False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[ATG]

What is the reason for scripture not telling us who provided the authorization, was hiding that information important or was it just a minor detail.

3 reasons:
Scripture is written for instruction in righteousness and knowledge of the Lord.

Scripture records what is necessary for that purpose.

Scripture also demand study, and doesn't spoon feed the readers as babes.

Scripture also lays snares for the fault-finders, such as what's not written must presume error.

And so, in this case, the record that Saul did have authority in Damascus from the high priest in Jerusalem, invites historical study of Roman Imperial rule over the provinces.

What was Luke trying to say in Acts, as in the 1st century, the message of history was far more important than the actual facts, facts could be distorted to deliver the message, and no one would have objected.

Among political rhetorics and poets, not the serious historians. They exercised choice of sources, but they did not skew the facts for advantage. Herodotus did not change facts to promote Hellenism over Asian culture. Livy was not writing an Aeneid for Imperial legitimacy of the Gods.

Your revisionist assumptions of falsifying records are based upon purposed presumptions of lying recorder. Not by the facts.

 

[rewriter]

3 reasons:
Scripture is written for instruction in righteousness and knowledge of the Lord.

Scripture records what is necessary for that purpose.

Scripture also demand study, and doesn't spoon feed the readers as babes.

Scripture also lays snares for the fault-finders, such as what's not written must presume error.

And so, in this case, the record that Saul did have authority in Damascus from the high priest in Jerusalem, invites historical study of Roman Imperial rule over the provinces.





Among political rhetorics and poets, not the serious historians. They exercised choice of sources, but they did not skew the facts for advantage. Herodotus did not change facts to promote Hellenism over Asian culture. Livy was not writing an Aeneid for Imperial legitimacy of the Gods.

Your revisionist assumptions of falsifying records are based upon purposed presumptions of lying recorder. Not by the facts.

Two questions, and please answer not dodge.

1) Can you provide clear, unambiguous scripture to support your claim that scripture provides everything needed? Note, there are scholars who claim that God's questioning of Job implies that God wants us to look beyond what is openly declared. so make certain to address this.

2) Have you read Herodotus and the Aeneid in order to know what they did and did not distort in order to deliver the message they wished to provide? Remember Crassus was a brilliant military leader that Rome needed more leaders like until he suddenly became a total incompetent who should never have been allowed to lead 3-year-olds, let alone actual soldiers, and he was one of many to suffer such a change in opinion.

 

[ATG]

Damascus was NOT in Syria in the 1st century, not was part of the 10 Free Cities and appears to have been administered by Nabataea as it does not appear as a Roman city until the exact same time as Nabataea ceased to be an independent nation and became formally a Roman possession.

Don't tell the Syrians, that Damascus wasn't the major city of Syria. Don't tell Pompey that he didn't make Syria a province of Rome.

And Damascus was never a Roman city, but a major provincial staging base used by Rome against Parthia.

Apparently, in your zeal to display your detailed historical 'knowledge', you revise a Nabataean control of Damascus in the 1st century B.C., into some sort of longstanding rule over the Damascus area, until the end of the 1st century A.D. As though Damascus wasn't even a Syrian city.

During Aretas family dispute with the Herodians over his divorced daughter, Aretas defeated Herod's army, and may have gained limited control of Damascus. Which 2 Cor 11 confirms as true, but is disputed by some historians.

So, in your haste to find Bible fault, you end up supporting the Bible record, in order to turn it into some sort of specific Arabian persecution of Paul, while in Arabia, not in Damascus.

Your revisionist sideshow aside: The timeline record of Paul stands uncorrected. And Paul was in Damascus a second time after returning from Arabia. He was first persecuted by the Jews in Damascus, after preaching the gospel for the first time.

