An overlooked (in Protestantism) aspect of this text is what it does NOT say. It includes: the apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. Curiously, it says nothing of the written word. Sort of calls into question the validity of the protestant principle of Sola Scriptura.

Except that it does say what the "apostle's doctrine" was. Read Peter's exposition just previously in verses 14-39. Notice how Peter doesn't quote any of the rabbis, but what was written by the prophets long ago (a practice we would definitely call sola scriptura).

///

Absolutely right. And for the record, Sola Scriptura is a critical anchor for me.

However I would like to point out (as an aside) that the NT has far more instances of the apostles saying "remember what I taught you" than "remember what is written."

A question for Daryl - this week's lesson discussed Ananias and Sapphira. What killed them?

Must have been god. Made them all very afraid.
Acts 5:11 And great fear came on all the church, and on as many as heard these things.

The lesson said they were "punished". While they sure didn't do that again, not sure what the lesson's definition of punishment was.

Separated out is "temple" from its "ceremonial services". What is the temple's ceremonial services, or the "entire" temple order? What I'm getting to more specifically is some say the temple "sacrifices" are no longer, but everything else still holds. Like they did in Stephen's day. So where's concrete reference that services and order refer to more than sacrifices and what they would be? Similarly, or differently, what is the "law of Moses" that those of the time referred to?

That's a very interesting observation and question. The Law of Moses is the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). We know this because:

1. Jesus differentiated it from the rest of scripture, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:44; and
    
2. Luke spoke of it in this way when he wrote, at the end of Acts, about Paul's ministry in Rome, "So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening." Acts 28:23

The Law of Moses defined the culture and identity of Israel as a nation under God. We do not share their experience. Our history is not one of slavery, freedom, a promised land on earth, and the hope of God living in a house with us --- rather, we came from out of Israel, a Church of many nations under God, rejected by the Jews, celebrating the sacrifice made for our redemption, the penalty paid for the curse imposed upon us from the very beginning in the days of Adam the father all, with the hope and joy of everlasting life at the Second Advent, and a place for us in heaven, back to Eden as it were.

For us, "the kingdom of God is not [defined by any one culture]1, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men." Rom. 14:17-18

-------------------

1 Rom. 14:14: "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." A rather radical interpretation of what was written in the Law of Moses for Israel!

///
 

Let the Testimonies speak...

Man is so corrupt that laws are made to throw the responsibility upon his own head. Some men do not fear to lie to their fellow man; but they have been taught, and the restraining Spirit of God has impressed them, that it is a fearful thing to lie to God. The case of Ananias and Sapphira his wife is given for an example. The matter is carried from man to God, so that if one bears false witness, it is not to man, but to the great God, who reads the heart, and knows the exact truth in every case. Our laws make it a high crime to take a false oath. God has often visited judgment upon the false swearer, and even while the oath was on his lips, the destroying angel has cut him down. This was to prove a terror to evildoers. {1T 202.2}
 
With these words of light and truth before them, how dare men neglect so plain a duty? How dare they disobey God when obedience to His requirements means His blessing in both temporal and spiritual things, and disobedience means the curse of God? Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree coming upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest. {6T 388.3}

Thursday - Return to Jerusalem

Is it Goldstein always so wrong or am I misunderstanding something?

According to Galatians, after the 3 years, Paul only saw Peter and James. After the 14 year, Barnabas took Paul to the others.

EGW in "Acts of the Apostles"
"After his escape from Damascus, Paul went to Jerusalem, about three years having passed since his conversion. His chief object in making this visit, as he himself declared afterward, was "to see Peter." Galatians 1:18. Upon arriving in the city where he had once been well known as "Saul the persecutor," "he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple." It was difficult for them to believe that so bigoted a Pharisee, and one who had done so much to destroy the church, could become a sincere follower of Jesus. "But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus."

Upon hearing this, the disciples received him as one of their number. Soon they had abundant evidence as to the genuineness of his Christian experience.

The future apostle to the Gentiles was now in the city where many of his former associates lived, and to these Jewish leaders he longed to make plain the prophecies concerning the Messiah, which had been fulfilled by the advent of the Saviour. Paul felt sure that these teachers in Israel, with whom he had once been so well acquainted, were as sincere and honest as he had been. But he had miscalculated the spirit of his Jewish brethren, and in the hope of their speedy conversion he was doomed to bitter disappointment. Although "he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians," those who stood at the head of the Jewish church refused to believe, but "went about to slay him." Sorrow filled his heart. He would willingly have yielded up his life if by that means he might bring some to a knowledge of the truth. With shame he thought of the active part he had taken in the martyrdom of Stephen, and now in his anxiety to wipe out the stain resting upon one so falsely accused, he sought to vindicate the truth for which Stephen had given his life.
130

Burdened in behalf of those who refused to believe, Paul was praying in the temple, as he himself afterward testified, when he fell into a trance; whereupon a heavenly messenger appeared before him and said, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning Me." Acts 22:18. {AA 128-130}


The Biblical account in Acts chapter nine also fits with the above account. It may well be we don't fully understand what Paul meant in Gal. 2 if we see a contradiction.

It's quite possible that when Barnabas vouched for the genuine conversion of Paul, he did this to have him accepted by Peter and James. In using the term "apostles" in Acts 9:27, Luke was likely to have used the word in a general sense with Barnabas only bringing Paul to a couple of the leading apostles, not to the whole group. Peter and James probably told the rest that Paul's conversion was genuine and they accepted their word, without Paul actually dialoguing with the whole group.
Apparently, however, the followers of Christ were no longer afraid of Saul during that first visit, for Luke, in Acts 9 describes the visit such as Paul going in and out among the disciples (Acts 9:28).