Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

[Guojing]

I don’t believe that Paul and James are in tension at all and told you why in my last post. Are you having problems reading my posts?

You could have said yes, when I asked you this question initially Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

Instead, you brought in your "acts 21 cannot happen today" which was not part of the question.

Okay, so at least we got your yes to my question.

It was indeed before the temple was destroyed but Acts speaks about the very early church and about Paul’s journeys. The writing of the book if Acts is estimated at between 55 and 65ad but the events happened much earlier. Paul’s journeys to plant churches began much earlier around the mid to late 30’s and continued into the early to the middle 40’s. The fact that Paul was returning from Ephesus probably dates Acts 21 somewhere in the early 40’s not the late 50’s.

When exactly Acts 21:18-25 happened is not important, so long as you accept that it was before AD 70.

 

[Hentenza]

You could have said yes, when I asked you this question initially Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

Instead, you brought in your "acts 21 cannot happen today" which was not part of the question.

Okay, so at least we got your yes to my question.

Not a yes to your question. I already explained that which apparently you are having problems understanding.

When exactly Acts 21:18-25 happened is not important, so long as you accept that it was before AD 70.

It was before 70 ad. So how does that help your argument?

 

[Guojing]

Not a yes to your question. I already explained that which apparently you are having problems understanding.

You are saying that James and Paul would be in tension, which to you will be impossible, if one were to understand Acts 21:18-25 literally.

Isn't that saying "Yes, the Acts 21:18-25 words cannot be therefore understood in their literal meaning"?

 

[Hentenza]

You are saying that James and Paul would be in tension, which to you will be impossible, if one were to understand Acts 21:18-25 literally.

Isn't that saying "Yes, the Acts 21:18-25 words cannot be therefore understood in their literal meaning"?

I have explained this in many of my posts. You are obviously having problems understanding what I have posted. I would suggest that you go back and read my posts again.

 

[Guojing]

I have explained this in many of my posts. You are obviously having problems understanding what I have posted. I would suggest that you go back and read my posts again.

You could have just replied with a "Yes, that was my answer to your question."

I would have replied with a thanks, and we can finally move on.

 

[Hentenza]

You could have just replied with a "Yes, that was my answer to your question."

I would have replied with a thanks, and we can finally move on.

My brother I don’t like to play games. I have engaged you argument but you have not responded other than to demand a yes or no answer. I have explained multiple times that the question is not a yes or no answer but you continue to demand that. It’s just not going to happen so yes, let’s just move on.