I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

I was listening on (**audio**) to Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology and in the chapter on biblical inerrancy.. he mentioned some people dispute Gamaliel's historical accuracy on certain uprisings, and they thus dispute biblical reliability & inspiration on such a text. The text at hand: > “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all > the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men > outside for a short time. > > And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are > about to do with these men. > > > For, some time ago **Theudas** appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a > group of about four hundred men joined him. > > But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came > to nothing. ***After this*** man, **Judas** of Galilee appeared in the days of > the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and > all those who followed him were scattered. > > > And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and > leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, > it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able > to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against > God.”” ‭‭**Acts‬ ‭5:34-39‬** ‭ Wayne Grudem said that Judas & Theudas were spoken by Gamaliel in the wrong order according to Josephus in his antiquities, in terms of historical chronology. Wayne Grudem was still in defense of biblical inerrancy and gave some reasons for certain views on Acts 5 with Gamaliel, but what can we interpret here for historical accuracy?? Who made the error here? The Holy Spirit cannot err, so what’s going on? This is my main question below: **Q: According to Protestant NT scholars/historians did Gamaliel get the chronology & history wrong in Acts 5?**

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith. Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him? >Acts 8:14–17
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001

In Acts 1:20 we read: > "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: > > > ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ > > And: > > > ‘May another take his office.’" But Psalm 69:26 is actually uses plural: > "Make their camp desolate, with none to dwell in their tents." Psalm 109:8 has singular: > "May his days be few; may another take his office." (All translations can be found from the [USCCB website](https://bible.usccb.org/bible).) So it seems to me that St. Peter is changing the plural of Psalm 69:26 into singular in order to make a point. Then he quotes Psalm 109:8 in order to make a point. He seems to be just picking Psalm texts or changing the plural into singular in order to make a point. This is just confusing. I have been searching commentaries on this but have not been able to found one. This could be because people just take for granted that changing the plural into singular is a natural thing that people can just do. **What is going on in Acts 1:20?**

First off, I admit that I am not entirely sure if there is a term/title for a theological framework that suggest we must keep the Torah. Does one exist (similar to we have titles like "Reformed Theology" or "Dispensationalism")? With this, I see there are many tangential questions to the topic of Acts 15, but the questions at the end of my post here have not been addressed so I do not believe this to be a duplicate post. That said, Acts 15 appears to directly address the matter of whether Gentiles are required to keep the law of Moses, and the council’s decision seems to clearly oppose that idea. I have seen individuals suggest that this is *not* the topic/discussion within Acts 15, however, the chapter seems fairly straight forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be how the chapter unfolds: 1. **The Dispute Leading to the Council** Certain individuals come to Antioch, teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. This creates a significant dispute, leading Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to address the issue. - **Acts 15:1-2** > “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 2. **The Council Begins Discussion** Upon arrival in Jerusalem, the matter is raised again. Certain believers of the Pharisees (also?) insist that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, prompting a formal discussion among the apostles and elders. - **Acts 15:5-6* > “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” 3. **Peter’s Speech and the Yoke** Peter addresses the council, reminding them that God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost, and argues against placing a yoke upon them that neither their ancestors nor they could bear. - **Acts 15:10-11** > “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 4. **The Council’s Decision and the Letter** The apostles and elders decide to write to the Gentile believers, acknowledging that some had troubled them by teaching circumcision and Torah observance without the church’s authority. They instead advise Gentiles to avoid certain practices linked to pagan worship. - **Acts 15:24-29** > “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: > … For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” **My Question(s):** How do those who uphold Torah Observance reconcile their position with Acts 15? Specifically: - How is Peter’s argument in verses 10-11, which describes the law as an unbearable "yoke" and emphasizes salvation through grace, understood within the framework of Torah Observance? - How is the statement in the letter (verse 24) that teachings about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were troubling and unauthorized by the apostles addressed? - How is verse 28, which lists only a few "necessary things," interpreted in light of the earlier claims that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses? Does this not contradict such a requirement? Bible verses are KJV. Thank you and God bless.

