Theology Club: WHAT GAL 2:20 MEANS TO BELIEVERS !!

[patrick jane]

Hi you say that Acts 9:6 is a Mid-Acts phrase ?

If you are really Acts 9:6 and know HOW to prove it , why do you need that PHRASE ??

Show me your PROOF of Saul's salvation in Acts 9:6 OR are you going to cling to " I saw the Light " ??

If they believe in Acts 13 , why are they so defensive OR are you Acts 13 ??

Like to you prove either one !!

dan p

i know I'm Acts - 9 technicality 13 foreknowledge of purpose 28:28

and ALL Paul's epistles. there is no need for anyone to prove anything, just grow and walk in the Word - Praise God

 

[DAN P]

i know I'm Acts - 9 technicality 13 foreknowledge of purpose 28:28

and ALL Paul's epistles. there is no need for anyone to prove anything, just grow and walk in the Word - Praise God

Hi and I attend an assembly at 2 locations where one is Acts 13 , but not all Acts 13 people are agreeable as he and we do not at all always talk about Acts 13 !!

Attended there last Sunday and spoke about the Millennium and why the USA is not in Prophecy , and had a good time !!

But you should know HOW to defend the Acts 9:6 position and NOT just say " I saw the Light " .

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

At least JERRY S , has the nerve to present Acts 13 , even when I said he is wrong !!

I started a new thread asking for evidence that the present dispensation began at Acts 9 and no one was able to present any such evidence.

On the same thread I presented evidence that it began at Acts 13 and no one was able to prove anything I said about that was in error!

 

[DAN P]

I started a new thread asking for evidence that the present dispensation began at Acts 9 and no one was able to present any such evidence.

On the same thread I presented evidence that it began at Acts 13 and no one was able to prove anything I said about that was in error!

Hi and I already have a OP in this section in Mid-Acts diepsensationism !!

And the Acts 9:6 position is proven in Acts 9:6 with 1 Cor 12:3 !!

And there are many other verses , like 1 Cor 15:8 , 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 and Rom 1:1 !!

Soince you have Blue letter bible , tell what the verb tenses tell about that verse ,

All are in the Present Tense !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi and I already have a OP in this section in Mid-Acts diepsensationism !!

And the Acts 9:6 position is proven in Acts 9:6 with 1 Cor 12:3 !!

Tell me why anyone should believe that is true.

 

[Danoh]

Hi and I already have a OP in this section in Mid-Acts diepsensationism !!

And the Acts 9:6 position is proven in Acts 9:6 with 1 Cor 12:3 !!

And there are many other verses , like 1 Cor 15:8 , 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 and Rom 1:1 !!

Soince you have Blue letter bible , tell what the verb tenses tell about that verse ,

All are in the Present Tense !!

dan p

Yo, DP, you've noted elsewhere you followed Brock a great deal - could you share what his take had been on a passage like Romans 16:25-26.

At the risk of further opening up a can of worms, lol

 

[DAN P]

Yo, DP, you've noted elsewhere you followed Brock a great deal - could you share what his take had been on a passage like Romans 16:25-26.

At the risk of further opening up a can of worms, lol

Hi and Robert C Brock just died in June , 2015 and has written a verse by verse of the following books , Acts , Hebrews , Galatians , Ephesians , and translated all of Romans - Philemon with notes at the hard places and on many other subjects , which are still available .

Here is how he translates Rom 16:25 and 26 !!

Verse 25 , Now the One being able to make you firm According to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ to ( the ) revelation of ( the ) MYSTERY , having been kept silent in Times pertaining to the Ages !!

#1 , according to my gospel is also in Rom 2:16

#2 , Preaching / KERUGMA is talking about the content or the substance of the preaching .

#3 , Since there are no Greek articles with the words " revelation or mystery " they can also be written " mystery revelation or secret revelation !

#4 Having been kept silent is a verb in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and Pariticiple .

#5 The KJV uses the word WORLD and is the Greek word AIONIOS a plural in verse 25 which means AGE !!

Verse 26 , But now Having been made clear as by PTOPHETIC Scriptures according to ( the ) command of the Everlasting God , Having been Known to all the Gentiles for OBEDIENCE of FAITH !!

