You understand that's what you're doing, right? They were explicitly condemned for lying. The line "was it not your own" is there to make it clear having property wasn't the problem. Notably absent is the chapter where someone is condemned for not selling their things in the first place. But that context weakens your political argument, so you're ignoring it.
Nevermind that you still haven't grasped that supporting people by selling your possessions to someone else isn't communism. It's generosity, sure. Sharing is caring. But you'll note, the apostles didn't divvy up chores among themselves to generate a self-sustaining community of equals. No, the wealthy among them cared for the poor, leaving it to the religious authority to identify the needs. That's not communism, that's charity, and it's also system that collapses the moment you run out of rich people. You're idealizing a system that had classes and required the wealthy, and just ignoring those parts that don't suit you.
It was about money. It being a metaphor doesn't make it not about money. Do you really think Jesus would give a parable explaining what proper behavior is and choose an immoral behavior as the metaphor? The parable doesn't work if you think the literal idea of it is immoral. Jesus wasn't saying "the boss gave them money and expected them to make more out of it, and whoever best exploited the underclass was the most loved, and that's how you should use the gifts God gave you!" That's not a very good parable.
Good heavens, what a stretch. "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?"
He's being told that the land was his, and the money was at his disposal. Therefore he had control over it, but chose to lie about the amount he had received, and to withhold funding from the church. He's responsible for his actions, and was punished. The passages is clear. The believers shared
everything. For his sins he died, and was likely sent to the great flaming gulag.
As for the second parable, your willfully ignoring the meaning of the passage. Jesus used examples that people of the time would understand. Money and interest are among them. Now, do I think the very concept of money is inherently a sin? Of course not. But it's not the ideal christian model, or even a particularly practical secular model, to base resource management on. I don't think having a human king was very practical either, and neither does God, but God still allowed the Hebrews to adopt a monarchy when asked.
I feel like Gods stance on usury is clear. Jesus threw the money lender from the temples. The bible says that when lending money to a fellow believer, you should charge
no interest. The rich man asking to enter heaven was told to sell all of his possessions and follow Jesus. On and on and on it goes. Yet you have the audacity to try and argue that the parable in question was literally about the sinfulness of not sufficiently investing your financial capital? Totally haram.