> And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, **Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.** - Acts 16:27-31 "What must I do to be saved?" is the question put to them. Isn't the Calvinist answer, "There is nothing that you can do ."? Paul and Silas answer, "Believe...and you will be saved.". Isn't the Calvinist answer, "You cannot believe unless God spiritually regenerates you first .". If Paul believed and taught Calvinism, why did he respond in a way that appears to give the jailer a decision to make? A background, related question would be, why, if Paul was Calvinist, did he expend effort in trying to persuade men? Persuade,in Koine Greek, means much the same as it does in modern English: cause (someone) to do or to believe something through reasoning or argument. How does Calvinism expound on this passage of Scripture and the notion of "persuading" men?

Matthew 22:7-9 seems to teach that the gospel was only preached to the Gentiles after the destruction of the temple, interpreting verse 7 as the metaphorical destruction of the temple, and verse 8 as the preaching to the Gentiles happening *after* the destruction of the temple. But this seems to contradict history as described in the Book of Acts where the gospel is preached to the gentiles *long before* the destruction of the temple.

Referring to Acts 11:26 : Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch? Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!? And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!? It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!? Your thoughts fellow Believers?

[Xenoglossy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy) , the ability to suddenly speak a language one has never learned or studied, is reported to have taken place at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Are there any other independent sources that claim something similar to have happened during the early stages of Christianity? Any other reports of xenoglossy apart from Acts 2 during, say, the first 300 years of Church history? Note: there is a similar question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/57350/50422 , but the question itself and its single answer so far appear to be focused on glossolalia, not xenoglossy. ____ Similar question constrained to modern times: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80486/50422

In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers? I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

Prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, angels spoke to Zechariah, to Joseph and to Mary. After his birth, angels spoke to shepherds, then to Joseph and Mary together, and then to Joseph again (four times). Yet again, an angel spoke to Peter who released Peter from the prison. John the Apostle also received multiple communications from angels in the visions which form the Apocalypse. Yet in none of these cases did any interpretation have to occur. Indeed, in almost all of these occasions, interpretation (by a human interpreter) was impossible, due to circumstances (dreaming, solitude, imprisonment, personal vision). The particular occasion of note is the herald by angels to shepherds in the fields. An angel communicated a message and then the entire host of heaven gave utterance and eleven Greek words are reported : >δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια [Luke 2:14 TR], which can be translated into eleven English words 'Glory in highest God-ward, and on earth peace, among humanity goodwill' (which requires but the hearer to add an 'Amen' to make twelve). Yet, though many shepherds were present, none was required to interpret to the others. On *all these occasions* there was no interpretation recorded. The angelic communication was in language *which the hearers were able to understand.* --------------------------------------------- So it would appear that when angels have a message to utter, they speak in a language which the hearers can appreciate and understand without intervention or assistance. Why, then, do some persons nowadays communicate in languages (apparently and reportedly) which do not exist anywhere on earth and thus the communication has to be 'interpreted' by another human person, by (one understands) a form of 'revelation' ? What do those who support and participate in this activity have to say in answer to this question ?

In Acts 18:28 it says "For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah", back then the new testment hadn't been written yet. Additionally, it says Apollos himself didn't have prior knowledge of the close miracles of Jesus or about the Holy Spirit, as those were only explained to him later, after he met Priscila and Aquila. So how did he do that? Is it possible only with the old testment?

In an article on "Authorship of Luke-Acts " in Wikipedia, it states the following: > According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – > c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of > the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the > countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic > Pauline letters... The editors of Wikipedia appeal to the following reference for a "critical consensus" for a list of contradictions: > Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998) . The historical Jesus: a > comprehensive guide. Translated by Bowden, John. Fortress Press. ISBN > 9780800631239. What are the strongest arguments contained in that source, translated by John Bowden, and what are the responses by critics (i.e. Christian apologists) holding to a traditional view of the unity of canonical Scripture?

