 sj |
||
|
||
BS: On Acts 4:32-35
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:26 PM Ggfs and all: There is an old debate that is perhaps the key feature of most of what goes under the banner "Protestant" and it was also a key feature to the problems Luther had with Roman Catholicism. What is necessary and sufficient for salvation, for a righted relationship with God. The RCC had some steps involved that Luther did not see as being a requirement at all. Since these "steps" were the sole provence of Roman Catholicism, the dispensation was at their discretion and at their price. People were paying huge sum to have priests and clergy pray their loved ones who had passed from this life, out of Purgatory and thus keeping them from Hellfire and Damnation. When Luther read Roman 1, verse 17 "For the just shall live by faith" he is said to have penned the word "sola" or "alone" above "faith". Without a lot of references, at least at this point, there is a lot of scriptural evidence for his conclusion. In Paul's letter to the people of the church at Ephesus he writes: "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of works lest any man should boast. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them." Ep 2:8-10. The take on this is that imperfect man is incapable doing any redeeming act that would set the record straight for his initial rebellion from God in the Garden. God's clear promise which runs through the entire Bible, Old and New Testament alike, is that He will effect the restoration of mankind in His own time and His own way. The implications here are deep and far reaching and run the entire gamut ot theology and ALL that entails: far too much for this forum. To paraphrase and extrapolate a little, what the above is saying that there is NO GOOD WORK you can do to be right with God. Rather it is what He has already done for you that will set the record straight. The only thing you can DO, is believe that what He has done in the person of His son, Jesus Christ, has already set the record straight. Jesus says in the book of John, chapter 3 "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him, might be saved (17). He that believeth on him is NOT (emphasis mine) condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Through Christ, God has wiped away all the transgressions, all the sin, all wrong doing in our world for all time. Because Christ has paid the debt for us we now have a clean slate and always will have with God if we but just accept His free gift (18) (which is what "grace" literally means-a gift). That is IF you choose to accept it! And there is the rub! And because of pride, most people will never stoop to admitting they are guilty and worthy of condemnation, in need of a Savior, depended, etc., etc. They say "I'm a good person. I don't do this, I don't do that. I DO do good things and help people, fight for the right, give to the poor and needy, visit the imprisoned and so on. That is the crowd to whom Christ will one day say "Depart form me, you twisted up people. I have never known you." It seems harsh but indeed, these unfortunate folks never have known God for if they knew Him they would have seen all the He has done for them in effecting their salvation and offering it to them free of charge. Had they DONE THAT, they would know that he is loving and kind. And ultimately, God being God, he sets the ground rules for this existence. Paul sates in Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh (the world and the corrupt things that are in it) but after the spirit. If you read the Book of John and the Book of Romans you will get a much cleared picture than the one I have outlined. A final picture of the grace of God demonstrating that no work will effect one's salvation is that of the thief who dide on a cross next to Jesus. He did not protest his innocence. He did not ask Jesus to deliver him from the hideous thing his fellow humans were doing to him. He merely said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Lk 23:42) to which Jesus replied, and I paraphrase, "I tell you the truth, this day you WILL be with me in paradise."(43) The thief was not baptized, did no good work, could do no good work but his salvation was assured by Christ in his presence. We are all in the same boat as that thief, helpless and dying a death rightfully ours to die and unable to do anything about it except seek Christ's indulgence. That's grace. Amazing! Other theologies hold that if you do no good turn to prove you have truly believed then your faith is suspect. They point to the book of James where it say that "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (Jm 2:20). The argument here is that if you truly have faith, you will also be inspired to good works which are many and varied. I see this as also a valid argument because if you really love some one you will seek to do good things to and for them. Love, after all, is a verb! I think it is a matter of sequence rather than priority. First comes love. All else follows. Some, however believe that still you must do something. Repentance comes to mind, a turning away from one's old life and bad habits for instance. James is a short book and a quick read and it stands in strong contrast to the Pauline doctrines and yet, as I see it, there is no real disagreement between them, just different perspectives and emphasis. Lastly, you may ask "Salvation? Salvation from what?" To what?" This too is a theme that sees development over the span of the entire Bible and there are many questions it generates, again, beyond the scope of this forum. Briefly, from an eternal torment, having existence without the source of all life: God. Regardless of the visual metaphor of fire and brimstone or the Lake of Fire or Gehennah (the dump outside of Jerusalem) it is not a pleasant thing. In this life salvation has the effect of release from guilt and habitual acts the are detrimental to one's psyche and physical health. It re-prioritizes one's life and when you are re-connected to God you are connected to Life with a capital "L". Apparently I'm not really big on brief but that is a lot of territory to cover. That is a "Protestant" Christian point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Penny S. Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:05 PM For some reason, a quote from the English politician, atheist member of the Labour party and essayist, Roy Hattersley, comes to mind. He was speaking in an interview, and referred to Christian Socialism as known in Britain - not a political party, but a contribution to political thought. He said that he was a Christian Socialist without being a Christian, and Tony Blair was a Christian Socialist without being a socialist. That was easy to agree with. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM Slag: "Seems to me, the criterion for salvation is the personal knowledge, or rather "knowing" the Christ. Once knowing Christ, acceptable good works are a spontaneous result of that bond." It seems to me, that rather than the Christians who 'know' or 'believe', the criteria, is but just a little different, than that...more like,..its not who you know, or what you know, but who, or what you obey.......according to your scriptural post in Matthew. Am I correct in what you are saying? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM I saw a documentary on South Korea showing how strongly such "prosperity gospel" (Joe) has taken off their, sadly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:40 PM the "prosperity gospel" is a favorite topic of some television evangelists - the idea that if you are "saved," God will give you prosperity here on earth. Scarey stuff, Joe. How do they square that with Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25? As Zappa said - if there is a hell, it waits for them, not us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM No Joe, the believers work hard and the exploiters, well, they exploit the hard working. Same it true of religion and politics. Exploiters love to see the true believers a coming! In context, the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgment are connected. I believe the point of the Sermon was that no matter how good you may think you are, God standard is higher and NO ONE can enter Heaven on their own merit (excepting Christ) and that we have need of the Sacrifice acceptable to God the Father, the Judge. Remember the warning to those who point to their own work and say Lord, Lord did we not do this and that? And then God says to them "depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you!" Seems to me, the criterion for salvation is the personal knowledge, or rather "knowing" the Christ. Once knowing Christ, acceptable good works are a spontaneous result of that bond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:52 AM Sanity, I didn't say that Jesus instituted socialism. I said that Acts 4:32-35 is consistent with the ideals of socialism - and therefore, that socialism may not be as horrible as some people want to portray it. And when Jesus said we will always have the poor with us, He wasn't saying we shouldn't work to alleviate their suffering - Matthew 25 says that very clearly, that we are bound to serve those in need or we will suffer eternal damnation. And since Jesus gives this list four times (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.), it's clear to me that these are the criteria upon which we will be judged. WHAT we believe will be relatively unimportant. And I think that means that lots of non-believers will end up in eternal happiness, while many so-called believers may be surprised to find their fate was not what they expected. Suib, the "prosperity gospel" is a favorite topic of some television evangelists - the idea that if you are "saved," God will give you prosperity here on earth. I think it's a ruse, but it's a very popular ruse. I think there's a tie between the "prosperity gospel" of today and the Calvinism of the industrial "robber barons" of the 19th century. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:38 AM You nailed that one Joe. Having read Calvin, he was one of the meanest cusses of his day, a vituperous ranter who wanted to lord over anyone he could. He actually sounds like the religionists the guys are thrashing over on the True Test of Atheism thread. He contended that the only real material way we can know we are among the Chosen (which gets off into Predestination, etc,) is if we have God's favor and material blessings. There is so much wrong with that, just on the face of it, that it really doesn't deserve discussion. But nonetheless, in it's day it was a most popular view and of course, the Protestant Work Ethic was born, as all those wanna be "redeemed" tried to demonstrate God's benevolence toward them by making lots and lots of money. Calvin is gone but the ethic lives on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Sep 10 - 11:10 AM ...and I think you are fence sitting. Jesus was not talking about instituting socialism, and never was. Consider this quote from Jesus, himself: Mark 14:7New American Standard Bible (©1995) "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. International Standard Version (©2008) because you will always have the destitute with you and can help them whenever you want, but you will not always have me. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) You will always have the poor with you and can help them whenever you want. But you will not always have me with you. King James Bible For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. American King James Version For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you will you may do them good: but me you have not always. American Standard Version For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good: but me ye have not always. Bible in Basic English The poor you have ever with you, and whenever you have the desire you may do them good: but me you have not for ever. Douay-Rheims Bible For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always. This does NOT sound like a compulsory socialism system to me....and you?? IN CONTEXT: Mark 14:3-7 "And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." This is completely consistent with my earlier post, about Jesus speaking of something entirely different, and quite contrary, to what is being put forth here......