ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles

[tetelestai]

Nope, the point was a Sabbath Day's journey; or traveling distance.

Nope.

(Matt 24:20) Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath

If their flight would "take place", then that means it was going to happen.

Compare to:

(Exodus 16:29) Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.

"taking place" and "no one is to go out" are mutually exclusive from each other.

The Christians who fled Jerusalem in 66AD were not under the Law of Moses.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Still waiting for you and or one of your pals to rebut Shawn's thorough, valid 15 errors you hold to.

Shawn is a joke. He doesn't even understand the most simple things in regard to the Biblical Dispensational Arrangement. He writes:

"Firstly, in the Bible, a dispensation is simply a set of instructions that God “dispenses” (or gives) to mankind, or to a section of mankind, for him to apply to life during a particular time period; God expects mankind to obey the particular dispensation He gives to him."​

​

Shawn doesn't understand that it is the person or group of people who are given a dispensation (stewardship) who do the dispensing. For instance, in the following two verses where Paul speaks of a "dispensation" was was committed or given to him

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

It is Paul who has been given the dispensation of the gospel and he is the one who is dispensing the gospel, not God. The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to a "ministry," a "gospel" and the "grace of God." In the following verse Paul sums up his responsibility in regard to the dispensation which was given to him:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

Shawn doesn't even understand the most basic things in regard to dispensationalism.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Christ Jesus sat down next to God the Father after the Ascension. In 70AD, Christ Jesus sat down on His throne, and has ruled with the Saints ever since.

Are you serious? The throne from which the Lord Jesus will reign is this one, the one which will belong to Him exclusively. Gabriel told Mary the following:

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Lk.1:32,33).​

The Lord Jesus is not now sitting upon His own throne now but instead at the Father's throne:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).​

As usual you are totally confused.

 

[Danoh]

Shawn is a joke. He doesn't even understand the most simple things in regard to the Biblical Dispensational Arrangement. He writes:

"Firstly, in the Bible, a dispensation is simply a set of instructions that God “dispenses” (or gives) to mankind, or to a section of mankind, for him to apply to life during a particular time period; God expects mankind to obey the particular dispensation He gives to him."​

​

Shawn doesn't understand that it is the person or group of people who are given a dispensation (stewardship) who do the dispensing. For instance, in the following two verses where Paul speaks of a "dispensation" was was committed or given to him

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

It is Paul who has been given the dispensation of the gospel and he is the one who is dispensing the gospel, not God. The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to a "ministry," a "gospel" and the "grace of God." In the following verse Paul sums up his responsibility in regard to the dispensation which was given to him:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

Shawn doesn't even understand the most basic things in regard to dispensationalism.

I didn't say I agreed with him on every point.

In fact, I agree with heir that a Dispensation is not a period of time.

And your assertion about "a dispensation" and "the dispensation" is not heir's view.

Apparently you did not read his fifteen points.

I hold an Acts 9 position and have proved it.

You hold an Acts 13 and have not proved it to my satisfaction.

And I am sure we hold different understandings on other things.

That does not mean either or you or I are "a joke."

Same with anyone else.

People are off on some things, for a time; and right on other things.

What matters is a willingness to hear each side out, objectively.

But we've been down this road many times before.

You are set in your views.

It is what it is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I hold an Acts 9 position and have proved it.

You hold an Acts 13 and have not proved it to my satisfaction.

What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation? I will tell you why I think that it began at Acts 13. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace." And that gospel was not preached until Acts 13:46-49.

What proof can either you or Shawn give that it began at Acts 9?

 

[Danoh]

What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation? I will tell you why I think that it began at Acts 13. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace." And that gospel was not preached until Acts 13:46-49.

What proof can either you or Shawn give that it began at Acts 9?

Off the top of my head I don't recall what Shawn asserts on that. I only know what he posted in those pdfs on his site.

Especially the one with the 15 points - some of which you probably hold to yourself.

One thing he does assert that you and I also hold to is that all the passages you just cited are referring to the same thing.

In contrast, the Acts 9/Acts 28 Hybrid of such as E.C. Moore, that heir and some others hold to, hold that Eph. 3:2 and 1 Cor. 9:17 are NOT referring to the same thing.

Their basis?

Among other things, that one says "the dispensation" and the other says "a dispensation."

That is just their poor understanding of wording.

 

[glorydaz]

Might as well call that what it is - one incompetent on that, applauding another.

:mock: Danoh

 

[Danoh]

:mock: Danoh

Right. From you - a person who not only often posts "maybe this passage means" such and so, but then runs with that anyway.

You need to face this error of yours and actually force yourself to look to the Scripture to interpret the Scripture whenever you find yourself inclined to this tendency of yours.

Until you do, you will continue to buy into what even remotely "appears to make sense."

That is an observation you foolishly take personal offense to.

One that is basically the result of ignorance in the service of pride on your end of the equation.

Fact is, heir; stp; and nick are not only not "the only three who have it right" (stp's assertion) but their views are full of holes solved for by actual mads decades ago.