Acts 7:59-60 >**59** And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! **60** And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep. Why did not Stephen call upon the "only true God?" It's interesting that Stephen's confession and Jesus' confession (Luke 23:34), there is a striking contrast; Jesus "commended" His spirit to the Father but Stephen, to the Lord Jesus Christ, why?

Josef Ben Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest during the time of Jesus’ ministry and for a few years afterwards. He was a strong opponent of Jesus and His message. Acts 4:1-22 informs us that Caiaphas continued to persecute the followers of Christ, being present at the trial of Peter and John. He is believed to have been born around 14 B.C. and died a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus. One source says he died in Crete and was buried in HaShalom Forest (Yaldei Israel Garden), Jerusalem. I would like to know if Josephus has any additional information about Caiaphas after the crucifixion of Jesus and up to the death of Caiaphas.

Some creatures, such as locusts and oysters, have hemolymph that serves the same purpose as what we normally call blood. Do any historical sources (from early church history, for example) address whether hemolymph qualifies as lifeblood, which Genesis 9:6 and Acts 15:20, 28–29 forbids from consumption?

As per Acts 21:24, Paul keeps the law. If Paul keeps the law, why does he say that he is not under the law in 1 Corinthians 20-21? If he is not under the law, then why did he perform the nazirite vow in Acts 21? I am confused

Throughout the modern church world there exists ***Schools of the Prophets***, many of which teach believers how to "prophesy" over individuals and congregations. For example: - Christian International School of Prophets (Bill Hamon, Florida) - Bethel School of Prophets (Redding, CA.) - Blue Ridge School of Prophets (Rocky Mount, VA) - Morningstar School of Prophets (Fort Mill, SC) - Portland Bible College (Church Life classes, Portland, OR) Are these "schools" in the same tradition---and practice---as the Schools of the Prophets described in the Old Testament? [There were six cities that were seen as having these schools there: Ramah, Bethel, Gilgal, Jericho, Carmel, Samaria; see 1 Samuel 10, 19 and 2 Kings 2, 4, 6, 9, etc.] Note the research by Ira M. Price as to the existence of these bands or schools: >In the treatment of this subject the Old Testament will be used as the authority. Tradition and legend will not be considered. The endeavor shall be to examine and classify the information given concerning the sons of the prophets (1) as collected in bands or schools; (2) in particular localities; (3) under different teachers; (4) with specific instruction; (5) with an occupation; (6) as to their means of subsistence". (Ira Price, "The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets," **The Old Testament Student**, Mar, 1889. Vol. 8, No. 7 pp. 244-249) >In conclusion, we have found in this brief discussion that the sons of the prophets (1) were collected together in bands or schools; (2) in six different localities, viz. (a) Ramah, (b) Bethel, (c) Gilgal, (d) Jericho, (e) Carmel, (f) Samaria; (3) under the tuition of (a) Samuel, (b) Elijah, (c) Elisha; (4) with instruction in (a) prophesying-worship, (b) sacred music, (c) practical matters of their day; (5) with their time wholly occupied in (a)study and worship, (b) doing errands for their masters and God, (c) performing the regular duties of a prophet; (6) largely dependent for their support upon the charity of the people. [Ibid] Usually the modern "prophets" rest their justification for their supernatural ministries on the verses of Joel 2:28-29, Acts 2:14-18, and 1 Corinthians 12-14. >You men of Judea, and all that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: "And it shall come to pass in the latter days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young en shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:14-18) Have the modern prophets (graduates of the schools) exhibited legitimate prophetic ministry in their local churches equal to the ministries demonstrated in the Old Testament? Are there "factual testimonies" to support their claims? Are there incidents beyond a reasonable doubt / coincidence that are irrefutable evidence of valid prophetic occurrences?