(Not that most who are using the words, or life of Jesus to promote THEIR private agenda really care, anyway). GfS GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:51 AM Hmmmm. I think both Suibhne and Sanity have "cause and effect" defects in their reasoning. I would say that Socialism is in accord with the ideal expressed in Acts 4:32-35. Capitalism, on the other hand, seems most directly allied with the teachings of Calvin, not Christ. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:05 AM Suibhne Astray: "Socialism is born of Secularism." Then, in fact, it is NOT born out of Jesus' teachings, right? It is, in fact, a separate system? So, what does that have to do with Acts 4:32-35? Nothing!..So you can't have it both ways......which underlines my original point, that Jesus was NOT talking about socialism, nor were the disciples establishing it, nor pushing it, as an 'article of faith'. So, is this why Secularist/Socialist rhetoric, so 'anti' spiritualistic message?? Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses"...which in it's way, is true, IF you draw a distinction between spiritual, and religious!...Sometimes, the two of them are exclusive of the other. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:59 AM I can't see how you can say that Christianity is the foundation of capitalism. It's a puzzler for sure, Joe, but the evidence is all around us, from the worthy paternalism of Victorian Industrialists - for whom God ordered the estates of the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate - to the Right-Wing Televangelists of the USA - who seem as remote from the teachings and example of Jesus as it's possible to get. In fact, most manifestations of Christianity are replete with institutionalised injustice in which God will somehow know his own, and, as we have seen, poverty is a functional prerequisite in His sacred order. On such feudal foundations, irrespective of Christ's teachings to the contrary, was Capitalism built and continues to be justified in the name of Christ. On a more personal level in my experience it is the wealthiest people tend to make the most devout Christians, seeing no harm in the extravagences such privilege bestows upon just as long as they make their charitable donations to the poor by direct debit. As they say on your side of the pond - go figure! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Sep 10 - 01:59 AM Well, you may have half a point, Suibhne. I can't see how you can say that Christianity is the foundation of capitalism. That just doesn't jive with the practice of shared resources and caring for the needs of all and renouncing individual property ownership, that are the primary aspects of the scripture passage we're discussing (Acts 4:32-32). But I do agree with your comment about "Christian Socialism," as a political party name. I'm most familiar with the Christian Socialist Union of Germany, which is quite right-wing and capitalist; but it's my understanding that there are Christian Socialists in other European countries who are just as right-wing. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Sep 10 - 12:17 AM THAT was a stupid, and hateful post, that said absolutely NOTHING, except you think that you're hot. You're not. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 28 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM Yes Suibhne, many Socialists do go out of their way to be antagonistic towrd the Scripture. Much is the pity. Socialism is born of Secularism. The value of scripture is purely cultural, thus we might embrace them as part of an overall Secular Enlightenment that views such things in context with using them as a basis for Absolute Belief. Even an Aggressive Secularist like myself might stand in awe before Rylands Papyrus p52, but I would not endorse a belief in the supernatural as a basis for government nor the notion that some Obscure Judean Hippy Cult hung up on possessions (man) were somehow influential on a political philosophy that arose in direct resaction to industrial capitalism some 1800 years later. On the contrary, it seems the teachings of said Obscure Judean Hippy Cult were the foundantions of the very capitalism socialism arose in order to challenge, thus the very term Christian Socialism far from being tautologous is, in truth, something of an oxymoron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:57 AM Guess I'll consider that, as well, but just one question:....'WHAT???' You mean, that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, but change into different forms??...and one exit from one form to another, is 'entropy', by the observer, from the dimension being observed FROM??...and as it exits one, is born into another??...being neither created, nor destroyed??..is THAT what yer sayin'?.......... .............or not? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:25 AM Olla, Amigo! The Waters of Oblivion! The River Lethe, the River of Forgetfulness. It's an old theme and one explanation for deja'vu! To think that intelligent consciousness were existent in the stuff of the cosmic infintessimal and was somehow smelted out and forged in the universal holocaust and then further refined in the element-rendering heat and chaos of a super nova. Simmplicity moving toward complexity while obeying the rigid demands of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy! Oblivion? Indeed. It is why we seek. PS "Hi!" right back at'cha Buddy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:06 AM Slag: "If humans have a distinguishing feature aside from any physical characteristics, it is that we are religious creatures. We are going to worship something. It is what we do and what precipitates all branches of intellectual inquiry. We look for the reason, the cause and we search for the "why" of things. This leads us beyond ourselves and that is the essence religion and of humanity. In my opinion." Then again, wherever the force of life came from, before we were here, we were in, and with it. Perhaps a little 'amnesia' affected us, once we manifested, into this dimension. Perhaps where we came from, is trying to communicate something to us something....like, bring more light and life, into this dimension, and remember from where you came...... Just maybe a consideration? GfS P.S. Hi Slag! