist.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Peter is my neighbor, just as you are; therefore he deserves the benefit of whatever doubt may exist.

I don't see myself as staining Peter's character - I'm just asking questions which hadn't occurred to me before. There's no way it could be a new question though, is there?

But I wonder if there is more to it than that? So much of our picture of the early Church is wrapped up on our perception of Peter's character - maybe we have too much invested in our view of him to even consider that he may kill someone then cover it up, blaming an 'act of God'?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh for gosh sakes.

It's this kind of thing that really really bothers me. Boogie, I would feel exactly the same if someone were alleging that YOU were killing people and covering up the crime afterward. Not because of any imaginary reflection on the Ship in your case, but simply because I've never seen the least reason to suppose you a murderer, and for someone to start speculating on no evidence whatsoever that you WERE would inevitably lead to a Hell call if nothing worse.

Heck, I'd have to battle half the Ship to be the first to drag the offender into Hell. And I don't know you all that well!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh for gosh sakes.

It's this kind of thing that really really bothers me. Boogie, I would feel exactly the same if someone were alleging that YOU were killing people and covering up the crime afterward. Not because of any imaginary reflection on the Ship in your case, but simply because I've never seen the least reason to suppose you a murderer, and for someone to start speculating on no evidence whatsoever that you WERE would inevitably lead to a Hell call if nothing worse.

Heck, I'd have to battle half the Ship to be the first to drag the offender into Hell. And I don't know you all that well!

But 'alleging' is not what I am doing - I am simply throwing it in to the pot as a possibility. I have a similar emotional investment - I would rather Peter had killed them than God had. At least Peter would have the 'excuse' of human nature. The idea that God strikes people down for telling lies is worse than the idea that Peter may have done so imo.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

LC often posts to the effect that "this is the only text we have and there is no text to the contrary" - the implication beibng that we should simply accept it.

That begs a whole lot of questions.

Would we really expect to find competing/contrary texts

The text as we have it is Luke. And it is Luke's interpretation of the event(s). Is no other interpretation possible/allowable?

Luke, as all the Biblical writers, had a point of view. He seems to have majored on the miraculous element in the gospel/Church history account.

In the light of knowledge available to us today many Biblical descriptions are capable of other analysis. Epilepsy is not simply and always a case of demon possession.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But 'alleging' is not what I am doing - I am simply throwing it in to the pot as a possibility. I have a similar emotional investment - I would rather Peter had killed them than God had. At least Peter would have the 'excuse' of human nature. The idea that God strikes people down for telling lies is worse than the idea that Peter may have done so imo.

Okay, that's helpful. Now I get where you're coming from. Thanks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
LC often posts to the effect that "this is the only text we have and there is no text to the contrary" - the implication beibng that we should simply accept it.

Actually, "You got me all wrong, boss." The implication is not that we should simply accept it, but that we should realize the limitations of ANY analysis at this remove and with such limited material. And it's not the Christian in me that's getting annoyed here--it's the rhetoric teacher. [Razz]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
In the light of knowledge available to us today many Biblical descriptions are capable of other analysis. Epilepsy is not simply and always a case of demon possession.

No kidding. Trying to project modern understandings of disease onto a 2000 year old text is a crazy anachronism. It's like trying to come up with some scientific explanation for how Jesus walked on water, which totally misses the point of the story.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I fail to understand what Bullfrog is getting at.

Is he saying that its Ok to attribute epilepsy to demon possession in the 1st Century but not OK in the 21st?

Is he claiming that the Biblical description was not eplipsy but some other ailment?

Is he saying that we have to accept the pre-scientific mind-set of the Biblical writers if we are to interpret the Bible correctly?

Is he denying that all the knowledge gained in science and medicine over 2000 years is of any value in establishing the truth of things?

And the implied suggestion that using todays knowledge in order to understand Biblical events is really an attempt to explain away things is a cheap shot.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I fail to understand what Bullfrog is getting at.

Is he saying that its Ok to attribute epilepsy to demon possession in the 1st Century but not OK in the 21st?