Paul did not beginning preaching the gospel at Damascus nor Arabia, until returning to Damascus from Arabia.

not an ambiguous scripture passage that contradicts other acknowledged events at the same time (Antipas was at war with Aretas for instance), we can consider the evidence. But claiming that an ambiguous account implies that two active enemies cooperated against an individual,

The limited family fight between Herod and Aretas was not a general war between Arabs and Jews. Herod's own brother Phillip aided Aretas to defeat the soldiers of Herod.

The Bible, that confirms some Nabataean control in Damascus at the time, also confirms Paul was persecuted by Jews manning the gates.

Act 9:23
And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

2Co 11:32
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

This speaks of the limited temporary hold of a subordinate of Aretas. The city being 'kept' is not the established rule of the Romans, that was as normally a staging area for Rome against Parthia.

Whoever the ethnarch was filling in at the time, Jews were of the garrison seeking Paul.

This is how seemingly incidental records in the Bible, fill gaps in known historical events.

And please supply your evidence that Paul was not persecuted in, nor driven from, Arabia. Scripture merely states that he went there, not what occurred in the region.

Exactly. Therefore your personal insert must be proven. And your revised version of some longstanding Nabataean power over Damascus, with a general war against Judaea, is a nonstarter.

 

[ATG]

1) Can you provide clear, unambiguous scripture to support your claim that scripture provides everything needed?

??? Scripture provides everything 'it needs'? If you mean proof of inerrancy, then it does so every time someone accuses the Bible of error.

Otherwise, the Scriptures of Christ provide everything any soul needs to repent of sinning against God, and receive His Spirit, faith, and life to do good today, tomorrow, and forever:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Hebrews{13:8}
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Note, there are scholars who claim that God's questioning of Job implies that God wants us to look beyond what is openly declared.

Look beyond what is openly declared by men on earth, not by God in heaven.

Psa 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

2) Have you read Herodotus and the Aeneid in order to know what they did and did not distort in order to deliver the message they wished to provide?

So, you read non-Biblical historians like Herodotus with as much superficial presumption as the Bible. Talk about layman readers full of unworthy bravado.

Herodotus was not writing a propaganda piece for the Hellenes. Once again, if you have an accusation of purposed skewing of facts, then give it. Otherwise, Herodotus is the first objective historian to provide multiple sources, as well as to make difference between corroborated facts vs hearsay legends and anecdotes.

Virgil, however, wrote an accumulated mythological epic, for the purpose of confirming Augustus' imperium from the Gods of Rome.

The fact that you would mention the two side-by-side in purpose and content, is worse than school-boy knowledge.

Remember Crassus was a brilliant military leader that Rome needed more leaders like until he suddenly became a total incompetent who should never have been allowed to lead 3-year-olds, let alone actual soldiers, and he was one of many to suffer such a change in opinion.

No. I'm not interested in the revised history of fault-finders. Which we now see includes historians of note, as well as the Bible writers. However, it is another example of how normal intelligence gets skewed by zealots seeking to degrade their betters.

Crassus' own single military victory was over Spartacus' unsupported slave army. And even the was overshadowed by Pompey's return from making Syria a province of Rome. Otherwise, Crassus was always known and feared as a ruthless self-enriching businessman and powerful politician.

His proconsulship in the East against Parthia was self-secured as a Triumvir, without Senatorial support, and solely to seek his own military worth alongside Caesar and Pompey. He failed miserably by his own military unworth. No one was greatly surprised by his defeat, other than the greatness of the disaster and loss to Rome.

He was not hailed as a great military leader before Carrhea, and was justly lampooned afterward for his egotistical folly.

 

[rewriter]

??? Scripture provides everything 'it needs'? If you mean proof of inerrancy, then it does so every time someone accuses the Bible of error.

Otherwise, the Scriptures of Christ provide everything any soul needs to repent of sinning against God, and receive His Spirit, faith, and life to do good today, tomorrow, and forever:

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Hebrews{13:8}
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Look beyond what is openly declared by men on earth, not by God in heaven.

Psa 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.



So, you read non-Biblical historians like Herodotus with as much superficial presumption as the Bible. Talk about layman readers full of unworthy bravado.