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:46 AM Yes Suibhne, many Socialists do go out of their way to be antagonistic towrd the Scripture. Much is the pity. Christianity or at least Christian scripture does not endorse any political system or form of government. That is not its intent and that is the point I have been seeking to demonstrate here. It, the conclusion drawn in the poem, is a non-sequiter. It is illogical. It only reflects an opinion and sentiment. Italy and other countries have had some success with Christian Socialism and if they had enough agreement and it seemed to work for them, fine and more power to them. Unfortuenately many have bought into Hegel, Marx, Lenin and atheism. And that is MY opinion. It is unfortunate for them because it limits whatever appeal the socialist theory may have for potential adherents. Unfortunate for their point of view, good for mine. If humans have a distinguishing feature aside from any physical characteristics, it is that we are religious creatures. We are going to worship something. It is what we do and what precipitates all branches of intellectual inquiry. We look for the reason, the cause and we search for the "why" of things. This leads us beyond ourselves and that is the essence religion and of humanity. In my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM GUEST,Suibhne Astray: " My dream is equal consideration of each and every one of us; I think if everyone gave everyone else equal consideration then we'd move another notch up the evolutionary ladder." Are you trying to start a new 'religion'?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:45 AM My dream is equal consideration of each and every one of us; I think if everyone gave everyone else equal consideration then we'd move another notch up the evolutionary ladder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: s&r Date: 27 Sep 10 - 10:58 AM The opinions of a fictional character in a novel don't really signify a great deal, whatever thoughts Steinbeck gave him... Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 27 Sep 10 - 08:58 AM Yes S. - as I questioned early on this thread, leaders of, e.g., the U.S. Socialist R. put a lot into putting Russian Orthodoxy down. But there have also been successful Christian socialist parties - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism And I haven't read Steinbeck (mentioned above) for several years, but wasn't one of his characters a preacher, or lay preacher, very critical of the free-market status quo in Grapes of Wrath..? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM is that there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that socialism is evil. There is, however, plenty in Socialism to indicate that Scripture is evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:48 AM Oh Slag,...Shhhhhh.......You sorta' hit on it......Socialism, as a political form of government, was founded, during the backlash to the industrial revolution. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Sep 10 - 05:44 AM Okay, Joe. I am not saying that the disciples did not share their stuff with one another...they did. However, Jesus, himself said that His 'Kingdom was NOT of this world'..and if that is the case, why would he be instituting a form of ideology, to which a government would/should be formed, or modeled after?? I think He was speaking in spiritual terms, rather that earthly or political terms. What the Apostles and disciples did was of their own, in response to what they 'flashed on'....and they were setting out to turn everyone on to it..remember, these guys, saw dead people raised, sick healed, food multiplied, walking on water etc. etc. and then they see they guy telling them about this stuff, and showing them, all this stuff, crucified, and come back three days later. Thomas, we are told, put his fingers in the nail and spear holes...they were blown awa-a-a-y! Now, before Jesus ascended, which they claimed to have also seen, whether He just dissipated in a cloud, or was 'lifted up' by a cloud, or even a cloud like object, (but described as a cloud -- whatever), He told them a few things. Here: 1.To love God above ALL things. 2.To Love one another 3.The 'things you saw me do, you'll be doing them, too, and even more'. 4.I'll be back for you 5.Tell every living thing about what you've seen, and they way to get through, to access His 'Kingdom'....along with a few other things. OKAY? We're on the same page?? These guys had access, and were using some pretty 'far out' power! They were walking around tapped into something rather extraordinary..so much,that BEFORE Acts 4:32-35,in Acts 3:1-6,Peter is walking into town passes a lame guy, who couldn't walk, who was begging for some spare change. So Peter looks at the guy, and, here's the account:(Hint: Peter didn't send the beggar to the clinic, all expenses paid!) (Once again, in several translations, ending with the Douay-Rheims, 'Catholic version').... New American Standard Bible (©1995) But Peter said, "I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene-- walk!" International Standard Version (©2008) However, Peter said, "I don't have any silver or gold, but I'll give you what I do have. In the name of Jesus the Messiah from Nazareth, walk!" GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) However, Peter said to him, "I don't have any money, but I'll give you what I do have. Through the power of Jesus Christ from Nazareth, walk!" King James Bible Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. American King James Version Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. American Standard Version But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. Bible in Basic English But Peter said, I have no silver or gold, but what I have, that I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, get up on your feet. Douay-Rheims Bible But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise, and walk. Now, when this kind of stuff is going down, do you really think, that the message was socialism????.. as an end???...or do you think that it could be that they just weren't concerned with earthly stuff, as much as this 'REALLY COOL NEW' THING, and just sold off, their crap or gave it away, to facilitate their needs, and people who needed stuff, so they could keep doing this? To all those skeptics out there: Josephus, a Jewish historian, living at the same time, who didn't particularly believe