If you were insulted, I apologize (Is that a pun?) I do not like being accused of employing some form of tactic because I do not agree with someone analysis. If the story in Acts is made up. Gerd Ludemann describes the story about Ananais and Saphira an obvious fiction. I will have to refer you to it and quote at length when I get to my other machine. In my book, Ludemann doesn’t have the King he needs for a high straight and will have to fold if called.
However, I will note that your own source describes the crime as perjury. Ludemann refers to it as embezzlement. The idea is that an actual crime of some sort took place and is explicitly in the story. If the story is true, it doesn’t help you. if it’s false it doesn’t help your argument
apparently in Forged, Prof Ehrman describes the “we”s used by Luke as a deception to indicate that he was with paul when he was not. And poking around a bit I got hits for Richard Carrier and The Rational Response Squad; neither seems credible to me and I think you have to get sources(if you can) that are credible to Christians.
“Assume with me that (1) the story has some foundation in fact and (2) God did not miraculously strike Ananias and Sapphira dead. Either these assumptions could be wrong, but what would be your best guess as to how Ananias and Sapphira really died?”
Now before I deal with that let me address two points
“naturalistic bias” if someone can offer another “bias” and explain how it can 1.) extend our knowledge and 2.) that such knowledge can be verified and is demonstrably true (and not by assuming a naturalistic bias to get from A to B), then I’m on the bus. if not you can tell them to get off the bus Gus, make a new plan Stan….., “
Neither is relevant to your argument. but for all I know, let’s assume that Ananias gets caught out and oh I don’t know has a heart attack or maybe an aneurysm. Maybe Peter buffaloed the guy, then Virgil helped him drag the dude off to the hoosegow. The next day when Ananais sobered up, Sapphira rides into town all threatening like, spoiling for a fight.
James: “I’m your Huckleberry.” And you, music lover, you’re next.
Sapphira: You're so drunk, you can't hit nothin'. In fact, you're probably seein' double. James: "I have two guns, one for each of ya. The rest is history!
Lawyerskeptic said
I’m more interested in whether there is any factual basis for the story, and I have what apologists might call a naturalistic bias or presupposition. Assume with me that (1) the story has some foundation in fact and (2) God did not miraculously strike Ananias and Sapphira dead. Either these assumptions could be wrong, but what would be your best guess as to how Ananias and Sapphira really died?
People embellish stories all the time. Look at how much Luke got wrong with Paul’s chronology. The story is obviously either fabricated or extremely misrepresented hearsay. Jesus told his disciples to share amongst themselves. They didn’t have to sell every single item they owned because there’s ample evidence for that NOT happening. On the other hand they were expected to help support each other when they could and to rely on the kindness of benefactors when they could. Perhaps Ananias and his wife promised the proceeds from their sale to the church and then reneged and were outcast for lying about keeping some money back. I can see that being the sum total of the event.
Spiker,
I see you know your Western history. If you have not already read it, I suggest Allen Barra, Inventing Wyatt Earp, His Life and Many Legends (Carroll and Graf 1998). Although it says nothing about the New Testament, you can easily make comparisons.
gmatthews.
What ample evidence do we have for was not happening in Jerusalem for the first ten or fifteen years after Jesus’ death? I would very much like to read something about what we know and don’t know about how early Christians lived.
To all,
I still think the story still makes the early Jerusalem church look a lot like a cult. I haven’t even mentioned that the followers put money at the apostles’ feet. I remain clueless as to why even skeptics seem to recoil from the idea that some of the early apostles might have been motivated by money. Lucian of Samosata was certainly willing to consider the idea. “Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.” The Passing of Peregrinus, chapter 13. Nonetheless, I seem to be alone in my opinion on this so maybe I should stop harping on it.
Lawyerskeptic said
.I see you know your Western history…”
Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker’s just not your game Ike.
What ample evidence do we have for was not happening in Jerusalem for the first ten or fifteen years after Jesus’ death? I would very much like to read something about what we know and don’t know about how early Christians lived.
Even though you addressed this question to Greg, I think the key here is whether your impression is accurate. The stories, in Acts however, IMHO do not confirm your conclusions. Thus in actuality, you really ought to be answering your own question as to ample evidence. I don’t particularly have an objection to the idea that “.. some of the early apostles might have been motivated by money.” I described it as “An interesting thought.” But as the philosopher Clara Peller used to ask, “Where’s the Beef!?” What evidence do you have?
