> Why do you keep ignoring the first half of that verse: "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" (Acts 4:32).

I don't keep ignoring it, and that's what I tell you OVER and OVER: Nothing is said here about SELLING their stuff. They shared it. It's not collective ownership, it's collective use. Communal living, but not communal possessions.

> There is a big difference between [1] "a group of people sharing all of their private property" and [2] "a group of people, none of whom own any private property because everything is collectively owned by the group."

Yes, there is a difference, and the text is describing choice 1 above, not choice 2. There is absolutely NOTHING in the text claiming that everyone sold all their private property. The text even explicitly says that only "from time to time" some would sell to meet needs.

> That's because that's EXACTLY what the text says: "they shared everything they had" (Acts 4.32).

Why do you keep ignoring the first half of that verse: [b]"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own[/b], but they shared everything they had" (Acts 4:32).

> There is no mention of collective ownership

What do you call it when [b]nobody claims any possessions as their own[/b], and everyone shares everything they (collectively) have?

Do you not call that "collective ownership"?

If not, what do you call it?

There is a big difference between [1] "a group of people sharing all of their private property" and [2] "a group of people, none of whom own any private property because everything is collectively owned by the group."

> Here is the Bible verse that unambiguously states that early Christians did NOT own any private property: Acts 4.32

Acts 4.32 never says they SOLD ANYTHING. Instead, they SHARED [i]everything they had[/i]. They didn't SELL everything they had; they kept it, and they SHARED it.

> You seem to think that Acts 4 is talking about how early Christians shared all of their private property.

That's because that's EXACTLY what the text says: "they shared everything they had" (Acts 4.32). Only "from time to time" did they sell houses or lands (Acts 4.34).

> But what it unambiguously states is that that these early Christians did not own private property; rather, all the property was collectively owned.

It never says this. There is no mention of collective ownership. (Besides, if they [i]sold[/i] it, there was no collective ownership either. But the text never says there was collective ownership. They shared the USE, not the ownership (4.32).

In addition, there is absolutely NO evidence that the rest of the Christian world understood that "Christians did not own private property," or that Christians around the Empire sold their possessions, or that property was collectively owned. It's simply a mistake to think that this was a Christian principle, an entrance requirement, or a common practice.

> Then why did Ananias feel like he had to lie in order to be able to keep part of the proceeds from selling his own land? And why did he die for it?

Here's what's clear:

[list]1. They sold a piece of property (Acts 5.1). (We don't know the situation behind that sale: forced? voluntary? misunderstanding?)
2. He kept back part of the proceeds for himself (5.2).
3. The problem is not that he kept some of it back, but that he lied to the Holy Spirit (5.3). What becomes apparent is that Ananias lied, claiming that he was giving all to the Church when in fact he was giving a portion.
4. Notice that there was [b]no compulsion[/b] or [b]particular expectation[/b] (5.4). The money was at his disposal. He was free to give it, he was free to keep it. His sin was not in the selling or the giving, but in the lying (said in v. 3, repeated in v.4).[/list]

Why did he feel he had to lie? The text doesn't say. We can only speculate, which is at best a guessing game. My mind goes to the possibility that he wanted to seem more generous than he was actually being, creating a false impression based on pride and greed.

> If there was no requirement to sell, Ananias could have just said: “Hey, I’ll sell my land and give you 1/2 of the money.” No problem, right? It’s Ananias’ own land, right?

Yep, he could have done that. There was no compulsion; there was no requirement. The money was rightfully at his disposal (5.4).

Here is the Bible verse that unambiguously states that early Christians did NOT own any private property: Acts 4.32

Each member regarded his private possessions as being at the community's disposal.

No. That is NOT what it says:

[quote]No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own (NIV)[/quote]

[quote]And they felt that what they owned was not their own (NLT)[/quote]

[quote]neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own (NKJV)[/quote]

You seem to think that Acts 4 is talking about how early Christians shared all of their private property. But what it unambiguously states is that that these early Christians did not own private property; rather, all the property was collectively owned.

> Duh.

I’m glad you understand the difference between “private property” and “collective property.”

> There was no requirement to sell

Then why did Ananias feel like he had to lie in order to be able to keep part of the proceeds from selling his own land? And why did he die for it?

If there was no requirement to sell, Ananias could have just said: “Hey, I’ll sell my land and give you 1/2 of the money.” No problem, right? It’s Ananias’ own land, right?

> look at these gymnastics!

Not gymnastics, just proper scholarship.

> no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common (Acts 4)

You'll notice that Acts 4.32 shows a communal mindset. There is no mention of selling. Instead, they shared what they had. Each member regarded his private possessions as being at the community's disposal.