in Jesus, records some of the same accounts, not every detail, but yes, this stuff WAS going down! On top of that, 11 out of 12 Apostles were given a chance to blow off this 'new' message, or be killed....and they all blew them off, and were killed. They MUST have had something more tangible, than what has been passed down, through the pollutions of various church governments, and variations of that theme, watered down, to what people now see as 'merely religion', and denominations, thereof. Nope, they weren't about the business of setting up a political system, or organization, or model of government, but got a hold of something HEAVY, that was even a threat to Rome, the known world government....and by the way, that is still true to this day!...only difference, is that the religions, have been co-opted politically...and guess what's gone??..yep, the POWER, and the LOVE!! Absolutely The Very Warmest Regards, Guest from Sanity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 27 Sep 10 - 02:44 AM Well done, well said Ggfs! I seem to recall somewhere that Jesus talked more about money wealth and the responsibilities that go with it than he did about heaven or hell, so the snapshot of financial bliss (except for Ananias and Saphira) here in Acts would be difinitive of nothing but the local condition at that limited point in history. I have already pointed out that Paul made continuous solicitations from other Mediterranean church communities for funding for the brethren in Jerusalem. Conclussion? All was not well there financially. Why? We only have the general history of the time in that area to guide speculation. Again, Israel and especially Jerusalem was in political upheaval. Factions within Judaism were warring with each other and the entire area was destabilized to some extent. There was a tetrarchy, four rulers over the area plus the Roman overseership and the heirarchy that it included. Christians were being blamed for much of it and the governing factors were coming down hard on Christians and other breakaway groups. It was like, chaos, man! You can rightly argue that there was a socialist element at work in the Acts 4 passage but socialism did not exist. Socialism had another 1800 years to go before world economic events including the rise of capitalism and other conditions brought about it's declaration and arrival on the world stage. This was not socialism. It didn't exist. This was a closed community in survival mode for many of them or perhaps ultimately for all of them. The focus was not on internal government but on mission. I believe it is only mentioned to demonstrate what was declared earlier: that they were in accord, of one mind and heart. In light of the bulk of the NT, the Pauline doctrines in First and Second Corinthians, the church was analagous to a functioning living human being. If my body operates as a socialistic empire, thank God! It works (sort of) but it is of limited durability. No rebellions, please! Most of what the body does is on autopilot. It does not need conscious input to do the things that tend to keep it alive. There is no debate and no descention in the ranks. It is of all, one accord. Kind of how an ant colony or bee hive works. Notice the absence of conscious thought. To my way of thinking, the only way to have a perfect socialist utopia would be to have everybody lobotomized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Sep 10 - 01:00 AM OK, GfS, I would not disagree at all, that 1 Timothy 5:4 says that people should provide for their families - and that is indeed a good thing. However, that does not preclude caring for one's community and shared use and ownership of resources, an ideal clearly expressed in Acts 4:32-35. I don't see these ideals as conflicting in any way. My point, and the point expressed by WAV, is that there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that socialism is evil. Indeed, it is clear from Acts 4:32-35 that the early Christian church lived in a shared-resources community very similar to a socialist commune or kibbutz. But no, you can't accept that early Christians lived a socialist way of life. Hey, they did everything short of singing the Internationale. They shared whatever they had, and they renounced private ownership of property. -JOE- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Sep 10 - 09:51 PM I guess I could have said it this way: In socialism, there is an expectation, that everyone is expected to provide for the needs of everyone else, either in a community, or country, or even the entire world, whatever parameters you wish for it to extend. However, this is not consistent with the early Christian church, even though, as I pointed out before, that the disciples, at the time, elected to do that, because they were focused on 'spreading the Gospel', instead of amassing personal material gain. Paul, was a tent maker, makes a point of pointing that out, so he could not be accused of, making a living, from his preaching; that what he was doing, was NOT for 'profit'. If that isn't enough, I could have said it this way..from several different translations: New International Version (©1984) If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. New Living Translation (©2007) But those who won't care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers. English Standard Version (©2001) But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. New American Standard Bible (©1995) But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. International Standard Version (©2008) If anyone does not take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) If anyone doesn't take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever. King James Bible But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. American King James Version But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. American Standard Version But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. Bible in Basic English If anyone has no care for his family and those in his house, he is false to the faith, and is worse than one who has no faith. Douay-Rheims Bible But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Darby Bible Translation But if any one does not provide for his own, and specially for those of his