“A text out of context is a pretext.”
Acts 2:45: Were you to read and think a bit about the entire chapter 2, you might notice several things. This happened during a holiday time - from Passover through Pentecost. There were Jewish people and converts there in Jerusalem, pilgrims from all over and beyond the Roman world. 3000 people converted to Christianity on the day of Pentecost, and more were being converted daily. Those who were not from Jerusalem or nearby were far from their homes and their places of business. Those Christians who were from Jerusalem or nearby supported their new brothers and sisters in Christ while they got reestablished. Not socialism, just love in practice: no government forced the mutual support, nor was it imposed by the leaders of the nascent church.
Acts 4:32-37: Still the same historical context, explained above. If you read into the next chapter, you find the account of a couple who tried to make themselves look good by dishonestly representing their gift to the church as the entire proceeds from selling their property. The lie cost them their lives. Peter called out their lie:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!”
Note that Peter specifically stated that the land, prior to being sold, was their own. And that he further stated that after the sale the proceeds were likewise theirs. IOW, they were not obligated to sell their property, and once they did they could have given as much or as little as they chose (provided they were honest about whatever they chose to do).
Being charitable among each other has continued among Christians to this day, but “having things in common” was a temporary way of dealing with an extraordinary situation.
Luke 14:13-14: Please do read the entire parable, and the one that follows (Luke 14:7-24). Jesus did not condemn having things. What He did condemn in these two parables was seeing less well off people as inferiors - socially and spiritually.
Matthew 6:24: This is part of what is commonly called The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5-7. It’s a compendium of a large part of what Jesus taught in his three years of ministry. It’s well worth reading. If time is an issue, the immediate context for this verse would probably be 6:19-34. Again, as verse 33 illustrates, Jesus was not condemning having things. What he was urging was: not being consumed by things and the desire for things; devoting more thought and energy to important things, particularly one’s relationship with one’s Creator.
Matthew 19:21: The fuller context for this is 19:16-30. Jesus is talking to a particular person about what he needs to do, spiritually. I.E. the advice is for him, personally. And Jesus put his finger on that young man’s spiritual roadblock, his wealth. The young man’s reliance and trust was in his wealth. As Jesus pointed out, it’s a common roadblock. But the roadblock is in the young man’s heart (and other such people’s hearts), not in the wealth itself. Put another way, people may or may not own wealth and there is no harm in it. But if the wealth owns them or is what they see as the source of personal value or security, their wealth is harming/hindering them.
As for how others reacted to your post, what can I say? The Jesus-was-a-socialist (or commune-ist) meme has been around for centuries. It comes from treating the Bible as a source of sayings (usually to support a preconceived idea) rather than understanding what particular verses mean in context. Folks here have been hearing it their entire lives, often from people who don’t really care about what Jesus actual meaning was (or were trying to get a rise out of them … need I say that they perceived you to be doing this?).