Why would a document that gives the history of the church written by Doctor Luke not be evidence?The book of Acts is not evidence to support the notion of many Jewish priests converting to Christianity.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why would a document that gives the history of the church written by Doctor Luke not be evidence?The book of Acts is not evidence to support the notion of many Jewish priests converting to Christianity.
That doesn’t address my point.The Word of God is alive for today.
Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts ...
God Has a Word of Life for each of us.
I have not spoken in secret,
in a place of the land of darkness.
I didn’t say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’
The point of the scriptures is to draw you to God; so He can speak directly into your heart.
I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people.No wonder Jesus is the "Word of Life" for each of us.
From the beginning I have not spoken in secret;
from the time that it happened, I was there.
I have not spoken in secret,
in a place of the land of darkness.
I didn’t say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Why would a document that gives the history of the church written by Doctor Luke not be evidence?
Firstly, because you don't know that 'Luke', whoever that is, even wrote it, or that he was a physician, and secondly, for the same reason you don't believe the Holy Quran as given by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.
The Torah, or books of law, claim to have come to Moses from the very mouth of God. The books of the Prophets came through visions and dreams. Not quite as good, but still pretty nifty. And the other writings were simply inspired by God, the way a symphony might inspire me.They are taken from many scrolls. However, the thing that unites them is God inspiring the writers. That means that the themes and thoughts that God expresses should transcend single authors. In fact they do.
Someone in the early church wrote it. It is the consensus of scholar that the first part of Acts is a gathered collection of oral stories, and that the bulk of it is a travel diary of Paul's journey, recorded as the journeys progressed. These diary events are undoubtedly filtered through the eyes of a first century believer who would ascribe things to supernatural forces but they would for the most part be historically true.Firstly, because you don't know that 'Luke', whoever that is, even wrote it, or that he was a physician, and secondly, for the same reason you don't believe the Holy Quran as given by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.
Of course just the fact alone that I've said it doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the contextual evidence from whence he lifted those verses: he was clearly interested in manipulating the verses, because contextually, his interpretation of them does not fit.I agree and disagree. Certainly being Jewish does not mean that one is correct of that quoting from the Tanach does not mean one is correct but equally, just as you are saying he was not correct, does not mean you are right.
Yes, we're aware. The argument is that there's no contextual evidence for that, such that you believe only because you believe.I stand on that he, along with John, and Mark, were correct about Jesus the Messiah as foretold by the prophets, Moses and the Psalms.
No, that's not the same as all. You can't re-interpret a passage out of it's context and call it a disagreement with someone who interprets it's the verse in context. That's not a disagreement, because the latter lacks any basis for the interpretation.Just as many Jewish people disagree with each other, I would say that he wasn't manipulating the passage.
It doesn't say that the priests here were learned. I'm not sure why you think they were.As far as learned priests, yes, many did not but many did:
Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
This is even worse! Someone who wasn't even there, took the word of some random preacher! If that actually happened, that wouldn't say anything good about him.Acts 18;8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.Acts 22: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
Where does it say they were learned?Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
I'm not sure that's true.They made up of much of the Sanhedrin
I'm not sure that's true.Part of the Sanhedrin.
Someone in the early church wrote it. It is the consensus of scholar that the first part of Acts is a gathered collection of oral stories, and that the bulk of it is a travel diary of Paul's journey, recorded as the journeys progressed. These diary events are undoubtedly filtered through the eyes of a first century believer who would ascribe things to supernatural forces but they would for the most part be historically true.
Yes, you keep saying it. But when it say "That it might be fulfilled", it doesn't lack for interpretationOf course just the fact alone that I've said it doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the contextual evidence from whence he lifted those verses: he was clearly interested in manipulating the verses, because contextually, his interpretation of them does not fit.
Yes, we're aware. The argument is that there's no contextual evidence for that, such that you believe only because you believe.