Is he claiming that the Biblical description was not eplipsy but some other ailment?

Is he saying that we have to accept the pre-scientific mind-set of the Biblical writers if we are to interpret the Bible correctly?

Is he denying that all the knowledge gained in science and medicine over 2000 years is of any value in establishing the truth of things?

And the implied suggestion that using todays knowledge in order to understand Biblical events is really an attempt to explain away things is a cheap shot.

No, it's plausible, yes, no, and sometimes.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A simple yes, no, yes, sometimes answer tells us absolutely nothing of where Bullfrog is coming from. Or what he thinks.

Substantiating his answers would be helpful to us all.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A simple yes, no, yes, sometimes answer tells us absolutely nothing of where Bullfrog is coming from. Or what he thinks.

Substantiating his answers would be helpful to us all.

I've had a long weekend, and a distracting toddler. Sorry if I'm terse sometimes. Also, I thought what I was saying was kind of obvious, which was probably an error.

Also, what I typed is what I thought. If you want to understand my thinking, read what I type.

But I'll try to clarify...

1) "OK" is an odd expression in this case. It's not whether or not something is "OK," it's about what they actually did. it doesn't matter to me whether or not it's scientifically sound, since what I'm studying isn't a strictly scientific text. In a sense it's myth. Trying to shoehorn a modern medical assessment onto an ancient miracle story is about as reasonable as trying to work out the mechanics by which Zeus could target people with lightning bolts. It's outside the realm of the story, and trying to shoehorn it in generally breaks the story completely.

If that's what you're into, fine, but that's not how one studies the Bible, IMO. You'll end up with nonsense.

2) As above, trying to put a modern medical definition onto a miracle story is anachronistic. Also, diagnosing a medical condition while you're a doctor in the same room with the patient, sharing a common language, culture, and worldview is actually a fairly difficult thing to do. It takes a lot of money and training, at least in the US. Why on earth do you think any9one can accurately diagnose a medical problem based on the extremely skimpy factual evidence we have in the Biblical account? This is why I said that calling it epilepsy is plausible, but not certain and really, again, the question is meaningless to me.

3) Bingo. You can't get the Bible, to a certain extent, until you get the worldview in which it was written. And you have to learn to put aside your modern pretensions and just accept these freakish little stories as they are. Trying to turn demon possession as it existed for them into modern illness is, again, anachronistic and really missing the point (IMO.)

4) That's a red herring. I'm not talking about general epistemology, but specific biblical hermeneutics. If I try to turn my child's babbling into a treatise on evolutionary biology, I'll probably misunderstand her completely. Instead I have to learn how she speaks and understands the world before I try to project my own expectations onto her. That's how we communicate.

5) Not sure I'd call it a "cheap shot," more like a profound miscommunication. Sometimes you can try to use the Bible to establish historical stuff, but even then you have to filter it through the eyes of those who wrote it, about whom it was written, and whom it was written to. Otherwise all you get, to a lesser or greater extent, is garbled nonsense or an echo chamber in which all you hear is what you want to hear because all you're doing is projecting your expectations onto the text (IMO.)

Is that clearer?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A lot clearer. Thanks.

But I feel your explanation is just the beginning of a discussion about Biblical interpretation and I come at it from another angle.

This is perhaps not the thread to pursue it. But my basic problem is that the Bible needs to be interpreted, not only in terms of the mind-set of those days, but in terms of what we know and understand today.

A basic example is that the Biblical writers never drew the modern distinction between purpose and consequence. Hence they attributed every action to God. The story of the man born blind in John's gospel is a case in point.

The Biblical writers knew nothing of Evolution as a process. My judgement is that the category of evolution enables a far deeper (and yet still Biblical) understanding of such doctrines as Creation; The "Fall" etc.

But this has nothing to do with "slain by the Spirit" in its narrow context so will pass it over.

[ 19. October 2010, 18:40: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A lot clearer. Thanks.

But I feel your explanation is just the beginning of a discussion about Biblical interpretation and I come at it from another angle.

