Are you saying the New Testament means nothing since we have the Old Testament? Lol. Why do you think He sent His only Son to this earth? It certainly wasn't to be a politician that supports socialism.

 

Yes, it means nothing, it's made up. I don't believe in any of it. But you do. You believe. So now the question is posed back to you, does the word of God, your Lord, in a direct quote of two paragraphs long, mean nothing to you just because He spoke the words before he sent his son?

I thunk it's most relevant that they gave, and weren't taxed. I also think it's very relevant that they gave to the church and not the government.

 

It doesn't say they gave to the church. And, don't forget the verse in the next chapter where god strikes two people down for only "sharing" a portion.

Yes, it means nothing, it's made up. I don't believe in any of it. But you do. You believe. So now the question is posed back to you, does the word of God, your Lord, in a direct quote of two paragraphs long, mean nothing to you just because He spoke the words before he sent his son?

 

No, it's not made up.

 

You don't believe so you can't understand why the New Testament changed everything. And please, stop pretending you're not trying to have a "gotcha" moment, that's exactly what you're trying to do in the above quote. If sending Jesus to save us didn't change anything in the Old Testament, what would be the point?

Shared, not taxed.

 

Huge difference.

 

Not to liberals, as long as it's OTHERS sharing.

Jesus didn't categorically say anything about what his followers should vote for or try to accomplish by means of government. Jesus taught generosity and charity, not government assistance. Now, saying that, I don't have a problem with reasonable government assistance, I do have a problem with Bernie's version of it through socialism.

The thrust of Jesus' message is to help the needy. It makes no difference whether this assistance comes from a faith community, a government food-stamp program or proceeds from a statewide lottery. The "spirit" of assistance is what is Christ-like ... not the "vehicle" of assistance.

The thrust of Jesus' message is to help the needy. It makes no difference whether this assistance comes from a faith community, a government food-stamp program or proceeds from a statewide lottery. The "spirit" of assistance is what is Christ-like ... not the "vehicle" of assistance.

 

Giving of free will, helping others because you care. Not being forced. Jesus taught generosity, Jesus taught charity. Jesus didn't teach socialism. Forcing someone to give isn't giving. Forcing someone to help isn't helping. There's no effort being made. Self-sacrifice for others is what Jesus taught.

I get some of your point, the problem is government bureaucracy is so abused that it's the poorest way to do anything to help others.

Giving of free will, helping others because you care. Not being forced. Jesus taught generosity, Jesus taught charity. Jesus didn't teach socialism. Forcing someone to give isn't giving. Forcing someone to help isn't helping. There's no effort being made. Self-sacrifice for others is what Jesus taught.

I get some of your point, the problem is government bureaucracy is so abused that it's the poorest way to do anything to help others.

"Render unto Caesar ..." shoots down your free-will argument. The more this government -- any government -- helps the neediest among us, the more the society that government represents becomes more Christ-like.

No, it's not made up.

 

You don't believe so you can't understand why the New Testament changed everything. And please, stop pretending you're not trying to have a "gotcha" moment, that's exactly what you're trying to do in the above quote. If sending Jesus to save us didn't change anything in the Old Testament, what would be the point?

 

You are dodging the question.

The evidence is solid that Jesus and those who started the Jesus Movement were communalists. If you have evidence indicating otherwise, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, it simply appears that you are among those who have a tough time reconciling Acts chapter 4 with present-day political philosophy.

 

I'm not having a hard time reconciling anything.

 

Jesus never once forced anyone to give. There were no needy persons among the early church because people voluntarily and generously gave. Then their gifts were distributed to those among them in need.

It doesn't say they gave to the church. And, don't forget the verse in the next chapter where god strikes two people down for only "sharing" a portion.

 

It says they put the money at the apostles feet. Do you think that's the church or the government?

 

And as it's already been explained in this thread, Ananias and Sapphira were not killed because they didn't give all, but that they lied about giving all.

It says they put the money at the apostles feet. Do you think that's the church or the government?

 

And as it's already been explained in this thread, Ananias and Sapphira were not killed because they didn't give all, but that they lied about giving all.

 

As it was a group of people giving their possessions to the community as a whole, and as the collection of the possessions of all persons and their subsequent distribution to those who need them is not church business, I will say that it sounds more like a government than a church.

As it was a group of people giving their possessions to the community as a whole, and as the collection of the possessions of all persons and their subsequent distribution to those who need them is not church business, I will say that it sounds more like a government than a church.

 

But this was the church and not government. The apostles were not government leaders, but church leaders.

But this was the church and not government. The apostles were not government leaders, but church leaders.

 

Just because apostles were involved doesnt mean it was the church. Was the "church" even established at that point? I mean the apostles went into restrooms to pee, doesnt mean the toilet was filled with holy water. If the bible meant for people to give all their worldly possessions to the church, it could have said so.

 

In any event, the point is about giving up wealth. Bernie's positions are the most consistent with these principles.

 

So where are all the people clamoring for everyone to give all their possessions to the church, if that's what it means.

You are dodging the question.

 

I'm dodging nothing, you simply don't understand.

"Render unto Caesar ..." shoots down your free-will argument. The more this government -- any government -- helps the neediest among us, the more the society that government represents becomes more Christ-like.

 

We disagree on Jesus' message.

 

Christ-like isn't about force and it isn't about abusive bureaucracy.