No, that's not the same as all. You can't re-interpret a passage out of it's context and call it a disagreement with someone who interprets it's the verse in context. That's not a disagreement, because the latter lacks any basis for the interpretation.
It doesn't say that the priests here were learned. I'm not sure why you think they were.
Yes, I'm sure that those who believed in the Messiah were labeled "off the derech" if that is what you call them.Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.
Which one are you specifically referencing?Aside from the question of whether any of this actually happened, even assuming these did happen, we don't know anything about their knowledge of Scriptures, and about the arguments that convinced them - if it was indeed Scriptural arguments that convinced them and not other reasons.
Maybe you should research?I'm not sure that's true.
I'm not sure that's true.
And the Pharisees were hardly a monolithic group to begin with.Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?Yes, you keep saying it. But when it say "That it might be fulfilled", it doesn't lack for interpretation
Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.Let me see if I understand... you become a priest with no learning? Are you learned? Is a prophet "learned"? Who then is "learned"?
Yes, definitely they were.Yes, I'm sure that those who believed in the Messiah were labeled "off the derech" if that is what you call them.
Didn't this whole thing start because someone said something about Hosea 11:1?Which one are you specifically referencing?
There doesn't seem to be any information about either of these points in anything that is not the NT.Maybe you should research?
Just saying your opinion remains an opinion. Matthew had a different viewpoint.I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?
Interesting... you weren't around when then were there and you specifically know that all they did was teach them how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady.Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.
You never told me, if it wasn't the priests, who were the "learned" people."Learned" in this context means being fluent in Biblical Hebrew and being fluent in the jewish Scriptures both in terms of context and language.
You are welcomed to disagree.Didn't this whole thing start because someone said something about Hosea 11:1?
There doesn't seem to be any information about either of these points in anything that is not the NT.
This is the early part of Acts which is the collection of oral stories, thus history is interlaced with legends. Undoubtedly something occurred in the upper room but I don't think literal tongues of fire appeared over people's heads.I'm curious; as a non-Christian, how do you explain the author's depiction of tongues of fire coming down from the sky onto people's heads and making them speak in tongues?
I believe that would be classified as a "personal viewpoint". Others would disagree.This is the early part of Acts which is the collection of oral stories, thus history is interlaced with legends. Undoubtedly something occurred in the upper room but I don't think literal tongues of fire appeared over people's heads.
Basically Jesus must fulfill all the prophecies of the Son of God. No matter who Exodus is talking about. "Out of Egypt I called my Son" means it doesn't matter. Jesus must fulfill it regardless. If Jesus is really the Son of God; then He must come out of Egypt at some point. So He did.
Besides ... what if I told you that Jesus is Israel? Yes He is; more than Jacob!
What makes you think that the author of Matthew was Jewish? The book's author was anonymous and claiming that it was by Matthew puts a huge burden of proof upon you.
It appears to be far more likely that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the authors of Luke and Matthew wrote that he was born there to "fulfill prophecy" .
Hosea isn't confusing.. Its not about Jesus at all. Its about Israel. Christians should resist the impulse to muddy the water.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?
Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.
"Learned" in this context means being fluent in Biblical Hebrew and being fluent in the jewish Scriptures both in terms of context and language.
Actually, it was the Jewish people that helped us understand its applications.
Hosea 3:5 The reference that the children of God will “return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.” King David had long been dead in Hosea’s day, so this is clearly a reference to the Messiah, of whom it was promised that He would be in the line of David and that He will reign forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13).
The references to a lion in Hosea 13:7-8, is another Messianic prophecy the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) and (Rev 5:5).
Hosea 11:1, where God says, “out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15 tells us that this was fulfilled when, after Mary, Joseph, and Jesus had fled to Egypt, God sent an angel to call His Son, Jesus, out of Egypt (Matthew 2:19-20).
And many more.
Denial doesn't change history.Mary, Joseph and Jesus didn't flee to Egypt. Embellishing the story to make Jesus fit the old prophecies about an anointed warrior king makes a mockery of the gospels.