house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than the unbeliever. English Revised Version But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. Webster's Bible Translation But if any provideth not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Weymouth New Testament But if a man makes no provision for those dependent on him, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is behaving worse than an unbeliever. World English Bible But if anyone doesn't provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. Young's Literal Translation and if any one for his own -- and especially for those of the household -- doth not provide, the faith he hath denied, and than an unbeliever he is worse. Barnes' Notes on the Bible But if any provide not for his own - The apostle was speaking 1 Timothy 5:4 particularly of the duty of children toward a widowed mother. In enforcing that duty, he gives the subject, as he often does in similar cases, a general direction, and says that all ought to provide for those who were dependent on them, and that if they did not do this, they had a less impressive sense of the obligations of duty than even the pagan had. On the duty here referred to, compare Romans 12:17 note; 2 Corinthians 8:21 note. The meaning is, that the person referred to is to think beforehand (προνοεἶ pronoei) of the probable needs of his own family, and make arrangements to meet them. God thus provides for our needs; that is, he sees beforehand what we shall need, and makes arrangements for those needs by long preparation. The food that we eat, and the raiment that we wear, he foresaw that we should need, and the arrangement for the supply was made years since, and to meet these needs he has been carrying forward the plans of his providence in the seasons; in the growth of animals; in the formation of fruit; in the bountiful harvest. So, according to our measure, we are to anticipate what will be the probable needs of our families, and to make arrangements to meet them. The words "his own," refer to those who are naturally dependent on him, whether living in his own immediate family or not. There may be many distant relatives naturally dependent on our aid, besides those who live in our own house. And specially for those of his own house - Margin, "kindred." The word "house," or "household," better expresses the sense than the word "kindred." The meaning is, those who live in his own family. They would naturally have higher claims on him than those who did not. They would commonly be his nearer relatives, and the fact, from whatever cause, that they constituted his own family, would lay the foundation for a strong claim upon him. He who neglected his own immediate family would be more guilty than he who neglected a more remote relative. He hath denied the faith - By his conduct, perhaps, not openly. He may be still a professor of religion and do this; but he will show that he is imbued with none of the spirit of religion, and is a stranger to its real nature. The meaning is, that he would, by such an act, have practically renounced Christianity, since it enjoins this duty on all. We may hence learn that it is possible to deny the faith by conduct as well as by words; and that a neglect of doing our duty is as real a denial of Christianity as it would be openly to renounce it. Peter denied his Lord in one way, and thousands do the same thing in another. He did it in words; they by neglecting their duty to their families, or their duty in their closets, or their duty in attempting to send salvation to their fellow-men, or by an openly irreligious life. A neglect of any duty is so far a denial of the faith. And is worse than an infidel - The word here does not mean an infidel, technically so called, or one who openly professes to disbelieve Christianity, but anyone who does not believe; that is, anyone who is not a sincere Christian. The word, therefore, would include the pagan, and it is to them, doubtless, that the apostle particularly refers. They acknowledged the obligation to provide for their relatives. This was one of the great laws of nature written on their hearts, and a law which they felt bound to obey. Few things were inculcated more constantly by pagan moralists than this duty. Gelgacus, in Tacitus, says, "Nature dictates that to every one, his own children and relatives should be most dear." Cicero says, "Every man should take care of his own family " - Any questions??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Sep 10 - 09:30 PM Sorry, if it came off that way...if you would have heard the tone of my voice, there would have been absolutely NO anger in it. None the less, I apologize if it sounded that way. Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Kent Davis Date: 26 Sep 10 - 09:25 PM Amen to that. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 26 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM Well, right up to the last several entries this thread has been a good debate and learning experience, then it devolved to personalities and stubbourness, methinks. The merits are rooted in the validity of one's exegesis of the scripture and the hermeneutic extrapolations. Boy, if I didn't throw you with THAT mouthful, then you are THERE dear brothers! Ok, theology then! We need to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I seldom approach a subject in an open forum such as The Mudcat, thinking I am going to change anyone's mind. What I do hope for is that I can educate or show reason for what I hold to be true. Sometimes it is just to show that other points of view are possible and even reasonable. Yeah, and I like to spout off every once in a while too, like everyone else. I find debate fun. The last thing (and sometimes it's the first thing) I get is a new perspective, a new way of looking at the issue(s): I learn something. Yes, I see some comments here as boneheaded but I try to demonstrate that with reason and logic and not name calling. Let the reader decide. I have gone back over some of my older posts in other threads and have seen some pretty boneheaded and obstinate things I have said. It's the nature of the forum; as it pretty much takes place in real time without much focused preperation, that is, we (or at least I am) are generally shooting from the hip based on what we already know and our own core values and beliefs. Now, on to other matters, I have not read WAV other than the above plus his comments here at the 'cat so I do not have anything to say about his abilities as a poet. However, as an exegete, I do find him lacking as my above posts demonstrate. Ggfs to me, seems strong on logic but, man! You use it as a club! Are you angry? What is it you hope to accomplish? What comes across is arrogance and contempt for those not as "smart" as you or however as smart as you perceive yourself to be. You ARE smart, you know. You don't have to club down others to prove it. Sorry, if I have offended anyone, by the way. Not on this thread at any rate!