Herodotus was not writing a propaganda piece for the Hellenes. Once again, if you have an accusation of purposed skewing of facts, then give it. Otherwise, Herodotus is the first objective historian to provide multiple sources, as well as to make difference between corroborated facts vs hearsay legends and anecdotes.

Virgil, however, wrote an accumulated mythological epic, for the purpose of confirming Augustus' imperium from the Gods of Rome.

The fact that you would mention the two side-by-side in purpose and content, is worse than school-boy knowledge.


No. I'm not interested in the revised history of fault-finders. Which we now see includes historians of note, as well as the Bible writers. However, it is another example of how normal intelligence gets skewed by zealots seeking to degrade their betters.

Crassus' own single military victory was over Spartacus' unsupported slave army. And even the was overshadowed by Pompey's return from making Syria a province of Rome. Otherwise, Crassus was always known and feared as a ruthless self-enriching businessman and powerful politician.

His proconsulship in the East against Parthia was self-secured as a Triumvir, without Senatorial support, and solely to seek his own military worth alongside Caesar and Pompey. He failed miserably by his own military unworth. No one was greatly surprised by his defeat, other than the greatness of the disaster and loss to Rome.

He was not hailed as a great military leader before Carrhea, and was justly lampooned afterward for his egotistical folly.

I love your revised history. It is a little short of facts, but fun to read.

Note, Crassus was well-respected before Spartacus, and Spartacus's unsupported slave army had defeated several Roman armies before Crassus.

 

[TruthDefender]

Then show the error in the teaching from the Scriptures, rather than getting rid of certain Scripture you don't like. Especially not under the false cloak of 'translation'.

I have in the past, but it doesn’t seem to work. People dismiss Scripture over traditions being taught.

 

[ATG]

Note, Crassus was well-respected before Spartacus, and Spartacus's unsupported slave army had defeated several Roman armies before Crassus.

Note, Crassus well-respected as a politician and accumulator of wealth, is not as a victorious general. Crassus forced a command into the east for the sole purpose of seeking military glory alongside Pompey and Caesar. He failed miserably.

Crassus' victory over the slave army was not worthy of a triumph, and was overshadowed by Pompey's return from the east. It did not result in the military honors of a great Roman general. His continued political rise was due to his craftsmanship and wealth in Roman politics.

And the historian Herodotus was not a propagandist, nor was the poet Virgil a historian.

And you are not a serious literary critic, but only a superficial layman looking for fault, even in established historians.

 

[ATG]

I have in the past, but it doesn’t seem to work. People dismiss Scripture over traditions being taught.

You don't even know pay attention to what you write from one post to the next. It's the manner of people trying to pass off personal bias as Scriptural 'teaching'.

 

[rewriter]

Note, Crassus well-respected as a politician and accumulator of wealth, is not as a victorious general. Crassus forced a command into the east for the sole purpose of seeking military glory alongside Pompey and Caesar. He failed miserably.

Crassus' victory over the slave army was not worthy of a triumph, and was overshadowed by Pompey's return from the east. It did not result in the military honors of a great Roman general. His continued political rise was due to his craftsmanship and wealth in Roman politics.

And the historian Herodotus was not a propagandist, nor was the poet Virgil a historian.

And you are not a serious literary critic, but only a superficial layman looking for fault, even in established historians.

Who was the hero of the Colline Gate in 82 BCE. His reputation as only a politician and collector of wealth came only after his defeat at Carrhae. Since he lost, he must have been flawed before that, and so history was rewritten to prove that. Study to learn actual history and why history got rewritten in Roman times. Tiberius was also great, then totally incompetent but restored to greatness. Great when he was emperor, then totally incompetent when he tried to partially retire and Sejanus plotted a coup, then great again when he came out of retirement and crushed Sejanus. If the coup had succeeded, Tiberius would have died as a total incompetent who never did anything worthwhile.

What you are displaying is your ignorance.