In this, I tend to agree with much asserted by the following document against your three's errors, as examined said following document, as I have found much of it the very same conclusions on those passages - in and via Scripture with Scripture - that I had also arrived at long ago.

The link:

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/acts-9-28-hybrid-theology/

The main pdf on that link - 15 Holes in heir's/stp's/nick's supposed right alone assertions...

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...0/refutation-of-acts-9-28-hybrid-theology.pdf

And that's just the top 15 of their errors.

Fact is, these issues were all soundly solved for long before your three musketeers came along to unsolve them

Proverbs 27:17

 

[patrick jane]

Danohism

 

[Danoh]

Danohism

Read that pdf.

 

[Danoh]

What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation?

...There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace." And that gospel was not preached until Acts 13:46-49.

What proof can either you...give that it began at Acts 9?

Nope.

And I have posted some aspects of the basis of my understanding that said Dispensation was already in action in Acts 9.

I had already recently posted it on the OP of the following thread, and even way earlier elsewhere on TOL.

It is one of the very first distinctions I saw in Scripture, long ago.

I recollect it being one of the very first distinctions I saw because it was in that same week way back then that I saw that Ananias had been referred to both as "a disciple" of the Lord, and "a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there," Acts 9:10 compared with Acts 22:12.

But anyway, the following link lays out some of the basis for my understanding that Paul had been much busier sharing the gospel of the grace of God in Acts 9, then at first appears obvious.

Fact is that conclusions based on surface level; first impression readings of any word; phrase; passage; and or passages: have no business in the practice of the Mid-Acts based Bible student.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124989-A-Simple-Bible-Study

 

[tetelestai]

Are you serious? The throne from which the Lord Jesus will reign is this one, the one which will belong to Him exclusively. Gabriel told Mary the following:

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Lk.1:32,33).​

It's not a literal throne Jerry.

If you disagree, please tell me where the literal throne of David is right now?

 

[tetelestai]

What do you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation? I will tell you why I think that it began at Acts 13.

Did it ever occur to you MADists that the reason you guys can't even agree on what chapter in Acts your alleged event took place is because it never happened?

MAD is a mess.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Danohism

We need to apply the Danohianic Principle.
He has a personal axe to grind with heir for some reason, and with me to some extent.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The fact that there were two types of Gentiles, which took a different path into the Body is not disputable.

1. Gentiles found in the synagogue, believed in the true God
2. Gentiles who were pagans

 

[musterion]

Paulicians.

Darbyites.

Scofieldians.

Bullingerites.

Mysterians.

Bible choppers.

Dispy chumps.

Now...a new breed...

Danohites!

Or Danohians?

Danoids? Nah.

Danohvians? Sounds like a Dr. Who villain.

 

[Danoh]

We need to apply the Danohianic Principle.
He has a personal axe to grind with heir for some reason, and with me to some extent.

:chuckle: - leave it to your often displayed inability to properly discern the intended meaning of various poster's words to end you up at your own conclusion on this also.

I have nothing against you or heir.

But you: as do Interplanner; Tet; and heir; and so on; tend to politicize your views.

Concluding anyone who disagrees with your views and or the implication of their results, is against you personally.

All you are showing by that is that you practice your same reading into certain passages, when reading the posts of one or another individual on TOL.

And Danohianic would not be a right compound of two words into one.

It would be Danioc and or Danoism.

Just goes to show your poor understanding of how language works.

Of course, you will once more conclude my pointing that out to you means I have something against you personally.

You are enmeshed in a double-standard you can't even see. That where you are concluding this silliness of yours about me towards you, from.

That is a function of how one processes things.

Does not mean I have something against you; the person.

:think:

 

[Danoh]

Paulicians.

Darbyites.

Scofieldians.

Bullingerites.

Mysterians.

Bible choppers.

Dispy chumps.

Now...a new breed...

Danohites!

Or Danohians?

Danoids? Nah.

Danohvians? Sounds like a Dr. Who villain.

Sounds like you in your ever politicizing of a thing.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And Danohianic would not be a right compound of two words into one.

As I explained yesterday, Danohianic sounds better to simple simplistic simpletonians.

 

[Danoh]

Did it ever occur to you MADists that the reason you guys can't even agree on what chapter in Acts your alleged event took place is because it never happened?

MAD is a mess.

No.

Where ever we who supposedly hold to a Mid-Acts view end up at different understandings on some things it is always due to an inconsistency in the application of how Mid-Acts studies things out, on one of our parts.

Even where you and I or any one else who does not hold to a Mid-Acts Perspective, might find we nevertheless agree on a thing or another is due to our having both applied a same principle in practice as to that much.

Whether or not either of us is aware of what said principle or principles were.

Just as what you just now asserted reveals you do not know how to look at what causes our (so called MADs) different understandings within our own ranks.

You went by your same old conjecture from within your same old vacuum, as your rule of thumb, once more.