New Chapter: Very appropriate video.
I think we've all seen these people on this board who believe christ speaks and teaches them and only cherry pick bible verses and twist them to suit their own belief. I usually don't comment on threads where they yammer on as the idiocy of it makes me feel as if I'm visiting a mental institution.
Killing Ananias and Sapphira
by irondork 313 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
ZeusRocks
-
elderelite
Yea when we say thor is flexable we usually mean he dosent have a huge book of laws or anything, he just wants you to be you.
But since tammy is back, ill be serious again: I hate to jump around because i want to pursue the whole not having a direct translation thing also, but a question occurs to me... You say we agree on the point that god didnt kill the two in question... I dont actually think we do. You seem to assume that i dont think god is real, ergo he didnt kill them, and that you dont think he killed him because they died of a different cause, ergo we agree.
Thats flawed in the fact that i think the account is very clear that god did kill them. But to wit, my question: if you accept from the account that there was two people, a husband and wife, who sold a field and then lied about the price and that peter nkted their deaths, if you accept those facts from the account, then why not the premise that god killed them which seems very clear in its causality in the same account?
-
tec
You say we agree on the point that god didnt kill the two in question... I dont actually think we do. You seem to assume that i dont think god is real, ergo he didnt kill them, and that you dont think he killed him because they died of a different cause, ergo we agree.
That was addressed to NC. I don't personally know what you believe, so I would not be able to comment on it.
But to wit, my question: if you accept from the account that there was two people, a husband and wife, who sold a field and then lied about the price and that peter nkted their deaths,
Was that a typo?
In any case, I'm following you (except for what you wrote about Peter)
if you accept those facts from the account, then why not the premise that god killed them which seems very clear in its causality in the same account?
Because a) it goes against what Christ showed about His Father... and then b) while there does seem to be causality from Peter announcing they they lied about the HS, and them dying... there is nothing to state that God killed them. Since that goes against Christ (his image), and there are other possible causes, then I have no reason to believe such a thing.
Consider that if one deigns to believe in even the possibility of God and spirits and eveything that world, realm, etc, might entail... then some of those other reasons carry weight. Including the possibility that their flesh might have given out when their spirits did as well.
Peace,
tammy
-
tec
The following is an article on sudden death, that nbc covered. It is the first thing I got when I googled, so I'm gonna keep looking. But it does happen.
http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/10/27/4380033-can-you-really-be-scared-to-death?lite
Peace,
tammy
-
NewChapter
Tec, I think everyone here has agreed that this can happen. Now I'd have to see the original study to make a sound judgement on this article, as it was only a review, but it said it was incredibly rare and that only a few people in a million are prone---I don't know what a few means (?) so you see the problem of reading a quick article on what may have been an intensive study.
so---the possiblity is there. Nobody has ever debated that. But considering how RARE it is. It seems that jumping to this conclusion is like hearing hoof beats and looking for zebras instead of horses.
So let's break it down.
Extreme fear or another intense emotion. A few per million.
You are saying that this happened twice, in just 3 hours, to two people who were married. Not like twice in 3 hours to 2 people spread out somewhere, but two people who were in the same house, they just dropped dead. And remember, Peter told S that she was going to die before she did. That's a pretty outrageous prediction considering how rare this event is. In fact, from his scriptures and own personal experience, Peter would have known of many people that committed similar sins that didn't just drop dead. So why would he make such an outlandish prediction?
Consider Judas. Peter witnessed his betrayal first hand. Satan had entered Judas's heart (as Peter said it had entered A & S heart) and he actually betrayed the son of god. Jesus called him out on it----TWICE. Once at the passover, and later when Judas kissed him. And yet Judas did not drop dead. Not then and not later. And Judas had lied to right to Jesus's face. So nothing in Peter's experience led him to think that if a person lied to god he would simply drop dead. Yet that is the prediction he made, and that is what happened.
Why? Why would he assume this? It almost never happens, and had not happened to Judas. What did Peter know that made him believe such a thing was even possible----twice? I think he had to know something about CAUSE. He already knew this was not a natural and inevitable phenomena. Get it? It wasn't a 'given'. But he was quite confident that this exceedingly rare event would happen again. So what was the CAUSE? That's the issue. If Judas didn't drop dead, then we can't say it is automatic when someone is called out for lying to god. If in the almost impossible event that this really rare thing did happen twice in a few hours, then Peter would not have been able to predict it. Yet he did predict it, which means he knew the cause.
So what was the cause? Was it Peter? Did Peter kill them? Was it Satan? He hadn't killed Judas. Was it an angel? Well those are directed by God. What cause had the power to bring about the sudden and predicted death from an incredibly rare phenomena twice and on cue?
-
Theocratic Sedition
Even though the Scriptural account implies that God struck down Ananias and Sapphira, the Law & Order SVU episode watching side of me can't help but conclude that Peter and his henchmen probably killed the couple. It would make perfect sense from a criminal aspect, and also set a precedent for how the Church would operate from then on. Not to mention the incident fits in harmony with what we know about Peter's personality. What Tammy said regarding Christ's portrayal of his Father resonates with me after reading something from another blog regarding this account.
