MId-Acts: Two Gospels & Hebrews

[BABerean2]

You may disagree and think it is nonsense but Jer 31:31 clearly says the new covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Old Testament...

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

...................................................................

New Testament...

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

.......................................................................

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
(God does not judge by one’s DNA.)

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
(All of Jacob's descendants are not included in Israel of the Promise.)

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(Being a descendant of Jacob does not make one a child of God.)

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


.

.


.

 

[Danoh]

Induction is the process, not simply of gathering information, but of running it through a contrastive analysis as to both those things that are similar and those that differ and this as to similarities and differences between the passages - not between one school of thought [books about] and another [books about].

If the resulting Premise agrees with books about, then that is a different story.

You talk about "the New Testament" through the lens of your particular school.

Israel's New Covenant not only promises to no longer remember their sin but promises to enable them to keep the Law.

How exactly does that fit that passage you quoted about being in danger of hell-fire, as if it applies to someone under the grace that cost the Savior His blood?

No, that is your assertion I am not bringng that up out of some personal reason other then my attempt to help you see what you are not seeing - God is my witness this is my intent.

Israel's New Testament is what passages like Romans 11:23-29 are talking about - after His return in His wrath to purge that nation - Malachi 3 and 4, Matthew 3.

Romans 9 asserts that God is holding back said wrath, as does 2 Peter.

He prophesied a gap of time between His 1st Advent in His Sufferings towards enabling said New Testament, and His 2nd Advent in His Wrath towards purging that nation under the Law they covenanted into with Him.

A gap in time that was perceivable as resident in the passages only after His resurrection, when He then opened their understanding in Luke 24 as to the Things That Differ between His sufferings and the glory that should follow, which Peter relates in 1 Peter is yet future, and that Hebrews 2 relates Acts 2's Pentecost had only been "a foretaste of the world to come, whereof we speak" [Israel's promised New Covenant].

With Israel's fall, things changed, God withdrew that foretaste, for htat is what it had been.

As a result, they were no longer of one mind, and no longer sustained as every man had need as had been the case in early Acts and Paul now had to take up collections among the churches of the Gentiles towards their financial support. It had been a foretaste of their things to come.

 

[BABerean2]

Induction is the process, not simply of gathering information, but of running it through a contrastive analysis as to both those things that are similar and those that differ and this as to similarities and differences between the passages - not between one school of thought [books about] and another [books about].

If the resulting Premise agrees with books about, then that is a different story.

You talk about "the New Testament" through the lens of your particular school.

Israel's New Covenant not only promises to no longer remember their sin but promises to enable them to keep the Law.

How exactly does that fit that passage you quoted about being in danger of hell-fire, as if it applies to someone under the grace that cost the Savior His blood?

No, that is your assertion I am not bringng that up out of some personal reason other then my attempt to help you see what you are not seeing - God is my witness this is my intent.

Israel's New Testament is what passages like Romans 11:23-29 are talking about - after His return in His wrath to purge that nation - Malachi 3 and 4, Matthew 3.

Romans 9 asserts that God is holding back said wrath, as does 2 Peter.

He prophesied a gap of time between His 1st Advent in His Sufferings towards enabling said New Testament, and His 2nd Advent in His Wrath towards purging that nation under the Law they covenanted into with Him.

A gap in time that was perceivable as resident in the passages only after His resurrection, when He then opened their understanding in Luke 24 as to the Things That Differ between His sufferings and the glory that should follow, which Peter relates in 1 Peter is yet future, and that Hebrews 2 relates Acts 2's Pentecost had only been "a foretaste of the world to come, whereof we speak" [Israel's promised New Covenant].

With Israel's fall, things changed, God withdrew that foretaste, for htat is what it had been.

As a result, they were no longer of one mind, and no longer sustained as every man had need as had been the case in early Acts and Paul now had to take up collections among the churches of the Gentiles towards their financial support. It had been a foretaste of their things to come.

Your inductive process is finely tuned to ignore the words of the Apostle Paul when he spells out the difference between Israel of the Flesh and Israel of the Promise. This is necessary to preserve your bloodline salvation via the two peoples of God. So far this method has worked for you. It has allowed you to "rightly divide" out any scripture which could threaten you viewpoint.

The assertion that the New Covenant was made with Israel and the Jews, not the Church, can only be verified by your type of inductive process.

It is similar to Larkin's inductive process, which produced two separate kingdoms, a kingdom on earth for the Jews and a kingdom in heaven for the Church. And as Larkin said "Never the twain shall meet".

Darby's promotion of the "Secret Rapture" of the Irvingites allowed him to separate the Second Coming in Matthew 24 from the event of 1st Thess. chapter 4 and 5.

