ECT Why God sent Paul.

[heir]

Tell that to the thousands under the BBS flag. Or the thousands more under GGF, or the thousands more under GSB. Or the thousands more in other parts of the world.

I have to many and will to more. Got emails?

I even had you read a long document by a TTCM
Pastor who tore holes in the views of the Acts 28ers views (not the same, but very similar to your own).

Here is that document once more.

Once again, when asked for YOU to back up YOUR accusation and tell me WHY, you send me to a pdf (and a 25 pager at that!) This is a discussion board. If you cannot articulate your position, come back when you can and we'll discuss it.

 

[heir]

Lol - I just love a good ribbing.

Question is though, is there room for getting along, but at the same time; without having to compromise what one holds to.

Philippians 1: 9-10 says yes, it is doable.

How? Gal. 5:18

I have; you gainsaid it. That's on you.

I don't hold that against you. I differ in my understanding, I have no difference with you, Phillipians 1:9, 10.

You don't approve things that are excellent. You disapprove of many "these things" and "those things"!

(bold and underlined text, my emphasis)

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

 

[tetelestai]

If you cannot articulate your position, come back when you can and we'll discuss it.

Why can't you be honest and admit your "position" is largely based on the teachings of E.W. Bullinger?

Danoh was right, you didn't get to that position on your own, someone taught it to you.

 

[Interplanner]

I have to many and will to more. Got emails?

Once again, when asked for YOU to back up YOUR accusation and tell me WHY, you send me to a pdf (and a 25 pager at that!) This is a discussion board. If you cannot articulate your position, come back when you can and we'll discuss it.

So what is it that happens in ch 28 that others think happens earlier?

 

[Danoh]

That's the really funny thing about MAD.

They go on and on about how "the age of grace" started in mid-Acts, but none of them can even agree with each other where in mid-Acts this big change took place.

Some of them say the stoning of Stephen marked God's putting Israel on hold, they are Acts 7.

Some of them say Saul's conversion to Paul in Acts 9, they of course are Acts 9

Others claim it was Acts 13, when Paul stopped going to the Jew first. They are Acts 13

Then there's E.W. Bullinger and Acts 28. While Bullinger wasn't mid-Acts, MADists like STP and heir adhere to about 90% of Bullingers teachings, but claim to be Acts 9's.

MAD is a mess.

As if the Preterists on here - Tet, Interplanner, I Am A Berean, Aaron the Tall, et al, can agree on whether or not the Lord returned in 70AD or not, on whether the reliance of some on the NIV is sound, and so on. Its how they ended up dividing into Preterists and Partial Preterists.

Tet knows this.

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 7 group within Mid-Acts . That is just one of Tet's many proofs he does not understand Mid-Acts.

The description Mid-Acts came about out of the recognition that those who hold to a difference a very minor difference in understanding as to whether or not Paul began his commission among the Gentiles in Acts 9 or 13 were basically in agreement in most other understandings.

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 13 as a group within Mid-Acts. Again, this just Tet, proving his misunderstanding of Mid-Acts.

From what I understand from their posts, and the writings of others elsewhere who appear to hold to their views, STP, heir, et al, DO NOT appear to hold to views on some things IN THE EXACT SAME WAY that those who hold to an Acts 28 Position do.

I know that becuase the Mid-Acts I hold to differs in understanding of those issues with both of those groups.

I was already very well aware of what the Acts 28 Position holds and does not hold to way before I encountered the views STP, et al hold to that differ from the Mid-Acts I hold to in those areas.

As a result, upon encountering those differences, I was immediately aware that while similar in some ways to how the Acts 28 Position sees those things, they are nevertheless NOT the view the Acts 28 Position holds.

Tet appears not to care that he is misrepresenting those he asserts are fellow members of the Body of Christ.

This is on him, as an individual whether or not someone else threw some supposed first stone, just as it is on each individual.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Do we seriously imagine that "Well, Lord, he threw the first rock," will fly "in that day"?