#1 , Is made MANIFEST is in the Aorist Tense saying it was Past Action as well as the verb " made known " is also in the Past Tense .

So to be in the FAITH , you all have to be Acts 9:6 or Pauline Dispensationalist and KNOW how to prove Acts 9:6 , don't you see !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Hi and Robert C Brock just died in June , 2015 and has written a verse by verse of the following books , Acts , Hebrews , Galatians , Ephesians , and translated all of Romans - Philemon with notes at the hard places and on many other subjects , which are still available .

Here is how he translates Rom 16:25 and 26 !!

Verse 25 , Now the One being able to make you firm According to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ to ( the ) revelation of ( the ) MYSTERY , having been kept silent in Times pertaining to the Ages !!

#1 , according to my gospel is also in Rom 2:16

#2 , Preaching / KERUGMA is talking about the content or the substance of the preaching .

#3 , Since there are no Greek articles with the words " revelation or mystery " they can also be written " mystery revelation or secret revelation !

#4 Having been kept silent is a verb in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and Pariticiple . AIONIOS

#5 The KJV uses the word WORLD and is the Greek word AIONIOS a plural in verse 25 .

Verse 26 , But now Having been made clear as by PTOPHETIC Scriptures according to ( the ) command of the Everlasting God , Having been Known to all the Gentiles for OBEDIENCE of FAITH !!

#1 , Is made MANIFEST is in the Aorist Tense saying it was Past Action as well as the verb " made known " is also in the Past Tense .

So to be in the FAITH , you all have to be Acts 9:6 or Pauline Dispensationalist and KNOW how to prove Acts 9:6 , don't you see !!

dan p

Thanks.

I find I arrive at all that, and an even greater sense of it, through the passages.

For me, there is way more than asserting Acts 9 Dispensationalism from a few passages.

In fact, for me, all issues are like that. All issues are the issue of the whole pointing to one its parts, which is what Acts 9:6 is; a part of many other parts; and why I hold to it.

Sort as with crime detection. A whole picture is gradually arrived at through the observation of many recurrent patterns that, together begin to reveal not only the whole picture, but also, if sound, result in a whole picture able to point back to "the measure of every part" of that whole.

Its a principle I learned in childhood elementary school "after you're done adding up your arithmetic, run it backwards [subtraction]; see if it still holds up.

In this, I find I do not need the various study tools. I find that good questions are all I need. Questions that time in any endeavor begin to result in and continue to sharpen the intelligent asking of "by reason of use."

I asked about Brock's take on Rom. 16:26, by the way, because I recalled he had held that Paul was referring to his own writings in that passage.

I arrived at that same conclusion, but by the route I have just described.

Anyway, what was his take on verse 26's "scriptures of the prophets" - KJV ["prophetic writings" - RT].

And what did he base that on; I'm curious.

Thanks

 

[DAN P]

Thanks.

I find I arrive at all that, and an even greater sense of it, through the passages.

For me, there is way more than asserting Acts 9 Dispensationalism from a few passages.

In fact, for me, all issues are like that. All issues are the issue of the whole pointing to one its parts, which is what Acts 9:6 is; a part of many other parts; and why I hold to it.

Sort as with crime detection. A whole picture is gradually arrived at through the observation of many recurrent patterns that, together begin to reveal not only the whole picture, but also, if sound, result in a whole picture able to point back to "the measure of every part" of that whole.

Its a principle I learned in childhood elementary school "after you're done adding up your arithmetic, run it backwards [subtraction]; see if it still holds up.

In this, I find I do not need the various study tools. I find that good questions are all I need. Questions that time in any endeavor begin to result in and continue to sharpen the intelligent asking of "by reason of use."

I asked about Brock's take on Rom. 16:26, by the way, because I recalled he had held that Paul was referring to his own writings in that passage.

I arrived at that same conclusion, but by the route I have just described.

Anyway, what was his take on verse 26's "scriptures of the prophets" - KJV ["prophetic writings" - RT].

And what did he base that on; I'm curious.

Thanks

Hi , and can not answer until tomorrow as I am short of time and finding verses for OP as what you asked is also in Eph 3 !!

