ECT Lk 4 on Is 61: there is one Gospel it was was all moving toward

[Interplanner]

There are other things that happen in the OT and maybe NT that are good news, but when I am trying to assert that there is one, it is in this Isaianic sense. There is just one that it was all moving toward.

Those who have no sense of the shadow-to-reality progression of the Bible are simply not going to understand that it was meant to get to one Gospel at the 'fulfillment of the ages.' Isaiah was therefore not picking one of many but saying that in the Messianic age, it would be preached like this. It was.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

it is in this Isaianic sense.

:chuckle:

 

[Nick M]

:chuckle:

I would have to open Noah's hard bound to know what he is saying.

 

[Danoh]

:chuckle:

Isaianic - the whole of Isaiah's vision concerning the Lord.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Isaianic - the whole of Isaiah's vision concerning the Lord.

I gathered that, but what kind of clown talks like that...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I would have to open Noah's hard bound to know what he is saying.

The Noahic version?

 

[Danoh]

I gathered that, but what kind of clown talks like that...

Has nothing to do with "kind of clown."

That is your ignorance on that; not his.

His has been obvious in other areas and or ways.

Has nothing to do with "what kind of clown."

Rather, with how words originate out of overall sense of a thing.

Where is the actual phrase "Mid-Acts" in Scripture?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Has nothing to do with "kind of clown."

That is your ignorance on that; not his.

His has been obvious in other areas and or ways.

Has nothing to do with "what kind of clown."

Rather, with how words originate out of overall sense of a thing.

Where is the actual phrase "Mid-Acts" in Scripture?

Why do you ridicule him about his "books about"?

 

[Danoh]

Why do you ridicule him about his "books about"?

For the same reason I rib you on your obvious over reliance on your books "about"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

For the same reason I rib you on your obvious over reliance on your books "about"

You mean under reliance, right?

 

[Danoh]

You mean under reliance, right?

No.

Some of your views are an obvious hybrid of an under-reliance on Acts 9 approaches, and over-reliance on that of the Acts 28ers.

That is your perogative, bro.

Mine is to bust your chops about it, lol

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No.

Some of your views are an obvious hybrid of an under-reliance on Acts 9 approaches, and over-reliance on that of the Acts 28ers.

That is your perogative, bro.

Mine is to bust your chops about it, lol

Which Acts 28ers do I rely on?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Here are the major influences on me:

Les Feldick, the gospel, certain basics
Jim Brackin, everything
E.C. Moore, everything
Jerry Lockhart, everything

 

[Danoh]

Which Acts 28ers do I rely on?

Wherher or not you've never read their writings, you have ended up agreeing with various of their non Acts 9 views either in their way or in some other way that supposedly reconciles various issues in a manner not Acts 9 nor its' result.

They also hold Paul had preached more than one gospel; things changed not at Acts 7, but at Acts 28, and a host of other assertions similar to your own.

Again, your perogative.

And you are one of the few on here I still somewhat hold in high regard.

But Mid-Acts those kinds of "solutions" never were, nor are, even now.

Our approach - mine and yours - differs bro.

We are not from the same school of thought on some of these things.

 

[Danoh]

Here are the major influences on me:

Les Feldick, the gospel, certain basics
Jim Brackin, everything
E.C. Moore, everything
Jerry Lockhart, everything

Yep - Acts 9/Acts 28 Hybrid, bro.

As you said "everything."

Like Interplanner saying "everything" as to what turns out his brand of over reliance :chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yep - Acts 9/Acts 28 Hybrid, bro.

They all believe the Body began with Paul in Acts 9, and goes up in the Rapture.

 

[Danoh]

They all believe the Body began with Paul in Acts 9, and goes up in the Rapture.

That, and Acts 28er like views.

Thus, the hybrid.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That, and Acts 28er like views.

Such as?

 

[Nick M]

Such as?

You haven't gotten an answer to the false witness, don't expect one.

 

[DAN P]

You haven't gotten an answer to the false witness, don't expect one.

Hi and not all Acts 28 er believe that the B O C began with Paul , and the ones in our assembly begin it , after ACTS !!

They use other verses to prove a Rapture and nthe first 7 books that Paul wrote are not for the B O C !!

They also believe that Paul was saved under Kingdom preaching and some Acts 13 say the same thing !

Dispensationalism has many different views , JUST TO MENTION A FEW !!


If they knew how Paul was saved , and that is a game changer , to me !!


dan p