You'll notice that v. 34 explicitly says that "from time to time" they would sell. That negates your point. There was no requirement to sell, nor was there any mass movement to divest. On occasion, someone would sell to provide for the needy. The needs were kept supplied by the church (1) sharing everything so that there were no needs, but (2) if there were needs beyond such sharing, from time to time someone would sell to make that provision. It hardly gets more clear. There was no once-for-all divestiture of goods or possessions.

> According to the Bible, the earliest followers of Jesus did not own any private property.

Where do you get this, I might ask? I'd like to see this text.

During their time of discipleship, they retained their possessions. There are many mentions of their boats. Even after Jesus's resurrection, the disciples returned to their jobs, their way of life, and their possessions (Jn. 21.2-3).

> Jesus’ disciples didn’t take it as “hyperbole.”

Proof? There is no record of his disciples ever selling their possessions. Since this is what you claim, you need to give evidence.

> Do you understand the difference between private property, which is owned privately by an individual, and public property, which does NOT belong to any individual?

Duh.

Wow, look at these gymnastics!

It’s extremely clear that Jesus was literally anti-private property. But I guess you’d really like to keep your stuff...

WHAT YOU SAID:
[quote]They did own private property; they didn't sell it, they shared it.[/quote]

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS:
[quote]no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common (Acts 4)[/quote]

According to the Bible, the earliest followers of Jesus did not own any private property.

It was not: “This is mine, but I’ll share it with all of you.”

It was: “This does not belong to me; it belongs to all of us.”

> Hyperbole to make a point about discipleship.

Jesus’ disciples didn’t take it as “hyperbole.”

I just want to make sure: Do you understand the difference between private property, which is owned privately by an individual, and public property, which does NOT belong to any individual?

> Let’s take a look at the passage in context ... Luke 14... So, you're wrong.

Oh, thank you for clarifying. I thought you were in the passage of the rich young ruler. Sure, let's look at this passage.

First of all, even a superficial reading shows that Jesus is using a lot of hyperbole: Hate your parents (which is contrary to the Law of Moses—and, we can easily tell that the crowd doesn't take it to be that that's what he is saying, and so not a literal expectation), hate one's own family and even oneself (contrary to his own teaching of "love one another," and so not a literal expectation), and carry a cross (certainly not a literal expectation).

Jesus uses hyperbole a lot.

[list][*] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle… (Mt. 19.24)
[*] Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Mt. 23.24).
[*] The log in your own eye (Lk. 6.42)
[*] Gouge out your eye (Mt. 5.29; 18.9)[/list]

The text is about discipleship: "If someone wants to be my disciple." It's about "coming to Jesus." When he uses the illustrations in vv. 28-32, he doesn't care about building towers or going to war; the point is clearly commitment and counting the cost. That's his [b]obvious[/b] point. As I mentioned before, neither Jesus nor any of his disciples gave up all their possessions.

His final illustration is with salt. Jesus is not talking about salt, but rather about fidelity to the covenant. The point is that disciples who do not live like disciples are worth as much as unsalty salt, viz., nothing.

The teaching is counting the cost, willingness to lose, and self-sacrifice. He's talking about souls, not possessions. Jesus always talks in spiritual terms, using what sounds like metaphors, hyperbole, and even ridiculous demands to refer to spiritual truths. In Jn. 6.54, he tells people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Therefore he is not saying that you have to give every away and give everything up physically, but spiritually. He is talking about souls, not possessions. He wants no spiritual competitors, compromise, or not counting the cost.

> Acts 4

You'll notice that they did not give up all their possessions. Jesus’s disciples did not become propertyless but shared all that they had (Acts 4.44-45). Here in Acts 4 is generous sharing, not ascetic deprivation and poverty. It's a communal mindset, not a divestiture. They shared the use, not the ownership. Each member regarded his private estate as being available to the community. 2 Corinthians 8.14 requires generosity, not asceticism and poverty; sharing, but not renunciation of possessions.

> Why did none of these Christians own private property?

They did own private property; they didn't sell it, they shared it.

> Jesus DID tell “large crowds” of people that they cannot be his disciple unless they get rid of all their private property.

Hyperbole to make a point about discipleship.

> Jesus’ earliest followers DID NOT own any private property, as per Jesus’ wishes.

Yes, they did. From time to time someone would sell what they had, and that was their prerogative, and they did it to meet the needs of the community. The verb forms in the verse (iterative imperfects) show that there was no once-for-all divestiture of possessions as an entrance requirement into the church. (That was true in the Essene community at Qumran, but not of the Christian Church).

> John 12:6 refers to a collectively-owned money bag.