One cannot argue with success. Your inductive process works for you and yours.

.

 

[Danoh]

Your inductive process is finely tuned to ignore the words of the Apostle Paul when he spells out the difference between Israel of the Flesh and Israel of the Promise. This is necessary to preserve your bloodline salvation via the two peoples of God. So far this method has worked for you. It has allowed you to "rightly divide" out any scripture which could threaten you viewpoint.

The assertion that the New Covenant was made with Israel and the Jews, not the Church, can only be verified by your type of inductive process.

It is similar to Larkin's inductive process, which produced two separate kingdoms, a kingdom on earth for the Jews and a kingdom in heaven for the Church. And as Larkin said "Never the twain shall meet".

Darby's promotion of the "Secret Rapture" of the Irvingites allowed him to separate the Second Coming in Matthew 24 from the event of 1st Thess. chapter 4 and 5.

One cannot argue with success. Your inductive process works for you and yours.

.

Lol - in short, you do not even know what I am talking about because you will not receive it's word with all readiness of mind, that you might then search the Scriptures daily whether those things I am asserting about this God-given process and the need to turn it on itself is so.

You therefore you do not believe it, even as you inappropriately apply it.

Thus, your Darby or whomever rant once more to someone who could care less about these people, regardless of camp, that the Scripture alone be the lamp unto my feet.

BAB2, you might want to save that for those for whom external history is some sort of a true measure of the validity or not, of the things of Scripture they then read the passages through, while asserting otherwise.

And while you're at it; give yourself a hug for me, as neither you, nor I, are the issue.

 

[Juelrei]

Addressing the OP.

Excluding a lengthy thesis to prove my point..

I believe that among all of the disciples.. the apostle Paul only had the Pharisaic training to write such an epistle. All of the other disciples had been taken from among common society. Even the apostle Peter found some of Paul's teachings difficult to understand, Peter being the apostle who preached to the Jews.

We read in much of Paul's epistles where he taught the difference between law and works verses grace by faith.
He is therefore the best qualified to write the book of Hebrews.

 

[Danoh]

Addressing the OP.

Excluding a lengthy thesis to prove my point..

I believe that among all of the disciples.. the apostle Paul only had the Pharisaic training to write such an epistle. All of the other disciples had been taken from among common society. Even the apostle Peter found some of Paul's teachings difficult to understand, Peter being the apostle who preached to the Jews.

We read in much of Paul's epistles where he taught the difference between law and works verses grace by faith.

He is therefore the best qualified to write the book of Hebrews.

In Matthew 19, the Lord promises to reassign rule over Israel's spiritual life to the Twelve.

In Matthew 21, He relates to the Pharisees that they would be losing that rule.

And Paul was not one of those Twelve, Acts 1, Acts 2, 1 Cor. 15.

In Acts 15, after meeting with Paul [Galatians 2] one of the Twelve and James, exercise authority over the Pharisees.

In Galatians 1 and Philippians 3 Paul relates he no longer viewed with any value his former pedigree as a Pharisee. And in contrast to how he related this, I'm being a bit kinder about it.

Neither the Pharisees, nor their teaching, were in any authority over anyone any longer, and certainly in no position to write that lengthy an epistle, nor be that informed as to its content; especially given its being not only new information, but information received from those who had been with the Lord during His 1st Advent, Hebrews 1 and 2.

And as Paul related in Romans 15, he "would not dare build on another man's foundation."

It also appears to have been written at some point just before Acts 9:19, which, in light of Galatians 1:17 depicts Paul off in Arabia some three years, before returning to Arabia, still perceived as the little Flock's chief enemy.

It fits more the time of Acts 8 and James 1. In fact, the sense of things depicted in Acts thru Revelation imply the majority of the circumcision epistles were written earlier date than is generally asserted.

I sincerely doubt Paul wrote Hebrews, or that they would have received an anonymous letter as of God.

It's writer was known by them, in several places throughout the epistle.

 

[Juelrei]

In Matthew 19, the Lord promises to reassign rule over Israel's spiritual life to the Twelve.

One of which disqualified himself, Judas Iscariot.

In Matthew 21, He relates to the Pharisees that they would be losing that rule.

Not all things about the Pharisees is lost, their mission is to teach the law and uphold it. The Pharisees by the time of Jesus had gotten off course but there was still offered redemption to them. Which includes Saul of Tarsus, the apostle Paul.

And Paul was not one of those Twelve, Acts 1, Acts 2, 1 Cor. 15.

Stopping to read each half reference would leave my posting area idle for way too long. Your points are disregarded.