 

[Interplanner]

As if the Preterists on here - Tet, Interplanner, I Am A Berean, Aaron the Tall, et al, can agree on whether or not the Lord returned in 70AD or not, on whether the reliance of some on the NIV is sound, and so on. Its how they ended up dividing into Preterists and Partial Preterists.

Tet knows this.

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 7 group within Mid-Acts . That is just one of Tet's many proofs he does not understand Mid-Acts.

The description Mid-Acts came about out of the recognition that those who hold to a difference a very minor difference in understanding as to whether or not Paul began his commission among the Gentiles in Acts 9 or 13 were basically in agreement in most other understandings.

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 13 as a group within Mid-Acts. Again, this just Tet, proving his misunderstanding of Mid-Acts.

From what I understand from their posts, and the writings of others elsewhere who appear to hold to their views, STP, heir, et al, DO NOT appear to hold to views on some things IN THE EXACT SAME WAY that those who hold to an Acts 28 Position do.

I know that becuase the Mid-Acts I hold to differs in understanding of those issues with both of those groups.

I was already very well aware of what the Acts 28 Position holds and does not hold to way before I encountered the views STP, et al hold to that differ from the Mid-Acts I hold to in those areas.

As a result, upon encountering those differences, I was immediately aware that while similar in some ways to how the Acts 28 Position sees those things, they are nevertheless NOT the view the Acts 28 Position holds.

Tet appears not to care that he is misrepresenting those he asserts are fellow members of the Body of Christ.

This is on him, as an individual whether or not someone else threw some supposed first stone, just as it is on each individual.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Do we seriously imagine that "Well, Lord, he threw the first rock," will fly "in that day"?

___-Acts about what? I simply have never heard of anything so poorly communicated as this discussion, which is why I refer to 2P2P as a problem, so that we knew immediately what we are talking about.

What are these divisions over? What change is it that they can't agree upon?

 

[Danoh]

You don't approve things that are excellent. You disapprove of many "these things" and "those things"!

(bold and underlined text, my emphasis)

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

No, I differ in my understanding. That pdf I reposted to you lays out the same view I hold on that passage. Its why I posted it. Just as one of your own asserts something and you post a thumbs up or whatever.

Though it deals with the Acts 28 Position it at the same ends up dealing with those views you and yours hold that are in some ways similar to your own.

Read that again - 'that are in some ways similar.'

I have not said 'that are similar to,' nor have I said 'that are...your own.'

 

[tetelestai]

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 13 as a group within Mid-Acts.

Little Johnny W the Dance Director is Acts 13

 

[tetelestai]

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 7 group within Mid-Acts . That is just one of Tet's many proofs he does not understand Mid-Acts.

"This means that not until after the stoning of Stephen at the end of Acts 7 could the dispensation of Grace start, with the middle wall of partition coming down and the “one new man” (Eph. 2:15) starting to be formed."

SOURCE

 

[Danoh]

So what is it that happens in ch 28 that others think happens earlier?

Lol - read that pdf lazy bones.

http://www.tcmusa.org/publications/heath/HeathLiterature/ACTS28.pdf

 

[Interplanner]

"This means that not until after the stoning of Stephen at the end of Acts 7 could the dispensation of Grace start, with the middle wall of partition coming down and the “one new man” (Eph. 2:15) starting to be formed."

SOURCE

Good grief, is that kind of thing what this MADness is about? Don't they realize how many times Jesus was at odds with the Law much earlier? The coming of Christ in the Gospel always was for the whole world, and the trappings of the Law would only complicate things for the Gentiles.

 

[Danoh]

"This means that not until after the stoning of Stephen at the end of Acts 7 could the dispensation of Grace start, with the middle wall of partition coming down and the “one new man” (Eph. 2:15) starting to be formed."

SOURCE

Lol, people; that is a link to the standard Acts 9 Position.

It is in fact the standard Mid-Acts Position on Ephesians 2 that heir, et al differ in their understanding of.

As for what the writer meant in the above quote; if words mean anything, all he is stating is that "the dispensation of grace committed" to Paul, Eph. 3:1-2, could not have been committed unto him before Acts 7.

For that matter, nor at anytime before at the very least, Acts 9:4.

