On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Mike Rhodes
wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:04:24 +0000 (UTC), Douglas Cox
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 9 May 2005 13:26:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Rhodes
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 7 May 2005 18:07:47 +0000 (UTC), MyName wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think I've found a few, and will name one.
>>>>
>>>>In your original post you indicated there are other verses you
>>>>find to be problenatic. I'd be interested to hear which ones &
>>>>why if you'd care to share.
>>>
>>>Luke's rendition of the sermon on the mount is notably different from
>>>Matthew's, and it is apparently politically motivated; to the point of
>>>social war of the poor against the rich. Only Luke's gospel carries
>>>this tone throughout. The exception being the already mentioned "eye
>>>of the needle"story also found in Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark
>>>are not so socialistic as Luke. That story sticks out from the rest
>>>of their books like a sore thumb, without context.
>>> Note that Luke is assumed to have also written Acts. There is no
>>>such social war in the gospel. The one exception of such venting of
>>>hate to the rich is the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5. Peter
>>>is said to have watched over it. But I do not believe it, nor the
>>>story as written. They sold their property, kept some of the money,
>>>supposedly lied about selling it for the amount they're giving (as if
>>>that would be so important to the church), and then are effectively
>>>murdered by the Spirit before Peter, apparently consenting to their
>>>deaths. How often does one hear this story practicably used? It is
>>>an act of hate, as was the writing of that story.
>>
>>Lying to God's apostle and to the Holy Spirit proved to be a fatal
>>mistake. The story has provided fair warning to many generations of
>>Christians.
>
>The story is not about lieing. But about giving all one's property
>away, and not wanting to do that, and being punished for not doing
>that.
>

Yes, it is a story about two people who lied to the Holy Spirit. Most
people have no difficulty understanding that.

>The lie seems in self-defense, and not intended to take advantage of
>anyone. It only weakly implies that they wanted prestige from the
>gift not given. It is Peter who supposedly presses for the
>information, and not an act of bragging by the giver. The lie only
>seems to validate the story resulting in death.

Your failure to comprehend the straightforward account in Acts