Theology Club: The Beginning of the Present Dispensation Was at Acts 13

[Danoh]

Why do you offer nothing but nonsense? Is it in the hope that no one will notice that Peter was saved when he was born of God by faith and he said in no uncertain terms that his salvation was on the principle of grace?

That completely destroys the idea that people can only be saved by grace during the present dispensation.

I just love how you attempt to draw me into the assertion - about Peter here - that you are attempting to prove you are so right about, lol

Whether I agree with you on this or not, you will just have to keep pulling your baiting nonsense, as I have no intention of exchanging with you other than withstanding your violation of other's right to their view.

Besides, you well know in your conceit that the issue for you is not whether some Jew dead now some two thousand years made it to the pearly gates, you fool; your deal is your gnat like pestering need to prove others wrong because you just love to puff yourself up at another's expense.

What a fool you are - those people have been dead two thousand years - who cares.

Guys like you are found all over the internet - fools attempting to lord it over others that they know who shot Kennedy, what happened to Hoffa, saw Yetti at McDonald's, know who Jack the Ripper was, and a thousand other useless means of hounding after others attempting to lord it after them.

You are a dime a dozen buffoon.

 

[patrick jane]

technically 9 but realized by 13 -

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just love how you attempt to draw me into the assertion - about Peter here - that you are attempting to prove you are so right about, lol

I just love trying to draw you into an intelligent discussion about these things. By doing that everyone can see that you have nothing intelligent to say because you just run and hide from the verses which I quote.

The truths found in the Scriptures mean absolutely nothing to you because you think that your ideas transcend what the Bible reveals.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

technically 9 but realized by 13 -

What evidence from the Scriptures can you give which makes you think thsat the present dispensation began "technically" at Acts 9?

 

[heir]

When is the dispensation of the fulness of times?

I wonder why JS chose to leave that one out? It's a might curious too, that he put the dispensation of the gospel after the dispensation of the grace of God and the dispensation of God.

 

[heir]

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).​

You say the above as if all of those above are one dispensation, but they're not!

 

[heir]

I believe that Paul first preached the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles here:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo,we turn to the Gentiles[/B]. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:46-48).

:nono:

The gospel of the grace of God is the inclusion of "all men" of the efficacy of the cross (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) no longer called the gospel of Christ which was to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16 KJV). The gospel of the grace of God is a testifying in due time that the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV); that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself not imputing their trespasses unto them (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV). It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). It's the cause that Paul was made a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles" (Ephesians 3:1-6 KJV) and that's the Gentiles like the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter/people like you and me (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV) not these (Acts 13:26 KJV, Galatians 3:29 KJV).

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Grosnick Marowbe answer me darn it!

In as much as I Jerry am the Apostle of the Mid-Actsers, I demand to be debated until you agree with me, repeated back to me, please.

Let us look at why I Jerry am right....

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Rollin, rollin, rollin, keep them Dispy's movin...

Though I've been disaproven...

Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Head em' up
(Move 'em on!)
Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)

Thick hide!

Cut 'em out
(Ride 'em in!)
Ride 'em in
(Cut em' out!)
Cut 'em out
Ride 'em in,

Thick hiiiiiiiiiiiide!

Good post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You say the above as if all of those above are one dispensation, but they're not!

When did one begin and the other begin?

The gospel of the grace of God is the inclusion of "all men" of the efficacy of the cross (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) no longer called the gospel of Christ which was to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16 KJV). The gospel of the grace of God is a testifying in due time that the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV); that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself not imputing their trespasses unto them (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV).

Paul did not start preaching those things until Acts 13.

It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). It's the cause that Paul was made a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles" (Ephesians 3:1-6 KJV) and that's the Gentiles like the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter/people like you and me (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV) not these (Acts 13:26 KJV, Galatians 3:29 KJV).

So the first sending of Paul was at Acts 26 and the second was at Acts 22?

As usual you make no sense.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So the first sending of Paul was at Acts 26 and the second was at Acts 22?

As usual you make no sense.

If you read the passages, you will see Paul is recanting what happened earlier. The event described in Acts 26 indeed precedes the event described in Acts 22.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I wonder why JS chose to leave that one out? It's a might curious too, that he put the dispensation of the gospel after the dispensation of the grace of God and the dispensation of God.

Indeed, sister.

As the dispensation of the gospel spans from Acts 9 (when Paul was saved by his gospel) until the Rapture, the other dispensations are subsets of the dispensation of the gospel.

:up:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do you think that the present dispensation is that of the "fullness of time"?

