Brief exchange with a Messianic Jew

I was talking to a fellow who claims to be a Messianic Jew.  I have noticed in previous discussions with Messianic Jews, that they hold some sort of grudge towards St. Paul.  I've yet to understand that part of their religion.  Anyway, this fellow seems to hold such a huge grudge against St. Paul, that he even considers the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as straw because of St. Luke's association with St. Paul.  In our last exchange, he was again calling into question the works of St. Luke.  He said:

And who is Ananias? Was he the cousin of the Ananias who was killed by the Spirit of God for lying to Peter? And who wrote Acts? Was it Luke, who said he was not an eye witness to anything (Luke: 1-3)? And who told Luke about Ananias? Was it Paul? You have a problem. Acts is not a first person witness of anything, which would not meet the standards given by Yeshua in Mt 18:16, and in Dt 19:15 to establish any matter. It all comes back to Paul, who is his own witness, which Yeshua disregards in John 5:31.

This is how I broke it down in my rebuttal.

He wrote:
And who is Ananias?

A disciple from Damascus.

Quote:
Was he the cousin of the Ananias who was killed by the Spirit of God for lying to Peter?

Is everyone who shares your first name your cousin?

Quote:
And who wrote Acts? Was it Luke

Yes.

Quote:
, who said he was not an eye witness to anything (Luke: 1-3)?

He said he spoke to those who had been there from the beginning.

Quote:
And who told Luke about Ananias? Was it Paul?

Since St. Luke was immersed in the Christian Community and traveled not just with St. Paul but with all the Apostles, I'm certain he had more than one source.

Quote:
You have a problem.

Your skepticism is not my problem, but yours.

Quote:
Acts is not a first person witness of anything,

In fact, it is:
Acts 16:
10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. 11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; 12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. 13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat down , and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

The fact that St. Luke traveled with St. Paul is also confirmed in St. Paul's epistles.
2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Quote:
which would not meet the standards given by Yeshua in Mt 18:16, and in Dt 19:15 to establish any matter.

The evidence satisfied the Apostles and they were fervent believers in Jesus and the Scriptures.

Quote:
It all comes back to Paul, who is his own witness, which Yeshua disregards in John 5:31.

You, are mistaken. You think that someone must have to witness Saul, falling off his horse, in order to believe his story. But the falling off the horse is besides the point. His conversion to Christ is the point.

1. Saul of Tarsus was not an unknown person in his time.
2. He was especially notorious in the Christian community because he persecuted the Church.
3. He was also wellknown in the Jewish Community because he studied under the renowned Gamaliel. Possibly the greatest Jewish Theologian ever.

So, the entire Christian community knew him by reputation and many by face. So, when he converted, many suspected him of a ruse. They ran from him and hated him.

And the entire Jewish community did as expected also. They hated him and began to persecute him.

And 4. No one, in the Jewish or Christian communities or in any communities of the time, ever read the writings of St. Luke and said, "that didn't happen." And, if it is true that he made it all up, as you claim, they certainly would have said so. But, the Apostles and Disciples who walked with Jesus were all aware of the writings and did not object.

The only people who object, are like yourself, 2000 years removed from the events. And like "flat earthers" living on a round earth, refusing to accept any evidence to the fact. But your skepticism does not constitute evidence of anything but your own state of mind. 

I hope that makes sense.  Let me know if there is anything which needs further explanation.

Sincerely,

De Maria