Could this be one more attempt at a distortion by Tet, or is it that the man simply does not pay careful attention to words other than when his view is what he is attempting to make out of the various passages?

One thing is certain; the Spirit knows what Tet is actually up to.

The best to him in this....

 

[Danoh]

Good grief, is that kind of thing what this MADness is about? Don't they realize how many times Jesus was at odds with the Law much earlier? The coming of Christ in the Gospel always was for the whole world, and the trappings of the Law would only complicate things for the Gentiles.

Unfortunately, you are deciding from very little information - read - that - p - d - f...

 

[Interplanner]

Unfortunately, you are deciding from very little information - read - that - p - d - f...

In 2 years, then, you cannot state concisely what you are saying? I think this is the biggest non-issue of theology I have ever encountered. I think it is a bunch of feeble human minds trying to manage God's program for him. Some people in Judaism enjoyed the grace of God the moment they heard parts of Isaiah read--especially the ones about the day of salvation or grace arriving.

 

[Danoh]

Little Johnny W the Dance Director is Acts 13

There is no group of Acts 13ers who assert as one group that Paul stopped going to the Jew first around that time. As with Preterists, there is difference in understanding on this within the ranks of those who hold to Acts 13 as the start of Paul's Gentile commission. I have personally known some who do not hold to that.

All that proves is that, as with, say, some of the MADS on here and myself, as the Preterists within their own differences within their own ranks, their will be differences in understanding on some things.

 

[Danoh]

In 2 years, then, you cannot state concisely what you are saying? I think this is the biggest non-issue of theology I have ever encountered. I think it is a bunch of feeble human minds trying to manage God's program for him. Some people in Judaism enjoyed the grace of God the moment they heard parts of Isaiah read--especially the ones about the day of salvation or grace arriving.

That's because you want a sound byte, you then see holes on for your impatience with sitting down to an entire read.

Did you read that copy of "Things That Differ" I posted back then?

Did you even read the info on the link Tet posted above as his basis for what he misinterpreted?

 

[Right Divider]

Uhhh, I wasn't aware that there was any other topic in Is 53...

Completely irrelevant.

So what you are saying is the African was reading the passage (but of course with absolutely no idea of what was said before or after.) And Philip explained it. But of course with absolutely no idea of what was said before or after, because, God forbid, the African might find out Christ died for him. What a mistake that would have been!

I'm saying what the PASSAGE says and does NOT say.

That is what the grace of the Lord Jesus is.

Don't you find it odd that there is no record in the scripture of the Lord Jesus Christ using the word "grace" even once?

Only with too much theological training and too intricate of a theological tweezers could a person miss that the topic of the conversation was Christ, and his justification of us through his death.

Just more blathering opinion.

You and most of Churchianity make the mistake of reading things BACK into the older scripture. Things that were not understood until later through Paul (by the LORD).

Once again, the FACT that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is NOT the SAME FACT that He died for our sins.

 

[Danoh]

Once again, the FACT that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is NOT the SAME FACT that He died for our sins."

A key distinction that is, too...

 

[Interplanner]

Completely irrelevant.


I'm saying what the PASSAGE says and does NOT say.


Don't you find it odd that there is no record in the scripture of the Lord Jesus Christ using the word "grace" even once?


Just more blathering opinion.

You and most of Churchianity make the mistake of reading things BACK into the older scripture. Things that were not understood until later through Paul (by the LORD).

Once again, the FACT that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is NOT the SAME FACT that He died for our sins.

I didn't read past "completely irrelevant" because it is oxymoronic to say so. Is 53 is full of the grace that is in Christ, or whose side are you on?

 

[tetelestai]

That I am aware of, there is no Acts 13 as a group within Mid-Acts. Again, this just Tet, proving his misunderstanding of Mid-Acts.

Let's look at what you said to Jerry Shugart:

That's why Jerry loves you so. He is Acts 13 and has a lot of books to prove it, lol

Jerry, get some help for that Acts 2 disguised as Acts 13 neurosis of yours already.

So, on one hand you say there is no Acts 13, and on the other hand you call Jerry Shugart an Acts 13

Make up your minds Danoh.