DAN P

 

[Danoh]

Hi , and can not answer until tomorrow as I am short of time and finding verses for OP as what you asked is also in Eph 3 !!

DAN P

From what I have read from your posts, you and I perhaps have a same understanding about many things than most anyone else on here.

Doesn't mean I should hound them about it. I'll start a thread about something; if it goes nowhere, so be it.

Other times I'll engage some on here who I differ with on some things, it goes nowhere, and I leave it at that.

Why?

Because I was fine before discovering any of our differences. in understanding. If anything, I find these differences stimulating to think thru.

Outside of that, I find no need to have others on a same page with my own understanding.

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," Rom. 14: 5, 23.

Anyway, let me know on my above, Brock on Rom. 16:26 question.

Thanks

 

[DAN P]

From what I have read from your posts, you and I perhaps have a same understanding about many things than most anyone else on here.

Doesn't mean I should hound them about it. I'll start a thread about something; if it goes nowhere, so be it.

Other times I'll engage some on here who I differ with on some things, it goes nowhere, and I leave it at that.

Why?

Because I was fine before discovering any of our differences. in understanding. If anything, I find these differences stimulating to think thru.

Outside of that, I find no need to have others on a same page with my own understanding.

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," Rom. 14: 5, 23.

Anyway, let me know on my above, Brock on Rom. 16:26 question.

Thanks

Hi and I will respond as best I can and looking at some other verses !!

I am not offended with anyone and you are amusing me , with what you say about me !!

By the way I have Bullinger's book on " How to Enjoy the Bible " and can defend against them .

I got busy today and at my age get tired and just relax as I have other things to do during the day .

I hurt myself very bad and have almost recovered !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Hi and I will respond as best I can and looking at some other verses !!

I am not offended with anyone and you are amusing me , with what you say about me !!

By the way I have Bullinger's book on " How to Enjoy the Bible " and can defend against them .

I got busy today and at my age get tired and just relax as I have other things to do during the day .

I got hurt myself very bad and have almost recovered !!

dan p

To your quick recovery, brother, and your stedfastness therein. D

 

[DAN P]

I started a new thread asking for evidence that the present dispensation began at Acts 9 and no one was able to present any such evidence.

On the same thread I presented evidence that it began at Acts 13 and no one was able to prove anything I said about that was in error!

Hi Jerry , and why not start an OP , here or on that other section on dispensationalism for Acts 13 !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry , and why not start an OP , here or on that other section on dispensationalism for Acts 13 !!

dan p

Done!

 

[Danoh]

Hi to all and what does Rom 16:26 mean ?

There are many who believe that Eph 3:5 was made KNOWN to the OT apostles and prophets by the Spirit and how can that be if we believe Col 1:25-27 ??

Paul is the one who wrote about Grace in his epistles and we see from Eph 3:1 it is written to Gentiles. While Rom 16:26 has 2 verbs ALL in the Aorist Tense which happened when Paul wrote them, or in the Past Tense !!

The verb PROPHETIC / PROPHETIKOS which means 'proceeding from a Prophet - which is Paul, it means PROPHETIC !!

This message is written to Gentiles , verse 26 !!

And Eph 3:5 is not speaking to OT apostles or Prophets and is obvious to me this was before Acts 13 !!

I know that R C Brock believed that books like 1 Corinthians, Romans and Galatians were written first !

As 1 Cor 1:17 says; Paul was NOT sent to Baptize BUT to preach the Gospel, not with words of wisdom in order that the CROSS of Christ should not be made empty !

This means that Paul could never have preached the Kingdom of Heaven message ,

I could write more , like Rom about 1:1, and many more passages, as there is no room for Acts 13, as Paul's ministry began as soon as he received the MYSTERY, Rom 16:25 and 26 !!

Robert C Brock asserted the PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES referred to Paul's epistles, not to OT writings, and PROPHECY is mentioned in 12 of Paul's epistles , Philemon being the lone exception !!

dan p

Thanks, DP

By the way, I corrected some of your expressions in the above; hope that was ok.

 

[DAN P]

Thanks, DP

By the way, I corrected some of your expressions in the above; hope that was ok.

Hi amd I am always in a hurry and I find myself correcting my owm posts , no big deal !!

dan p