Jesus wasn't all that interested in the physically poor, he was far more focused on the poor in spirit. The poor in spirit recognize their spiritual inability and are utterly dependent on him for salvation.
The disciples made a voluntary decision to share. It was done out of a spiritual commitment. That is nowhere near the same thing as a third party taking from some people by force in order to give those assets to someone else based upon the administrator's preference. Yet, we often hear arguments saying that the one means we all ought to agree to the second.So the early disciples were wrong: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."
It appears that you've made the same mistake others have made, in thinking that a voluntary decision to share...and that it's done out of a spiritual commitment...is the same as a third party taking from some people by force in order to give those assets to someone else based upon the administrator's preference. It's not the same.
Trump has no respect for the guardrails of our society ... witness him sitting in a weekend meeting discussing the possibility of imposing martial law because he doesn't like the result of the election.And what were your issues with Trump besides I imagine his personality? Do you not like any things he accomplished at President? Why do you feel Biden and Harris will be better for us?
Oh Lord ... he would have let us all die from COVID ...What this country needed was Ron Paul, but did not happen.
No, ... he wouldn't. You sound like Trump ... "He's going to ... kill God.""Joe Biden would promote transgenderism to our little ones, allow eight year old's to acquire a sex change, encourage the most perverted legislation that any society has ever known, silence all Bible believing churches, mock God, and kill children at 9-months, "
There is a difference between having the power of life and death, ... and being willing to step in and do what you can.Interesting how the government is in control of your life, and has the power of life and death over you.
That passage in no way indicates that believers must give up their worldly possessions or that government should take their possessions form them to redistribute to a collective. It is merely an example of what some early believers did, it is not a commandment of the Christian faith. Had it been, it would have clearly stated as such. As it stands, if the passage were a command ot contradicts the entirety of scripture and Jesus own behavior and teaching. Jesus taught private property, many of the heroes of the Old Testament were fabulously wealthy (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David etc.) Jesus did not rebuke Martha for anointing his feet with oil and he did rebuke Judas for criticizing such. Jesus upholds private property and freedom of contract in the parable of the workers in field.So the early disciples were wrong: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."
Today most scholars say this passage is dogma because no believer would do this they say which just shows how far out of touch modern Christianity is to early Christain thoughts and actions!
There is a difference between having the power of life and death, ... and being willing to step in and do what you can.
Remember the Good Samaritan ...
I don't understand the disconnect. Is not the government run by men/Do not see the connection to the good samaritan and government.
Jesus did not come to give life to government and to have government as a follower or disciple.
I don't understand the disconnect. Is not the government run by men/
women ?
Also, has not God ordained governments for good ? Romans 14
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Also, did not God direct Israel's theocratic government to make provision for the benefit of the people ?
Leviticus 23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap all the way to the edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the foreign resident. I am the LORD your God.’ ”
Paul says that God has ordained governments for the good of their people. (Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to you for good.)On to government, so this corrupt institution can do your caring and good deeds for you.
Paul says that God has ordained governments for the good of their people. (Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to you for good.)
Do you disagree with Paul ?
If the US government (and/or various state and local governments) are striving to save the lives of their people from COVID, would God have you support that effort ... or not ?
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resists that power, resists the ordinance of God:
Well, for one, the struggle to conquer COVID is not just a function of the government, but also of the society (made up of people, christian and not), at large ...Paul is speaking to the believer being a good citizen and not participating in criminal activities, or in an effort to try and over throw the government.
So how does Romans 13 equate to government and the good samaritan. show me the connection
About the bolded portion above: Jesus didn't seem to think that charity should be left up to "if you want to or not" He said people were going to be sent to hell for not doing it. Does that sound voluntary to you?Redwingfan: That passage in no way indicates that believers must give up their worldly possessions or that government should take their possessions form them to redistribute to a collective. It is merely an example of what some early believers did, it is not a commandment of the Christian faith. Had it been, it would have clearly stated as such. As it stands, if the passage were a command ot contradicts the entirety of scripture and Jesus own behavior and teaching. Jesus taught private property, many of the heroes of the Old Testament were fabulously wealthy (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David etc.) Jesus did not rebuke Martha for anointing his feet with oil and he did rebuke Judas for criticizing such. Jesus upholds private property and freedom of contract in the parable of the workers in field.
JS: Actually they were fully expecting Christ to return any day now. Earthly possessions pale in comparison. Yet how much of what we own is extraneous? Going through our stuff at least once a year to clean away the extra and give what we no longer need to those who may need this is what the above passage is teaching us. Its teaching our possessions do not belong to us, we are but temporary dwellers on this earth.
It would not hurt modern Christianity to behave as if He really is at the door, because one day, He will be!
Redwingfan: With all of this in mind, Acts 4 does not teach Christian communism nor does it make poverty a requirement for faith. Instead Acts 4 was specific to one particular event, namely a meeting in Jerusalem that went longer than anticipated. Those who had food and shelter freely gave to those who did not bring enough. That teaches charity among believers (not the world) and fits with passages about the church and deacons being required to look after widows indeed (ie widows who were truly destitute, without family willing to care for them. At the time the widows were likely converts whose Jewish or pagan family disowned them). Reading Acts 4 together with these passages makes clear that Christians should care for other Christians who are destitute or struggling. It is a matter of voluntary charity, one to be overseen broadly by the deacons.
JS: Its not limited to other Christians, because by helping the unsaved, we just might bring them salvation through our action. Also, if Christians were really doing what they claim all Christianity should do, liberals would not have a leg to stand on. (emph. added)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?