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:03 PM Stick to poetry, then. Your analysis, on Acts4:32-35, makes no reason....or rhyme. I think it was just a way for you to interject an 'off the wall' political comment....and Jesus' statements, were NOT endorsing any political agenda! ...especially anything, or premise of, or about the Tea Party, nor backlash towards or political upheaval. If anything, we are in the mess we are in now, because, as so often the case, 'History teaches us that man NEVER learns from history!'...nor hardly even studies it, without using it to put a 'spin' on it!..to further, yet, another stupid idea! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: s&r Date: 26 Sep 10 - 02:24 PM WAV has posted over 20000 samples of his poetry according to google. That means that each posting has "attracted"" a couple of curious browsers. How many I wonder are regular readers? Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: s&r Date: 26 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM God and the UN forbid Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: michaelr Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM God forbid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM "Why don't YOU do something that you expect everybody else to do???" (GfS)...they don't have to, of course, but, according to web stats, thousands have read at least some WalkaboutsVerse, and, God willing, one day soon it will be millions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Sep 10 - 06:27 PM That last post, has risen to the utmost heights of absurdity! Instead of bashing EVERYTHING allegedly 'liberal', just check your own deal, and see if it falls in line. So many 'progressive libs' want to set policies how OTHER people should behave, while being totally self centered, opinionated doers of NOTHING, except, of course, bitch! Why don't YOU do something that you expect everybody else to do??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM "I don't think that Acts 4:32-35 was telling people how to vote today. But it does put modern day "Christian" Tea Party followers who equate Socialism, Evil and Obama on shaky ground." (Jack)...no "Gapes of Wrath" (Steinbeck) at the Tea Party, then! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Kent Davis Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:20 PM Joe Offer, I could hardly begin to say how much I appreciate all that you do, so please don't take this as a personal dig. You say that we are "dancing around trying to prove that Acts 4:32-35 says something other than it does". What, Joe? What do you think I am trying to prove? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:26 PM Joe, First of all, I'm not criticizing the Catholic Church as a whole, but rather illustrating that the interpretation of the scripture in question, is NOT the way the Vatican sees it.....and yes, we do have homeless people where we live, not a lot, though, and one less, because we have taken him in, and he is living in the rental unit, above the garage, rent free, though he would do some minor chores, and my son employs him, when he has work for him. His name is Matthew. Hey, how'd you like the clips from 'Brother Sun, Sister Moon'?? I originally saw it at a 'drive-in', in '72. I then went and invited EVERYONE I knew, and paid for them to see it..for free! Sincerely, Guest from Sanity P.S. Thank you for replying! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:13 PM Sanity says:
As for the food and lodging, most of the menu items seem quite Spartan, and the bedrooms look like monks' cells. I had lunch in Rome with a monsignor (now a bishop) who worked in Cardinal Ratzinger's office. He took me to a pizza place two blocks from the Vatican, within view of the entrance to the Vatican garage. I didn't see lavish cars going through the gate. They were mostly the little cars you see all over Rome, and a few cars that looked like taxicabs. Yes, you see beggars around the Vatican, just as you will see them in many tourist locations in Europe. You will also find that Rome has Catholic programs set up to help the homeless and needy. And no, the services do not adequately fill the need. Sanity, do you have no homeless people where you live? Have you never been to Europe to see the Mercedes taxicabs and buses? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:27 PM No Jack, it puts us ALL to shame! By the way, 100 GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:05 PM I don't think that Acts 4:32-35 was telling people how to vote today. But it does put modern day "Christian" Tea Party followers who equate Socialism, Evil and Obama on shaky ground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM Anyone who has been to the Vatican, will note the opulence, and wealth, of the place....gold, marble, finest woods and paintings, private security force, Mercedes-Benz limousines, finest fabrics, their own bank, top notch food, prepared by world class chefs........................................................................................................................................................................and Catholic beggars just outside the gates. Surely, if the Pope is infallible, and that was Jesus had in mind, would he have overlooked that???? Instead, you have the poorest of people making donations, sometimes of their last amounts, just to light a votive candle, for a deceased loved one, in hopes they can get them out of 'Purgatory'. Karl Marx said "If I had two men, Francis of Assisi, and (St.)Paul of Tarsus, he could have taken over Russia, and