In Acts 15, after meeting with Paul [Galatians 2] one of the Twelve and James, exercise authority over the Pharisees.

I should disregard these for the same reason. However, I will say this, before Acts 15 Saul had converted on the Road to Damascus Acts 9:1-19, it's stated in verse 20 that he began to preach the gospel, so their exercise didn't include the apostle Paul.
Additionally, in Gal.2:11-14 the apostle Paul exercised authority over Peter rebuking him on the issue of Jew's living the law verses faith in Christ.

In Galatians 1 and Philippians 3 Paul relates he no longer viewed with any value his former pedigree as a Pharisee. And in contrast to how he related this, I'm being a bit kinder about it.

The apostle Paul clearly didn't regard the law of works to gain righteousness as he learned while a Pharisee. However, that didn't mean that he swore off teaching the law all together. You make it sound as though he had.

Neither the Pharisees, nor their teaching, were in any authority over anyone any longer, and certainly in no position to write that lengthy an epistle, nor be that informed as to its content; especially given its being not only new information, but information received from those who had been with the Lord during His 1st Advent, Hebrews 1 and 2.

However, having gotten anything from the other apostles would not have been by revelation, Gal.1:16-18 states that he did not consult with anyone for three years.
And yet at the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, Jesus called him to preach to the Gentiles, which must include the valuable teachings of the law he learned as a Pharisee. Valuable in that they are to correct sin. Valuable in that they are to point to the need for the Messiah as Redeemer of the ungodly. Valuable in that they point the way of Salvation and the Savior.

And as Paul related in Romans 15, he "would not dare build on another man's foundation."

I've already covered his seeking God alone for guidance and training to preach.

It also appears to have been written at some point just before Acts 9:19, which, in light of Galatians 1:17 depicts Paul off in Arabia some three years, before returning to Arabia, still perceived as the little Flock's chief enemy.

As touched upon already. In those times he was seeking revelations, Gal.1:11-12. When he had them, understood them in light of redemption and grace, he began to preach boldly without shame.
I find it remarkable that he had ministered to the family of Stephen who'd been stoned to death while Saul held the coats of the Pharisees. If anyone would count him an enemy Stephen's family had that right. Yet he was welcomed in their midst. What a marvelous example of the ministry of reconciliation for Paul and Stephen's family.

It fits more the time of Acts 8 and James 1. In fact, the sense of things depicted in Acts thru Revelation imply the majority of the circumcision epistles were written earlier date than is generally asserted.

I'm not going to take time now to read through Acts and Revelation to try to understand your point and respond.. your point is disregarded.

Again, Saul was converted in Acts 9. Are you saying then that by Acts 8 the apostle Paul should have written all his epistles? Excuse me but your point is lost on me. Enlighten this dunce.

I sincerely doubt Paul wrote Hebrews, or that they would have received an anonymous letter as of God.

By that statement it should not have been allowed in the new testament regardless of who other than the apostle Paul wrote it. But I venture that you aren't giving argument with valid points in that.

It's writer was known by them, in several places throughout the epistle.

The generalization leaves scripture lacking to prove your point. Another disregard.

You are free to disregard any of my points that don't include specific scripture references.

 

[Danoh]

One of which disqualified himself, Judas Iscariot.

Not all things about the Pharisees is lost, their mission is to teach the law and uphold it. The Pharisees by the time of Jesus had gotten off course but there was still offered redemption to them. Which includes Saul of Tarsus, the apostle Paul.

Israel was temporarily concluded in uncircumcision at Acts 7:51, per Matt. 12:30-32; Rom. 2: 25; 9-11. After Romans 11:25-29, the Law is then back as an issue.

Stopping to read each half reference would leave my posting area idle for way too long. Your points are disregarded.

Later in your post you add relate your decision to disregard a point because I did not post references - make up your mind, lol

I should disregard these for the same reason. However, I will say this, before Acts 15 Saul had converted on the Road to Damascus Acts 9:1-19, it's stated in verse 20 that he began to preach the gospel, so their exercise didn't include the apostle Paul.

There is a gap of time at verse 19, you have, as many do, have read right past...

It reads like this:

19. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

But between this "And when he had received meat, he was strengthened." and this "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus." there is this, from Galatians 1:

15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. He went into Arabia and then returned to preach at Acts 9:20

Additionally, in Gal.2:11-14 the apostle Paul exercised authority over Peter rebuking him on the issue of Jew's living the law verses faith in Christ.

"over Peter rebuking him"?Where did Peter ever rebuke Paul?

The apostle Paul clearly didn't regard the law of works to gain righteousness as he learned while a Pharisee. However, that didn't mean that he swore off teaching the law all together. You make it sound as though he had.

