Marxism in the Early Christian Church?

You're picking at it and miss the main point. The point is that Jesus believes this is the way his followers should think and behave. That is the end. The means may be the church or the government, whichever has the best system for carrying out the means. As for voluntary, do you think Jesus considered it voluntary? Is following his or God's commands voluntary? Technically, maybe, but the implication is one should be punished for disobeying the word of God.

Do you really want to follow the path of saying the state should be an instrument forcing people to act the way Jesus thinks they should? Should it force people to not fornicate or commit adultery under the threat of jail? Should it force people to attend church? Is the purpose of the state to force people to do good?

As I detail in my post, the giving WAS voluntary. Peter, the leader who dealt with this issue, said that the money that was held back belonged to the couple, and did not tell them that they should have given it or were required to give it. They were punished for lying, not for holding back.

What specific command did Jesus give which is applicable to this passage?

Yes we should follow God's commands, and risk adverse consequences when we fail to do so, but it does not follow that the government should be the enforcer of God's commands. Or do you advocate some form of theocratic government? You can't simply say the Bible says we should do X or not do X, therefore the government should make it happen. That isn't government's job.

Isaih, my friend. You diminish the Word by applying a 20th-century lawyerly, politicized micro-parsing of what it does does and not mean.
Re-read my comment. The end is what is important, not the means. (If, of course, it does not contradict the end.) If you believe we are a Christian nation, then absolutely the state should carry out Christ's commands.
I think Jesus would marvel at today's welfare systems. He might agree with us they aren't perfect, but they are certainly a more efficient way of delivering help than one on one.
The Acts passage is about redistribution of wealth. There is no getting around that. Jesus was a redistributionist -- and he saw it as a great virtue.
The giving in those passages may have been voluntary, but does Jesus say anywhere that it MUST be? Does he ever specifically say the state shall NOT do it? I don't think we can make those kinds of assumptions. Again, He provides the end, we provide the means.

the state in fact does and should enforce the basic commandments: though shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness, etc.

Excellent clarification! Those who want to will still see Mrxism where they want but your points are right n re the context of the early Church Giving vs tody and Gov taking and redistributing

Excellent clarification! Those who want to will still see Mrxism where they want but your points are right n re the context of the early Church Giving vs tody and Gov taking and redistributing

I've heard this argument too among some Christians. They claim pure Christianity is socialist in nature and will use any number of bible passages to support this claim. But the bible is like a person in that if you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything. It just requires you to ignore the context.

Nowhere in the bible does it state the government should forcefully sieze from others and give to others. There's a strong distinction between charity and redistribution. Charity is volundary. Redistribution requires force. Government is force and nobody can force anybody into goodwill. It is up to individuals and their peer groups to do good. Now at the time of Christ, society was very community based. Charity was a big part of their social structure and that's why it worked. Societies are different today. There is still room for charity, but the context is different and that is a context that the socialist simply don't understand.