 

[ATG]

Who was the hero of the Colline Gate in 82 BCE.

Sulla was hero of the Colline gate. Pompey did a good job on the right wing as a legate, not general commander.

You're mistaking a decent military reputation for a great one. He was militarily overshadowed in the 1st B.C. Republic by Marius, Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar, Marc Antony...

His reputation as only a politician and collector of wealth came only after his defeat at Carrhae.

Tell that to his co-triumvirs, that knew he wrested a command in the East, to finally prove he was also a great Roman general on campaign. And failed miserably his first true test at war...

Also, tell that to his political allies and rivals, that coveted his political skills and wealth, not any military glories.

Study to learn actual history and why history got rewritten in Roman times.

Once again, your skewed faults with the Bible and all historians of the age, is baseless laymen's pretention.

Tiberius was also great, then totally incompetent but restored to greatness.

Once again, your skewed effort to mix historians and propagandists, is a baseless pretense for mixing Bible writers with political myth, as the Aeneid.
As they say, you've learned just enough surface knowledge to step knee deep in your own mythos.

1Co 8:2
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

 

[rewriter]

Sulla was hero of the Colline gate. Pompey did a good job on the right wing as a legate, not general commander.

You're mistaking a decent military reputation for a great one. He was militarily overshadowed in the 1st B.C. Republic by Marius, Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar, Marc Antony...




Tell that to his co-triumvirs, that knew he wrested a command in the East, to finally prove he was also a great Roman general on campaign. And failed miserably his first true test at war...

Also, tell that to his political allies and rivals, that coveted his political skills and wealth, not any military glories.


Once again, your skewed faults with the Bible and all historians of the age, is baseless laymen's pretention.



Once again, your skewed effort to mix historians and propagandists, is a baseless pretense for mixing Bible writers with political myth, as the Aeneid.
As they say, you've learned just enough surface knowledge to step knee deep in your own mythos.

1Co 8:2
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Sulla appointed Pompey and Crassus to command his two wings, while he led the center position. Crassus defeated his opponent and was preparing to allow his troops to relax when word came from Sulla that he needed all the troops that Crassus could spare. Crassus then left enough troops to hold what he had captured and led the rest to rescue Sulla.

As for my "skewed" knowledge, it is well known among SCHOLARS, if not lay people, that until roughly 500 years ago, the purpose of history was to deliver a message, not record the facts. In fact, facts could be "adjusted" in order to ensure that the proper message was delivered.

Now do you maintain that it is pure coincidence that Acts seems to contain references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, local legends and then common comic characters among others? That sounds like a very big coincidence, especially when it also seems to contradict Paul, that is unless two groups that fought with each other decided to cooperate for a very brief moment against one individual just because, even though one of the two groups had a history of tolerance for the type of activity the individual was engaged in. But of course, that must be true because otherwise you are misunderstanding and applying a false meaning a word that no one is certain how to interpret. Gee, I wonder what seems more likely.

By the way, if I am correct, then Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Acts and Paul's epistles all have an unrecognized common theme that resolves many known difficult passages, including 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[GWH]

Sulla appointed Pompey and Crassus to command his two wings, while he led the center position. Crassus defeated his opponent and was preparing to allow his troops to relax when word came from Sulla that he needed all the troops that Crassus could spare. Crassus then left enough troops to hold what he had captured and led the rest to rescue Sulla.

As for my "skewed" knowledge, it is well known among SCHOLARS, if not lay people, that until roughly 500 years ago, the purpose of history was to deliver a message, not record the facts. In fact, facts could be "adjusted" in order to ensure that the proper message was delivered.

Now do you maintain that it is pure coincidence that Acts seems to contain references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, local legends and then common comic characters among others? That sounds like a very big coincidence, especially when it also seems to contradict Paul, that is unless two groups that fought with each other decided to cooperate for a very brief moment against one individual just because, even though one of the two groups had a history of tolerance for the type of activity the individual was engaged in. But of course, that must be true because otherwise you are misunderstanding and applying a false meaning a word that no one is certain how to interpret. Gee, I wonder what seems more likely.