No, Paul asserts as much throughout Romans thru Philemon

However, having gotten anything from the other apostles would not have been by revelation, Gal.1:16-18 states that he did not consult with anyone for three years.

No, what he states is that they added nothing to him, but when they perceived what had been given him, etc.

And yet at the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, Jesus called him to preach to the Gentiles, which must include the valuable teachings of the law he learned as a Pharisee. Valuable in that they are to correct sin. Valuable in that they are to point to the need for the Messiah as Redeemer of the ungodly. Valuable in that they point the way of Salvation and the Savior.

Not the Paul of Scripture as to your assertion that the law serves the purpose of correcting sin - not in this age - in fact the Law, asserts Paul in Romans 5; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 15, etc., is unable to correct sin in that, one that was not, its intent, two, it was weak through the flesh.

I've already covered his seeking God alone for guidance and training to preach.

As touched upon already. In those times he was seeking revelations, Gal.1:11-12. When he had them, understood them in light of redemption and grace, he began to preach boldly without shame.

Not at all - for what Paul preached - his God-given "my gospel" had been "hid in God" Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3; Col. 1, etc.

I find it remarkable that he had ministered to the family of Stephen who'd been stoned to death while Saul held the coats of the Pharisees. If anyone would count him an enemy Stephen's family had that right. Yet he was welcomed in their midst. What a marvelous example of the ministry of reconciliation for Paul and Stephen's family.

Where is that in Luke's narrative - I've been putting in many hours in Scripture over twenty years now and have yet to read that anywhere in Genesis thru Revelation. And you I don't hold over reliance on external sources much.

I'm not going to take time now to read through Acts and Revelation to try to understand your point and respond.. your point is disregarded.

That sure doesn't sound like an Acts 17:11 attitude, but, okay.

Again, Saul was converted in Acts 9. Are you saying then that by Acts 8 the apostle Paul should have written all his epistles? Excuse me but your point is lost on me. Enlighten this dunce.

What I am asserting is that, given the tone, setting, etc., of the Circumcision Epistles - Hebrews thru Revelation, it appears they were written around the time of the persecution that began in Acts 8, thus, 8:2's same sense as James 1:1, for example.

Acts 8:

1. And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

James 1:

1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

By that statement it should not have been allowed in the new testament regardless of who other than the apostle Paul wrote it. But I venture that you aren't giving argument with valid points in that.

No, they knew the person who wrote it.

Hebrews 2:

3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

The generalization leaves scripture lacking to prove your point. Another disregard.

You are free to disregard any of my points that don't include specific scripture references.[/QUOTE]

Your reply is disappointing as it does not match the ability to exegete passages well that you have demonstrated in other posts. At the same time, as I study from the Mid-Acts Hermeneutic - see the book mentioned below, we are not going to see eye to eye on many things.

 

[Juelrei]

Danoh said:

Israel was temporarily concluded in uncircumcision at Acts 7:51, per Matt. 12:30-32; Rom. 2: 25; 9-11. After Romans 11:25-29, the Law is then back as an issue.
​

Juelrei's reply: It was not temporary, Paul stated in Acts 7:51 "You are doing just as your fathers did." Implying the historical record in the Old Testament of the Jews who went astray at any occasion.

Paul has continued then to use the old testament laws and his Pharisaical teachings concerning any appropriate occasion.

In Rom.11:28-29 it is regarding God's mercy in spite of their unbelief concerning Jesus being the Messiah.
In Rom.11:25 the partial hardening will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Danoh said:

Later in your post you add relate your decision to disregard a point because I did not post references - make up your mind, lol
​

Juelrei's reply: I allow myself leway in choosing what and how I respond. It's not a matter of restricting myself to one mode of communication or making up my mind. Sorry if you find it difficult to keep up.

Danoh said:

There is a gap of time at verse 19, you have, as many do, have read right past...

​

Juelrei's reply: On the contrary, I read it. However I intended to keep my responses in closest application to the previous posting topic.. and again, considering how long my posting window remains open.

Danoh continued:

It reads like this:

19. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

But between this "And when he had received meat, he was strengthened." and this "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus." there is this, from Galatians 1:

15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. He went into Arabia and then returned to preach at Acts 9:20
​

Juelrei's reply: this point was covered in the previous posting. Can we move on?

Danoh said:

"over Peter rebuking him"? Where did Peter ever rebuke Paul?
​

Juelrei's reply: this is a pointless distraction from the main post points. Disregarded.

Danoh said:

No, Paul asserts as much throughout Romans thru Philemon
​

Juelrei's reply: please do take the time to give specific references in order to make a point instead of generalizing entire multiple epistles. As stated in my earlier post, I disregard such as this.

