Finds county for each zipcode, city or township name in Ohio.

Try The Word Game!

Test your knowledge of The Holy Bible!

http://www.TheWordgame.com


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <132.57.13.05.721083000@srcbs.org>, Mike Rhodes says...
>

[snip]

>Verse 4 does weaken my conclusion,

It does much more than just 'weaken'. It _completely_ overturns your conclusion.
It proves beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that Ananias was punished for
lying to the Holy Spirit.

All the 'doubts' you cast on this conclusion are highly unreasonable.

> but if there wasn't some reason for
>debate then it would be too easily rejected.

What _are _ you talking about here?

> The liar I think I see
>would want to put something in to give it an edge of truth.

What rash, irrelevant speculation is THIS?

>But I see little justification for such an immediate and public
>response by the Spirit.

IT is a fool's errant to seek out justifications for what God does. He knows
what He is doing, you do not. Deal with it.

>In Acts 5, the Holy Soirit has become an
>executioner. This passage stands alone in that regard, so it should
>not surprise anyone, including the Holy Spirit (another Comforter),
>that it would be questioned.

And it also should not surprise anyone that someone who _does_ this questioning
has to be either a fool or a God-hater.

>The story is about giving all one's property away for the church, and
>lying about doing so.

No. It is about being so tainted by greed that while others give up all their
property, Ananias _pretended_ to do so, but not only failed to do so, but even
lied to the Holy Spirit as part of his hypocritical fraud.

[snip]
>Only Luke (not an apostle)

What do you _mean_ "not an apostle"? He was not one of the 12, but we do not
have a list of the 70. WHy are you so sure he wasn't included in the 70?

> taught a gospel that stressed such a
>politic.

No, that is not what he stressed.

> His sermon on the mount is _different_ than Matthew's.

But you misread what the difference is.

>Matthew and Mark included the story (or someone put it in), but did
>not expand on this thought. John (rather proud of his position with
>respect to Christ?) did not teach this. So there is sufficient reason
>to doubt it.

That depends on what you _really_ mean by "teach this". If you mean being
thoughtful to the poor, as you say below, then you are wrong: John _did_ teach
it. But he taught it not by quoting Jesus teaching it, but by narrating what