By the way, if I am correct, then Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Acts and Paul's epistles all have an unrecognized common theme that resolves many known difficult passages, including 2 Timothy 3:16.

Verses in Acts re the references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, and Homer?

 

[rewriter]

Verses in Acts re the references to Plato, Socrates, Virgil, and Homer?

I hope you know your classics otherwise you will miss them because they are written into the narrative in ways that, if you know the classics, appear as clear parallels, but if you do not, you miss, think a salesman in some novel who introduces himself as "Jones, Tom Jones". If you do not know Bond adventures, you will likely miss the reference, but if you do.

Now Plato is suggested when the early church shares everything in common, Socrates is suggested when Paul preaches in Athens, Virgil is suggested in multiple places, but the easiest to see is when Peter heals Aeneas, as Aeneas was a very common name in literature, but rare outside of literature, and the exact details almost scream a connection. Finally, Homer is paralleled in in both the combination of Luke-Acts as well as in Paul's shipwreck.,

 

[GWH]

I hope you know your classics otherwise you will miss them because they are written into the narrative in ways that, if you know the classics, appear as clear parallels, but if you do not, you miss, think a salesman in some novel who introduces himself as "Jones, Tom Jones". If you do not know Bond adventures, you will likely miss the reference, but if you do.

Now Plato is suggested when the early church shares everything in common, Socrates is suggested when Paul preaches in Athens, Virgil is suggested in multiple places, but the easiest to see is when Peter heals Aeneas, as Aeneas was a very common name in literature, but rare outside of literature, and the exact details almost scream a connection. Finally, Homer is paralleled in in both the combination of Luke-Acts as well as in Paul's shipwreck.,

The instances you cited are too vague to be impressive except for Aeneas, regarding which AI says:

"The sole biblical mention of the name is found in the Book of Acts, where the Apostle Peter heals a paralyzed man in the city of Lydda. Because Lydda was a primarily Jewish town with deep historical roots, a distinctly Greco-Roman name like Aeneas likely suggests the man had Hellenistic roots or ties to Greek culture."

This reference can therefore reasonably be viewed as a prelude to the vision of Peter regarding salvation for the Gentiles in the next chapter of Acts. (Interesting, thanks.)

 

[rewriter]

The instances you cited are too vague to be impressive except for Aeneas, regarding which AI says:

"The sole biblical mention of the name is found in the Book of Acts, where the Apostle Peter heals a paralyzed man in the city of Lydda. Because Lydda was a primarily Jewish town with deep historical roots, a distinctly Greco-Roman name like Aeneas likely suggests the man had Hellenistic roots or ties to Greek culture."

This reference can therefore reasonably be viewed as a prelude to the vision of Peter regarding salvation for the Gentiles in the next chapter of Acts. (Interesting, thanks.)

As I said, you need to know your classic literature. Relying on AI is folly. I know of at least one scholar who found a quote of his, which he never wrote, cited in a professional paper. It turned out that the person who wrote the paper used AI to assist him finding quotes, and AI invented at least one for that individual. Recent studies suggest that up to 75% of the quotes that one can get from AI are invented by the most recent editions of AI. To put it differently, AI can help finding information, but it behooves the user to confirm that AI is not leading one astray. Aeneas was a very rare name even in Hellenistic circles, but if you know what Aeneas did in the Aeneid, things get interesting.

As for the other citations, think Plato's ideal culture, where was Aristotle tried, what major character was shipwrecked in the Iliad and what were the details of that incident, now invert when necessary? The ancients knew these things like you now modern culture. But if you do not know the classics, you will not catch the references.