Peter appears to be the Capo according to this account, but considering the circumcision issue and Paul's missionary work, Peter's not the only one with influence. Those early Christians faced persecution, as well as dissention within their ranks which did eventually result in a fragmentation of the Church, dissolving what little unity they probably had. Before this happens, Peter was probably all too aware and seeking ways to maintain Cosa Nostra(Our Thing). Just like the WT today will eat their own before allowing any dissention which they fear could lead to disunity, Peter was willing to go to whatever extent necessary to maintain unity. So when Ananias came up short with the dough, Peter said, "hell no! You gotta go!" So he killed the husband first, with no witnesses, or at least no witnesses that would expose his hand, possibly even giving him a hand. Did the same to the wife, and told his henchmen to spread the word that this is what happens when you lie to God. Just like the Watchtower and God are synonomous to the average JW, the same it was with Peter and The Lord.
After it was all said and done, Peter was able to control the faithful through fear as well as maintaining an income. Even when Peter wasn't around, this event probably had the people so shook and paranoid that they did his bidding anyway. To this day organized religion operates the same way, including cults like Scientology. The other thing is God striking down Ananias and Sapphira fits perfectly in harmony with the God in the Old Testament. It doesn't however fit in with Christ's representation of God, but it does fit Peter's personality. Brash, hot-headed, distrustful of people, overly concerned with how viewed by others, etc.. I'm just thinking out loud, but I think Peter and his outfit were responsible for the couple's death.
-
NewChapter
Those are good points TS! Wasn't it Peter who had the brass to lop off a soldiers ear, even when his little group was powerless and outgunned? I think we've narrowed this down to Peter or God. Those are the top suspects.
-
elderelite
Well stated miz, but that is besides the point really. I am saying the bible indicates a very clear causeality. If it were not for their blashmeing the HS, they wouldnt have died. Clear causeality. Tammy says, hold on, thats not the christ i know, even though its in the bible. What you are suggesting is that a man empowered by the HS to perform mericles and was a direct handpicked apostle whacked them.
Im not sure which is worse.
-
tec
NC, BBC has a report that roughly 500 people every year die in the UK due to SADS. (Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome) I think slang is sudden adult death syndrome, because there can be causes other than heart failure... so sort of like SIDS, but for adults.
You are saying that this happened twice, in just 3 hours, to two people who were married.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that it could have. Rare or not, especially if you add in other factors.
At the same time, there are times when people had just dropped dead, and then that was attributed to God as some divine punishment. Sort of like when some would think that God was punishing someone if something bad happened to them. Or that God was mad at a nation and punishing them, if they lost a war... or happy with them and rewarding them if they won a war.
And remember, Peter told S that she was going to die before she did. That's a pretty outrageous prediction considering how rare this event is. In fact, from his scriptures and own personal experience, Peter would have known of many people that committed similar sins
that didn't just drop dead.
The only sin that would not be forgiven was against the HS. Others wrote that once you had (as A&S had) and turned away from Christ, then there was NO more covering for their sins. How then would they have life? Different situations from past.
So why would he make such an outlandish prediction?
I don't know... why?
Perhaps he expected it would happen to the wife because of what happened to the husband? Perhaps it did not happen as written at all? Perhaps it was a huge coincidence? Perhaps they both died, and later it was attributed that Peter had predicted or called it upon them?
Perhaps he simply knew what was going to happen, and spoke to that, without ever having caused it in any way to begin with, other than to call them on their lie.
Lots of explanations.
Consider Judas. Peter witnessed his betrayal first hand. Satan had entered Judas's heart (as Peter said it had entered A & S heart) and he actually betrayed the son of god. Jesus called him out on it----TWICE. Once at the passover, and later when Judas kissed him.
And yet Judas did not drop dead. Not then and not later. And Judas had lied to right to Jesus's face. So nothing in Peter's experience led him to think that if a person lied to god he would simply drop dead. Yet that is the prediction he made, and that is what
happened.
Well, first and important: a)... consider that Christ did not kill Judas for his betrayal, and that should lead you to understand how I can say that He did not kill A &S, and so God did not kill A&S.
Then b)... Judas had not received holy spirit. That happened later at Pentecost, and he was not there.
Having received Life (Christ) within oneself, then denying that life... perhaps that was a bit too much for the flesh to bear, at least for A & S. Rare or not. So there is one possible CAUSE that you might consider, along with the other possibilities.
Peace,
tammy
-
tec
((Miz))
Been thinking about you! I missed you. Glad to see you are still here :)
It is possible with Peter, being brash sometimes and quick to temper, to have acted on those emotions. But that doesn't mean it WAS him, and it always feels wrong to accuse someone without evidence (and this would all be highly circumstantial); especially when there are other explanations. And it might also just have been a rumor that started out as something smaller, that spread around (and probably like wildfire because fear tends to do that)... especially since Luke's books were written based a lot on investigation and eyewitness testimony and interviews, and also things that he saw.
But thank you! I am glad that (whether you agree or not) you can see that it does not fit with what Christ showed of God. That is an important truth to see, and to understand.
Peace and love to you,
tammy