This is perhaps not the thread to pursue it. But my basic problem is that the Bible needs to be interpreted, not only in terms of the mind-set of those days, but in terms of what we know and understand today.

A basic example is that the Biblical writers never drew the modern distinction between purpose and consequence. Hence they attributed every action to God. The story of the man born blind in John's gospel is a case in point.

The Biblical writers knew nothing of Evolution as a process. My judgement is that the category of evolution enables a far deeper (and yet still Biblical) understanding of such doctrines as Creation; The "Fall" etc.

But this has nothing to do with "slain by the Spirit" in its narrow context so will pass it over.

Glad to be helpful.

Yep, it's a huge discussion, and I figured we were coming from different angles.

And yes, I fervently agree that you have to interpret the Bible with an eye to your own context as well. For myself, somewhat pastorally and practically, any biblical hermeneutic that refuses to accept either the past or the present is broken. I saw one kind of error in your post, but that doesn't mean there aren't others.

Evolution certainly informs theology, but I still think that trying to shoehorn it directly into the bible, as if Genesis were really just about evolution instead of being about creation (not the same thing for most theologians, I think,) you're gonna miss the point of the story or project more stuff onto it than it'll bear.

Another example would be flat earth stuff. There's plenty of evidence that the Bible was written in a space that didn't see the world as round. To some, this means it's not worth reading at all. To others, it's an embarrassment so they try to shoehorn some kind of understanding into he story. Others might try to force themselves to think in flat earth terms because it's more biblical. To me, it's irrelevant because it's not a book about a flat earth, it's a book written form the perspective of people who understood a flat earth, so the conversation about the shape of the earth isn't really pertinent, beyond accepting that this is what they saw and it informed their views thuswise. You don't have to either force yourself to assume their views or try to project your views onto them, but merely to mind the gap between yourself and the text.

It's an interesting tangent. I've got stuff to do and so shouldn't be on here as often as I sometimes am, but I'd be interested in chasing it.

[ 19. October 2010, 18:54: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

To get it back to the point, in the passage here...

On one hand, I could simply assume the worldview of the culture and say that this was a literal miracle where someone died directly because of their embezzlement. God did it and that's that.

I could try to shoehorn a scientific model in and explain it as an extreme case of a nocebo. The shame and fear of Ananias was so intense that he literally died because he felt he'd blasphemed against the Spirit. Likewise with his wife.

I think to take either reading by itself would be anemic. Both are part of the story, and are important in their own right, but I don't think that's the end.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Agreed. looks like nocebo to me. keybord kput - some bits missing.

when s comes in Luke doesn't just tell us she doesn't know wht's up. She asks the question. something like free indirect speech in modern usage.

In the Greek, Peter "nswers her". KJ keeps this. Others "correct" to Peter sed to her...

Bck when mechine fixed.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Running repairs done. Fingers crossed!

Here is what I "see" and "hear" when we get to the part where

Sapphira [ Enters :Hello!

Nobody returns her greeting. No-one makes eye-contact What's the matter? Where's Ananias?
[approaching Peter, diffidently] Well?

Peter: Sapphira, tell me, how much was it you paid for the field? Twenty-five shekels, was it?

Sapphira: Twenty-five, yes. Look, what's all this about? Where's my husband? [ pause ]What have you done to him?

Peter: Oh, Sapphira, why have you conspired with the devil to try to fool us? Your husband is dead. Dead and buried. And you - you are next. The young men are waiting outside the door now. With their shovels.

[ 21. October 2010, 12:58: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Well I'm no Stoppard. But I think there's very little in the above drama that could be held to contradict the text. Peter answers Sapphira with a question, increasing her anxiety. And it's a leading question - one he'd be thrown out of any modern court for asking.

Nevertheless, summary conviction and punishment without any right of reply are not unusual in the Bible. One death - that of Ananias, could have been from any number of stimuli. He could have had a weak heart. He could have had a condition which meant his heart could give out at any time - he could have been (potentially)
dead before Peter's tirade.