Now, I directly challenged 2 of your 3 points and got not a peep beyond the insinuation that I must be an apologist. I offer some evidence that Jesus himself had benefactors who funded his ministry and it makes a great deal of sense that itinerant preachers would be funded in this way. Even more damaging is that Lucian doesn’t actually talk about the idea that “the early apostles might have been motivated by money”(or at least not in the part of his work you cited). Instead he not only confirms what Greg argued, but far from describing some cult where people live in fear, he seems to think Christian charity is motivated by gullibility; a gullibility preyed on by outsiders, “So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them…,” (emphasis added)
Personally, I don’t mind the “harping” and I don’t think “being alone” in an opinion is necessarily a bad thing but I have trouble with the idea that the attorney in you is even the least bit happy with the argument you’re making.
To all,
I still think the story still makes the early Jerusalem church look a lot like a cult. I haven’t even mentioned that the followers put money at the apostles’ feet. I remain clueless as to why even skeptics seem to recoil from the idea that some of the early apostles might have been motivated by money. Lucian of Samosata was certainly willing to consider the idea. “Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.” The Passing of Peregrinus, chapter 13. Nonetheless, I seem to be alone in my opinion on this so maybe I should stop harping on it.
Lawyerskeptic said
gmatthews.
What ample evidence do we have for was not happening in Jerusalem for the first ten or fifteen years after Jesus’ death? I would very much like to read something about what we know and don’t know about how early Christians lived.
Before you had posted this I had already ordered a book that Bart mentioned to someone else on the blog called “The First Urban Christians” and subtitled “The Social World of the Apostle Paul”. The book arrived today and I just finished flipping through it and I can tell you it addresses the question of how early Christians lived. Whether or not it will do so to your satisfaction I can’t say 
Also, in regards to your disbelief that Christians could practice communal living without appearing to be a cult it occurred to me today that there is multiply attested accounts of another group that lived communally, sharing resources and communally owning property: the Essenes. Josephus and Philo both write of them and of course we have scrolls from their library at Qumran. That’s at least two religious groups in Palestine that shared resources. I’m no expert on this so perhaps there were others. Who knows how many outside of Jewish culture there were. I just don’t think we can view the practices of people 2000 years ago through a modern lens.
Lawyerskeptic said
A small religious group where (1) the leaders do not work, (2) the followers give up their possessions, and (3) followers live in fear. It looks like a cult, walks like a cult, and quacks like a cult, so it is probably a cult. Read Acts 5:1-10 and picture the same thing happening at a church of Scientology. I may be reading too much into this, but how would you feel about people mysteriously dropping dead because they lie to the head Scientologist about money? That is not a rhetorical question – I would very much appreciate an answer.
Whether or not other apostles did work, Paul certainly did. He mentions this in his letters (1 Thes 2:9) and it is mentioned in Acts as well (18:3). Also, his followers weren’t giving money to Paul to so he could go on and live a fancy life. The money he collected was taken up to Jerusalem for the main church there. This again is recounted by in Acts and Paul’s letters. Unlike Hubbard or modern televangelists who get rich from collecting money of their followers, Paul didn’t do any of this. It’s clear from his letters and Acts that after he became a preacher, he lived meagerly and tirelessly preached his message as far and wide as he could without much gain to himself. If anyone is going to make that claim, they will have to provide evidence of it. As for his followers living in fear, again I see no evidence of this. His communities didn’t live in fear of him. It’s clear in his letters that if anything most of these communities were going astray from his message. In Corinth, people were living like there was no tomorrow! Definitely not living in fear.
Although I don’t believe Paul actually saw the risen Jesus or that he actually received messages from him, I do think that he thought he did. It’s impossible to understand Paul until you realize that he did believe in what he was saying. I personally think he had some sort of very vivid vision during a near death experience of some sort and he was convinced that what he saw was real. If you listen to the testimonies of people who have had ndes, they are all absolutely convinced that what they saw was real. All of these people have come out changed people, sometimes radically so. Whatever it was that Paul experienced, he certainly worked tirelessly to get his message across without any worldly gain for himself. I don’t think anyone would go through so much trouble and risk his life so often if he wasn’t convinced of what he was preaching.
RAhmed
I agree with everything you wrote. I never meant to say that Paul didn’t work or that he gained any personal profit from his ministry. omar6741 started this discussion by asking whether Paul was sincere, and then I got off-topic talking about my pet theory concerning the apostles. We’re all just guessing, but my guess is that Paul was completely sincere as you described, but that one or more of the apostles in Jerusalem might have grown accustomed to not having to work for a living. Instead of going further off-topic here, I will continue my theories about the apostles in another thread I started months ago about “the apostles’ selfish motives.”
