|
|
Post by phantasman on Sept 7, 2013 11:21:07 GMT -5
If Acts is correct, does it kill?
Ananias and his wife supposedly die in front of Peter because they lied (about money to the church). Written by Luke, are we to believe that the Holy Ghost took their lives for lying? Even Peter had lied about knowing Christ.
Acts 5:
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
Does this seem like what God wanted his church to feel? Fear?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Sept 8, 2013 21:48:27 GMT -5
I would say that Acts is not correct. Unless God is a hypocrite, breaking His own rules----and I just can't see that happening. As always, your milage may vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Sept 10, 2013 11:55:03 GMT -5
Paul supposedly blinded a man for a season also. I always thought Christ said to use the spirit to make men see.
Side note to James:
Do you find the coincidence that the "Dark Ages", the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe after the fall of Rome, existed basically in parallel years to the hijacking of the Bible by the Catholics in Latin? Once the Bible was translated out of Latin, man began once again to move forward in growth and discovery (around 1400).
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Sept 10, 2013 18:25:09 GMT -5
I wouldn't doubt at all that the Catholic church clinging to every shred of power they could grasp was largely responsible for the dark ages.
I've heard it took bubonic plague to break the church's stranglehold over Europe. I always thought that was interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 10, 2013 19:43:33 GMT -5
I've heard it took bubonic plague to break the church's stranglehold over Europe. I always thought that was interesting. That might sound nice, but was it really true? Luther didn't come for another 200 years and only then did we see a break from Roman Catholicism and the beginning of another tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by waywardwanderer on Sept 10, 2013 23:42:25 GMT -5
The killing doesn't sound right to me, like Soulgazer said it doesn't fit. As to the dark ages thing, there was a large multitude of factors that went into creating the social conditions of Europe after the collapse of the western empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Sept 11, 2013 5:46:01 GMT -5
Scholarship has recently come out on the side of "Acts" being late second century. I have been saying that it is even later than that, or at the very least that there were multiple versions. It wasn't included in Marcion's cannon, which I would find very strange indeed if he were familiar with it. I firmly suspect that "Acts" is an homoginization put together by Jerome in the fourth century.
The "Dark ages" is a pretty complicated study in itself, as is the political hold of the Roman Catholic church on europe. Secretary of War Stanton firmly belived that they were behind the assassination of president Lincoln, which though may not speak to the reality of events, certainly speaks to the fear of the church that remained strong into the nineteenth century.
|
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 11, 2013 7:53:11 GMT -5
I agree with the late assessment of Acts and would include Luke in it. Not sure I'd push it as far forward as you do Soulgazer but certainly sometime mid 2nd century seems feasible.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Sept 11, 2013 17:17:20 GMT -5
I've heard it took bubonic plague to break the church's stranglehold over Europe. I always thought that was interesting. That might sound nice, but was it really true? Luther didn't come for another 200 years and only then did we see a break from Roman Catholicism and the beginning of another tyranny. I don't know if it's true or not, since I never really studied that period in much depth  |
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 11, 2013 20:26:50 GMT -5
That might sound nice, but was it really true? Luther didn't come for another 200 years and only then did we see a break from Roman Catholicism and the beginning of another tyranny. I don't know if it's true or not, since I never really studied that period in much depth My studies of Sweden taught me that the Lutherans were far worse than the Catholics that preceded them. Your mileage might vary. In any case, the church was firmly established long after Luther, just a different flavor. |
|
|
|
Post by g_n_o_s_i_s on Sept 11, 2013 22:08:57 GMT -5
... the church was firmly entrenched ...
|
|
x141
New Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by x141 on Oct 9, 2015 6:21:41 GMT -5
The interesting thing about things such as this is that you must take someone else's word that what you were not there to experience first hand is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 14, 2015 13:07:31 GMT -5
The interesting thing about things such as this is that you must take someone else's word that what you were not there to experience first hand is true. You don't really have to take anyone's word. The truth teachings are much larger than men want to see. In a large picture, the Holy Spirit (every time it is mentioned) is a nurturing spiritual entity of truth. It doesn't fight ignorance, it fills us and ignorance flee's (or dissipates) as it has no place in us. Truth through knowledge and ignorance cannot exist together. If the Holy Spirit killed, would it not break the laws of the Torah? The very same Torah Jesus fulfilled? Would this not give the impression that Peter need be feared as well? I do not believe the Father, whom the Holy Spirit and Son are of, ever killed (murdered?) anyone. If the Father killed, he would not be perfect, which he is. That would show lack of patience, and love IS patience. The Father cares not for the body, but the soul that the spirit saves. In the big picture, the Holy Spirit is the extension of a perfect Father in our mind/soul,only given by Jesus after he was glorified. Jesus told us to fear the one who could destroy body and soul (Father), but he was comparing the fear of the god who spoke of fear of the (physical) body, the norm of the Hebrew scriptures. |
|
x141
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by x141 on Oct 17, 2015 7:38:19 GMT -5
A question is birthed out of an answer in us, to ask another for it, is like asking someone else for your opinion.
To me, there has never been a time where God (for a lack of a better word, being that it is we who fill this word with the truth that it is) has not filled all things. Are the words of the bible true, or a lie? it is the reality/wandering of a tree forbidden, but God is past the holy place, which was never about a truth without us, though by it becomes the truth we live in.
The story of these two was the anti of the story of one (with all it's prose), it's another replay of something that comes out of the side, another picture of the revealing of our nakedness (speaking strictly as to what this means in relationship to self in the language (which is in picture form) found in the Bible, but not held as if it were exclusively of this.
As for me, When Jesus spoke of fear, he spoke to them in the place where they were at in the journey in (just as the words to the rich young ruler (that Jesus loved) that sent him away cast down, the place that in one light is the place of Passover. He was preaching the soul, which is the kingdom of God, but only found to be as living in a land that is our own when found in us, which in another form is as the garden that is enclosed.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 17, 2015 15:51:59 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum X141.
Your posts seem to be speaking in riddles. It would behoove to speak in a translated or translatable image or at least simplify for our sakes.
|
|