 

[GWH]

As I said, you need to know your classic literature. Relying on AI is folly. I know of at least one scholar who found a quote of his, which he never wrote, cited in a professional paper. It turned out that the person who wrote the paper used AI to assist him finding quotes, and AI invented at least one for that individual. Recent studies suggest that up to 75% of the quotes that one can get from AI are invented by the most recent editions of AI. To put it differently, AI can help finding information, but it behooves the user to confirm that AI is not leading one astray. Aeneas was a very rare name even in Hellenistic circles, but if you know what Aeneas did in the Aeneid, things get interesting.

As for the other citations, think Plato's ideal culture, where was Aristotle tried, what major character was shipwrecked in the Iliad and what were the details of that incident, now invert when necessary? The ancients knew these things like you now modern culture. But if you do not know the classics, you will not catch the references.

That's odd. I cited AI supporting your hypothesis and you say it is folly. Go figure!

So what did Aeneas do in the Aeneid that is interesting?
And who got shipwrecked in the Iliad and what details are significant?

Regarding Plato's idealism, I can think of a passage by Paul that seems similar,
but what inference do you have in mind that you caught?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

True, as long as you can be certain that you are listening to the Holy Spirit. I am aware of many Christian churches that claim to be following the Holy Spirit, yet the spirit they follow is anything but holy. How do you distinguish the Holy Spirit from any other spirit as many spirits can deceive unwary Christians no matter what said Christians claim. In fact, I have heard some Christians proclaim that the guidance of the Holy Spirit feels exactly like what occurs when someone is in the presence of the demonic, so please be specific.

It's easy.

How to distinguish the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit always lines up with the Bible. If the message departs at ANY point - that's not from the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

John 14:26 "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

1 Corinthians 2:13–14 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit... The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

How do you not know this?

 

[rewriter]

So what did Aeneas do in the Aeneid that is interesting?
And who got shipwrecked in the Iliad and what details are significant?

Regarding Plato's idealism, I can think of a passage by Paul that seems similar,
but what inference do you have in mind that you caught?

Plato's ideal culture is paralleled in Acts, not Paul.

And I warned you that if you did not know the classics, you would miss things. In Virgil's Aeneid, as in most classic literature, Aeneas is strong and healthy as he leads the survivors of a fallen civilization to Italy where they introduce their gods to the culture that will become Rome. In Acts, Aeneas is paralyzed, needing healing from Christ through Peter., reversing the common presentation, he is not strong, he needs healing and the gods he brought to Romare ineffective, but Jesus is effective, a parallel in reversal. The ancients would have caught it with no trouble.

But in Homer's Iliad, a key person gets shipwrecked, a viper bites them, a healer gets involved and there is prophesy. Now which of those things is missing in Paul's reported shipwreck in Acts.

 

[rewriter]

It's easy.

How to distinguish the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit always lines up with the Bible. If the message departs at ANY point - that's not from the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

John 14:26 "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

1 Corinthians 2:13–14 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit... The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

How do you not know this?

Because I am aware of far too many "good Christian churches" that cannot distinguish between the Holy Spirit and a definitely unholy spirit. Further, given how many Christians, even in this forum, cannot agree about what the Holy Spirit "clearly" teaches, there exists a problem.

 

[GWH]

Plato's ideal culture is paralleled in Acts, not Paul.

And I warned you that if you did not know the classics, you would miss things. In Virgil's Aeneid, as in most classic literature, Aeneas is strong and healthy as he leads the survivors of a fallen civilization to Italy where they introduce their gods to the culture that will become Rome. In Acts, Aeneas is paralyzed, needing healing from Christ through Peter., reversing the common presentation, he is not strong, he needs healing and the gods he brought to Romare ineffective, but Jesus is effective, a parallel in reversal. The ancients would have caught it with no trouble.

But in Homer's Iliad, a key person gets shipwrecked, a viper bites them, a healer gets involved and there is prophesy. Now which of those things is missing in Paul's reported shipwreck in Acts.

Not sure that the Jews would have caught the reversal of Aeneid, but the similarity of the Iliad to Acts sounds familiar.
The Plato-like verse I have in mind is 1Cor. 13:12 (cf. the cave).