Western Europe, and never fire a shot" In 1972, a film on Francis of Assisi, "Brother Sun, Sister Moon", by Franco Zeffirelli, Francis goes to the Vatican, to 'ask Pope Innocent III's advice. This scene, taken from Vatican archives, depicts that meeting. The scroll Francis begins to read, was a prepared statement, by his friend, Paulo, who was able to arrange the meeting, at great risk. Music for the film was done by Donavan The composer Leonard Bernstein had originally been approached to provide a score but the plans fell through. The film is also known for the score composed by Riz Ortolani. St. Francis of Assisi before the Pope ..and part two, to be fair..... The film is worth seeing, in it's entirety. In closing, I've heard it once said, "Religion is man's way of reaching God.....Jesus Christ, was God's way of reaching man" Guest from Sanity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:08 AM Joe O, I consider you a friend in the Lord, bear with me: a big difference between Catholic and Protestant theology comes down to the question of how we view grace and I suspect that our posts do have a little backwash over that basic difference. Briefly stated, many Protestants believe that there is no act or deed a human can do that will effect the salvation of one's soul. We see Christ as having paid the entire bill for all Mankind and the debt with Heaven is forever cancelled (John 3:17-21, John 5:24 and Rom 5:15-21, 8:1-28 among others). That only leaves the question of what you will do with the pardon which is offered to you in the person of Jesus Christ. It is completely personal and one-on-one with Christ himself. Do you surrender your living death and accept the new life in Christ or do you go your own way saying that you are good enough to impress God and gain His favor on your own. Are you saying "Savior? Your Son? We don' neeed no ----Savior!" to paraphrase an old movie. The Roman Catholic Church has what Protestants see as "works" which garner or warrant merit with God. These are the sacraments which include baptism, confession, marriage and extreem unction among others. And Joe, yes, my bias is a mile wide here, I admit and I am sure I gave you the short end of the deal. I hope you will give a much better picture from your point of view. I welcome your comments. But regardless of either point of view I think you must admit that the RCC is NOT endorsing any political system over another and especially not socialism. The temporal governments the RCC has historically been involved with are monarchies and indeed the Vatican heirarchy is setup to reflect the divine monarchy of God Himself, is it not? I think the very Church which you represent to us would tend to come down on my side of this argument rather than yours, but then, that is just my opinion. But that does tend to put it all back in the arena of Cristianity and not in the provence of human ideology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:38 AM Ah, you guys are sure doing the hokey-pokey here, dancing around trying to proved that Acts 4:32-35 says something other than it does. It's clear the the early Christians lived by socialist principles, sharing their resources and taking care of the needs of all:
It certainly fits the dictionary definition of socialism. You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out....That's what it's all about! -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Kent Davis Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:27 PM Slag, I just re-read all of your posts in succession. I appreciate your clarity, your insightful analysis, and your breadth of knowledge. Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Slag Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:19 PM Yes Kent, yes Ggfs, elsewhere in Acts (Ch 2) it says that they had all met in prayer in the Upper Room. They were of one mind and in one accord. Believe me, it wasn't a Union meeting. It wasn't a poltical meeting. By it's very definition, this is NOT what politcs is about. Nor was it for the establishment of a Utopia. It was a board meeting to fill a position and it was for guidance and direction. Peter gave the inspirational speech which was preceeded by a unique Holy Spirit demonstration (often immitated but never duplicated). Acts 4:32-35 is excerpted out of this context. The disciples' goal was to "spread the gospel", that is to say the "Good News" of what Jesus Christ had done for sinful Mankind and IT SURE WASN'T TO SET UP A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT! They encountered practical problems in doing so and they were attempting to take care of those problems that were preventing the accomplishment of their mission. Church organization and government are addressed elsewhere in the scriptures, most notably in First and Second Timothy. This is, itself a most interesting and enlightening topic, the history and development of the primitive and early church(es), the rise of Catholocism, Church doctrine, classical heresies and etc. But honest folks, that is NOT what is going on in Acts 4:32-35. That passage has been TEXT LIFTED (a technical term) and co-opted by a socialist to lend color and credence to a human ideology that was completely unknown to people of Saint Peter's day. Indeed, if one were to have voiced such an idea or promoted such an idea at this time they would have immediately run afoul of the Roman Empire. And to preclude the argument that that was exactly what happened to the early church, it wasn't. The early church was seen by the Romans as an offshoot of Judasim and an internal problem to Judasim. Judaism saw Jesus as a blasphemer and the early church as a problem that would draw Rome more into the affairs of Israel and therefore a threat to what remaind of stability and independence. After Paul's arrest (which was quite some years after the miracle of Pentecost), his arguments before the Tetrachy of Israel and the one that mattered most was the fact that he was a Roman Citizen, period. History denies what this little "poem" purports to be true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Acts 4:32-35 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM Socialism isn't about trading, profit is not the goal. The political "unit" during Jesus's day was the Roman empire. |