But the second death is one too many, IMO, for any serious consideration of divine intervention.
Regardless of whether Peter was full of the Holy Spirit or just full of himself - the same act and speak first, think afterwards character we meet in the gospels - the text unequivocally informs us that it was Peter's intent that Sappira should die. Three hours after the death of Ananias, when you'd think he might have cooled off a bit, the young men are still there, with their shovels, waiting.

Perhaps things were getting on top of the apostles. A little later on, they admit they need help:

quote:
Now during these days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. And the Twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order tto wait on tables...

[Acts 6:1-2]

Over all, I think the early church in Acts shows us a spiritual and emotional hothouse trying to form a perfect society enthused with the Holy Spirit. Amodel almost bound to fail under the weight of its own piety. Writing to day in The Independent newspaper, Peter Stanford suggests, in a different context -

quote:
Perhaps it all dates back to one of our templates for fashioning heroes - Christianity's long-established penchant for saint-making. For nigh on 2,000 years it has tended to be an all-or-nothing business, shining the spotlight only on what the Church still calls "heroic virtue". But it is a flawed template because it omits all the other details that drag would-be saints down to the level of everybody else.

Peter found "Feed my sheep" to be no synecure.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

Ananias and Saphira

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Wonderful. Just what lttle Christian children need! "Now tell me again, little Johnny, are you sure you've never read anything by Mr. Pullman?"

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Here's my second attempt at a double-post to explain my point, the first evidently having been wiped by the devil!

Children just love a moral tale, where the baddies, in due course, get their come-uppance. This is a large part of the attraction of tales by J.K.Rowling, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl et al. But the message needs to be quite clear. Lying is wrong. Bullying likewise. And cowardice. Victims can conquer their fear.

But when the moral makes claims upon a person's religious faith, it can muddy the waters. The idea that it is more important to be truthful to Daddy, Miss Biggs, Father John - or even God - than it is to be truthful to one's friends is fraught with danger. Where the sanctions for being caught (or even accused of) lying are unimaginably frightening, we have an incipient tyrants' charter at best, a free hand for paedophiles at worst.

Ananias and Sapphira were not zapped for cheating. Nor for lying per se. They were told they had lied to God. So far so good - perhaps.
Except that Peter said "you have not lied to men..." which is false. An intelligent child, brought up to recognize just retribution, could be forgiven for wondering at this point why God did not zap Peter.

The story in the linked clip is told quite blandly. I find that more sinister than comforting. It is, after all, a self-confessed scary tale. But the imputation of jealousy on A&S's part is pure conjecture. One could with equal validity wonder if Peter's tirade was not fuelled by his - or the community's - jealousy of A&S's wealth.

Tainted though it was, A&S's gift was generous. Peter's redeption of it was grudging - as was his acceptance of Jesus' offer of reinstatement (if that's what it was).

Oh, please, leave morality to the likes of Aesop and J.K.R. They do it better. The biblical story did the job it was meant to do in its day, I expect. It's a mixed blessing now.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thought I'd got you wrong pimple, after Kelly's plea below, now I'm far from sure.

Peter didn't lie. Their primary, essential, fundamental lie was to God. In lying before men, to men about the matter they were 110% lying in the presence, to the face of God.

No I was right first time:

You ARE a rationalist.

My apology was premature.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thought I'd got you wrong pimple, after Kelly's plea below, now I'm far from sure.

Peter didn't lie. Their primary, essential, fundamental lie was to God. In lying before men, to men about the matter they were 110% lying in the presence, to the face of God.

No I was right first time:

You ARE a rationalist.

My apology was premature.

Millions and millions have lied to God since then - why have they not been struck down in a similar manner?

(This would liven up Church services!)

I listened to a preacher a few years ago preaching about purity. The next week he tried to feel my bum in the kitchen - no thunderbolts, apart from a hard slap across the face from me.

He preached for many years.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, it sounds like he got what he deserved, Boogie, even if it wasn't the thunderbolt some of us would have liked.

Good for you.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Good on you Boogie.

As to why God killed A & S at that critical, formative time for the example of billions of nominal Christians and the Elect ever since, my guess is as good as yours.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0