Danoh said:

No, what he states is that they added nothing to him, but when they perceived what had been given him, etc.
​

Juelrei's reply: by strict quote of the verse, he said that he did not consult with flesh and blood. You may rephrase if you like, but it's not an occasion for you to say "no" concerning my paraphrase of "anyone" instead of "flesh and blood". One would think that you are straining at gnats because you have no more significant thing to say.

Danoh said:

Not the Paul of Scripture as to your assertion that the law serves the purpose of correcting sin -

​

Juelrei's reply: In keeping to the law by adherents, it corrects sin by preventing sin, Prov.3:1; Ps.119:11.. the ten commandments.
When that doesn't work, God sends in prophets to give correction concerning sin, Jer.2:19 and many other similar verses.

Danoh said:

.. not in this age - in fact the Law, asserts Paul in Romans 5; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 15, etc., is unable to correct sin in that, one that was not, its intent, two, it was weak through the flesh.
​

Juelrei's reply: one that was not, its intent, two

I could not follow your thinking in that line.

This age is no different than the age of the old testament. Their sins are the sins of this age.
As those scripture references you give, would no doubt point out.

However, the law also does it's job to show actions to be sin, proof being the justification of punishment from God against unrepentant sinners when there is no one to pray God's mercy upon them.

Danoh said:

Not at all - for what Paul preached - his God-given "my gospel" had been "hid in God" Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3; Col. 1, etc.
​

Juelrei's reply: things hidden in God are the mysteries which upon request in prayer God reveals, Rom.16:25; 1Cor.2:7; Eph.1:9, 3:3,9; Col.1:26.

Danoh said:

Where is that in Luke's narrative - I've been putting in many hours in Scripture over twenty years now and have yet to read that anywhere in Genesis thru Revelation. And you I don't hold over reliance on external sources much.
​

Juelrei's reply: why would you say that it is in Luke's narrative? The apostle himself mentioned it in one of his epistles. At this off the cuff posting I don't recall where, sorry. But it has to do, I think, when he mentioned baptizing Stephen's family.

I've been studying the Bible for 35 years, my father taught Bible classes in the Methodist church I attended before getting married.

Danoh said:

That sure doesn't sound like an Acts 17:11 attitude, but, okay.
​

Juelrei's reply: I think that I've demonstrated that I examine the scriptures.. at this venue however, the time constraints don't allow for the time it would take to find what you loosely refer to, whereas I am a "cite the chapter and verse" Bible student, or at least give enough information on the verse to allow the person to think "oh yes, I recognize the verse you are talking about".
Forgive me if your loose referencing does not jar my recollection and so I designate it a skipover in order to move on to the next point.

Danoh said:

What I am asserting is that, given the tone, setting, etc., of the Circumcision Epistles - Hebrews thru Revelation, it appears they were written around the time of the persecution that began in Acts 8, thus, 8:2's same sense as James 1:1, for example.
​

Acts 8:
1. And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
​

James 1:
1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
​

Juelrei's reply: I appreciate you taking the time to give chapter and verse to make your point.

Danoh said:

No, they knew the person who wrote it.

Hebrews 2:
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
​

Juelrei's reply: it does not say who "we" or "us" is but this could well mean the apostle Paul, since he was temporarily among Peter and, was it James? for a short time at the beginning of his conversion journey.
The verse Hb.2:3 refers back to Jn.17:20 "that they would believe on me through their word."
Surely Paul and they discussed the ministry of Jesus.

Aside from the distinct road to Damascus experience, God sent Ananias to minister to him that he may receive his sight back, Mrk.16:20 "the Lord worked with and confirmed the Word by the signs that followed."

Danoh said:

Your reply is disappointing as it does not match the ability to exegete passages well that you have demonstrated in other posts.

​

Juelrei's reply: I've never claimed that I could exegete passages. If you have considered that any other posts by me have demonstrated that ability, then I can only say that obviously it comes and goes. I am not trying to impress anyone, only attempting to communicate.

Danoh said:

At the same time, as I study from the Mid-Acts Hermeneutic - see the book mentioned below,

​

Juelrei's reply: I admit that I don't study from such things, books on how to interpret I mean. I discuss from my own off the cuff method.

Danoh said:

we are not going to see eye to eye on many things.
​

Juelrei's reply: that is not a surprising statement. I realized it from the first.



I take it that this ends our discussion? Okay, it's been pleasant.

Thanks for the "things that differ" I might read through it in my leisure time to see if anything differs from my own views.

 

[riverrat]

Juelrei: This may not matter but Luke is quoting Stephen in Acts 7:51, not Paul.