Correct, but the point is that they hung onto it: they collected the money, saved it for their use, and used it. They didn't (1) refuse to take any money, or (2) give it all away as soon as it came to them. In other words, they didn't divest themselves of all financial resources (cash or possessions).

> It wasn't even for the disciples. It was for that one guy. Jesus didn't sell everything he owned.

Let’s take a look at the passage in context:

[quote]Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. So therefore, [b]none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions[/b]. (Luke 14)[/quote]

So, you’re wrong: According to Jesus, speaking to “large crowds,” [b]nobody[/b] can become his disciple unless they give up all their private possessions/property.

If we read into the book of Acts, we find this:

[quote]Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and [b]no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.[/b] With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4)[/quote]

Why did none of these Christians own private property? Why was everything they owned held in common? Because that’s what Jesus explicitly told all of them to do.

So...

Yes, Jesus DID tell “large crowds” of people that they cannot be his disciple unless they get rid of all their private property.

Yes, according to the Bible, Jesus’ earliest followers DID NOT own any private property, as per Jesus’ wishes.

John 12:6 refers to a [b]collectively-owned[/b] money bag.

> Because Paul specifies that his letter is directed at Christians living in ancient Rome:

There is no doubt that his letter was addressed to the church in Rome. No contest there. But there is also no doubt, as per the multiple evidences I gave you, that the letter was meant for the much broader Christian audience.

> The letter is explicitly NOT addressed to “all Christians, for all time.”

Of course it's addressed to the church at Rome, but to claim that it's not for all Christians for all time is simply and explicitly incorrect, and I gave you multiple evidences of it. I gave you no less than a dozen, and I stopped because the evidence was so overwhelming there was no sense in continuing.

[list][*] Rom. 5.1. Are you actually arguing that only the Romans have been justified through faith? Or that only the Roman Christians (5.2) have gained access to God's grace? It's an absurd claim you are making.
[*] Rom. 5.3: Suffering only produces perseverance in Roman Christians? No one else?
[*] Rom. 5.5: The Holy Spirit was given only to the Romans?
[*] Rom. 5.6: Christ died only for the ungodly in Rome, no one else?
[*] Rom. 5.8: Christ died only for the sinners in Rome?
[*] Rom. 5.9: Only the Roman Christians are justified by Christ's blood?[/list]

It's in just about every verse. You simply have to be able to see how powerful the evidence is that Romans was written about all humanity, not just about the residents of Rome at the time. There is no justification for stopping its application at the edges of that one congregation.

> Christians love to play a funny game: Whenever there’s a passage that they don’t like, they write it off

This accusation is ridiculous.

> I’ve actually had a Christian tell me that Christians can ignore Jesus’ commandment to sell everything you own, because that commandment was only for “disciples.”

It wasn't even for the disciples. It was for that one guy. Jesus didn't sell everything he owned. The disciples never sold everything they owned. Jesus and his disciples even kept a money bag as a financial resource (Jn. 12.6). The disciples owned fishing boats and nets. They owned homes.

> Apparently, modern Christians do not have to do the things that Jesus told his disciples to do?

Jesus never told his disciples to sell everything they owned. That's why modern Christians don't do it, either.

> Yet, when Jesus tells his disciples to love one another...I don’t hear any Christians claiming: “That does not apply to us. Jesus was only telling his disciples to love each other.”

That's correct. We [i]are[/i] supposed to love one another. It's the mark of discipleship (Jn. 13.35). Remember that all believers are disciples of Christ (Mt. 2819-20), not just the initial 12. 1 John 2.8 & 10 show that this commandment is meant for all believers for all time.

> If I brought up one of God’s promises from the Old Testament that He actually kept, I doubt you’d be claiming God’s OT promises are null & void.

It depends what it is. We do proper study, not just blanket strategies.

> Why am I wrong to believe that "according to the letter itself"?

Because Paul specifies that his letter is directed at Christians living in ancient Rome:

[quote]To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people (Romans 1:7)[/quote]

Romans is clearly a letter written by a certain Christian leader to a certain Christian church in a certain place & time. The letter is explicitly NOT addressed to “all Christians, for all time.”

Christians love to play a funny game:

Whenever there’s a passage that they don’t like, they write it off: “Oh, that does not apply to us.” I’ve actually had a Christian tell me that Christians can ignore Jesus’ commandment to sell everything you own, because that commandment was only for “disciples.” Apparently, modern Christians do not have to do the things that Jesus told his disciples to do?

Yet, when Jesus tells his disciples to love one another...I don’t hear any Christians claiming: “That does not apply to us. Jesus was only telling his disciples to love each other.”

If I brought up one of God’s promises from the Old Testament that He actually kept, I doubt you’d be claiming God’s OT promises are null & void.