Lawyerskeptic said
that one or more of the apostles in Jerusalem might have grown accustomed to not having to work for a living. Instead of going further off-topic here, I will continue my theories about the apostles in another thread I started months ago about “the apostles’ selfish motives.”
a bit of an oddity, LS. Are you going to invite anyone to the thread?
RAhmed said
Whether or not other apostles did work, Paul certainly did. He mentions this in his letters (1 Thes 2:9) and it is mentioned in Acts as well (18:3). Also, his followers weren’t giving money to Paul to so he could go on and live a fancy life. The money he collected was taken up to Jerusalem for the main church there. This again is recounted by in Acts and Paul’s letters. Unlike Hubbard or modern televangelists who get rich from collecting money of their followers, Paul didn’t do any of this. It’s clear from his letters and Acts that after he became a preacher, he lived meagerly and tirelessly preached his message as far and wide as he could without much gain to himself. If anyone is going to make that claim, they will have to provide evidence
Im less wiling to agree than LS. MY first question is why do you consider Acts a reliable source? After all, It was written 30 to 60 years after the events in question. Luke/Acts is filled with problems. The story about Paul’s conversion don’t line up with Paul’s own account. Paul doesn’t claim to have-at least in any of his letters we have- had a vision of any kind.It’s even more problematic to claim he had an NDE induced vision. If memory serves, he only claims that Jesus revealed himself to or in him.That neither requires a vision or an NDE.
In fact, if Ananais/Saphira story suggests there were at least stories circulating about financial impropriety. Further, that Luke takes the time to tell that story suggests that such things might have been happening.
Now whether Paul worked or why people gave money, doesnt really settle the question. Theoretically, Paul might have worked till he got enough money or maybe he worked to throw people off. Your argument becomes even more problematic when one realizes you seem to be relying soley on the account provided by someone who is a friend and defender of Paul’s. Moreover, if Professor Ehrman is right about Luke playing fast and loose with the wes, then Luke has a credibility problem.
spiker said
Lawyerskeptic said
that one or more of the apostles in Jerusalem might have grown accustomed to not having to work for a living. Instead of going further off-topic here, I will continue my theories about the apostles in another thread I started months ago about “the apostles’ selfish motives.”a bit of an oddity, LS. Are you going to invite anyone to the thread?
Do I need to invite people? It is under “”Other Relevant Topics.” I did not put it under Pauline Christianity because Paul did not lead the Jerusalem church.
spiker said
Im less wiling to agree than LS. MY first question is why do you consider Acts a reliable source? After all, It was written 30 to 60 years after the events in question. Luke/Acts is filled with problems.
My reasons for thinking Paul was the real deal are based on his letters, not Acts, but even then I must admit my reasons are not very analytical. I ridicule apologists who claim that the Gospels have the “ring of truth.” It may be a bit hypocritical of me, but that is exactly why I think Paul was sincere. His letter seems sincere to me.
Lawyerskeptic said
I ridicule apologists who claim that the Gospels have the “ring of truth.”
LS:
I don’t see this as a matter of hypocrisy. I don’t think the apologist listens and goes, hmm yea, It sounds like Paul is telling the truth.
Instead this seems more a matter of shoehorning. The apologist simply cant draw a different conclusion. I happen to agree with you about Paul vis Acts.
I also happen to agree that it’s important to ridicule the apologist precisely because his arguments are generally shop worn, forced
conclusions, that are recited without an ounce of thought. I often us the example that 2+2 = Jesus. The apologist can’t deny this!
So he’ll come out with all sorts of rationalizations as to why this is true! In sum, I think there is a big difference between an apologist drawing that conclusion; He can’t draw any other- and yourself.
spiker said
Lawyerskeptic said
I ridicule apologists who claim that the Gospels have the “ring of truth.”
LS:
I don’t see this as a matter of hypocrisy.
I don’t consider myself hypocritical, but a “ring of truth” is subjective. I read Paul’s letters and believe he is sincere. Apologists read the Gospels and believe they are true. I think there’s a big difference between sincerity and truth, but both are still subjective.
Lawyerskeptic said
I don’t consider myself hypocritical, but a “ring of truth” is subjective. I read Paul’s letters and believe he is sincere. Apologists read the Gospels and believe they are true. I think there’s a big difference between sincerity and truth, but both are still subjective.
Yea, that was pretty much my point, keemotherapy. Glad to see we agree!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)