Indeed, even as the dispensation of God committed to Paul and the form of sound words filled up the word of God, the dispensation fills up the times in the word of God. Paul filling up the afflictions of Christ in his own body to get this message out coincides, as well.

 

[Danoh]

So the first sending of Paul was at Acts 26 and the second was at Acts 22?

As usual you make no sense.

There you go again, Apostle Jerry, lol

Reading into other's words what you will, simply out of your need not only to be right, but hound after our own brethren, towards lording it over them.

I may not hold to their two Mystery assertion, but it is obvious that in Acts 26 Paul is relating His first encounter with the Lord.

While, in Acts 22, he first relates that same encounter, but then goes into relating of a later encounter with the Lord.

This later encounter with the Lord took place in Jerusalem, while Paul was in a trance, in the Temple.

Acts 22:

17. And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
18. And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
19. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
20. And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
21. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I may not hold to their two Mystery assertion,

Danoh, the Great:

The greatest eye opener in my life is when I realized that Paul preached to Gentiles that fell on each side of this promise. The blessing side (Acts), and the cursing side (post Acts). And they, by the grace of God, became one.

Gen 12:1-3 (KJV)

:e4e:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you read the passages, you will see Paul is recanting what happened earlier. The event described in Acts 26 indeed precedes the event described in Acts 22.

At Acts 22 Paul is speaking about what happened earlier. How do we know that? Because he was told by the Lord to depart and go to the Gentiles:

"And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21).​

So the event described here happened before Paul went to the Gentiles at Acts 13. And that is exactly what is referred to here at Acts 26:17:

"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee" (Acts 26:17).​

Therefore, it is ridiculous to argue, as Heir does, that the events described at Acts 26:17 and Acts 13 preceded the events described at Acts 22. She said:

It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). ​

According to her uninformed opinion Paul had already gone to the Gentiles BEFORE the Lord told him to depart and go to the Gentiles. And you agree with her.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

At Acts 222 Paul is speaking about what happened earlier. How do we know that? Because he was told by the Lord to depart and go to the Gentiles:

"And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21).​

So the event described here happened before Paul went to the Gentiles at Acts 13. And that is exactly what is referred to here at Acts 26:17:

"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee" (Acts 26:17).​

Therefore, it is ridiculous to argue, as Heir does, that the events described at Acts 26:17 and Acts 13 preceded the events described at Acts 22. She said:

It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). ​

According to her uninformed opinion Paul had already gone to the Gentiles BEFORE the Lord told him to depart and go to the Gentiles. And you agree with her.

Danoh is right, see his post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I may not hold to their two Mystery assertion, but it is obvious that in Acts 26 Paul is relating His firstencounter with the Lord.

While, in Acts 22, he first relates that same encounter, but then goes into relating of a later encounter with the Lord.

The subject which we are discussing is not which encounter happened first.

At Acts 22 Paul is speaking about what happened earlier. How do we know that? Because he was told by the Lord to depart and go to the Gentiles:

"And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21).​

So the event described here happened before Paul went to the Gentiles at Acts 13. And that is exactly what is referred to here at Acts 26:17:

"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee" (Acts 26:17).​

Therefore, it is ridiculous to argue, as Heir does, that the events described at Acts 26:17 and Acts 13 preceded the events described at Acts 22. She said:

It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). ​

According to her uninformed opinion Paul had already gone to the Gentiles BEFORE the Lord told him to depart and go to the Gentiles. And youobviously agree with her nonsense.

 

[Danoh]

At Acts 22 Paul is speaking about what happened earlier. How do we know that? Because he was told by the Lord to depart and go to the Gentiles:

"And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21).​

So the event described here happened before Paul went to the Gentiles at Acts 13. And that is exactly what is referred to here at Acts 26:17:

"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee" (Acts 26:17).​

Therefore, it is ridiculous to argue, as Heir does, that the events described at Acts 26:17 and Acts 13 preceded the events described at Acts 22. She said:

It's the second sending of Paul (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) not the first (Acts 26:17 KJV). ​

According to her uninformed opinion Paul had already gone to the Gentiles BEFORE the Lord told him to depart and go to the Gentiles. And you agree with her.

Clearly, you are unable to sort some of these issues out.

But more importantly, you are unable to disagree with our own brethren, without being insulting towards them.

And you wonder why I am so against you - it is in the second of these two issues with you that I am so against you - you have no right to be such a jerk towards them. None. You are "to be blamed."

Stick to the issues, not to your need to be right. And certainly not to your need to be such a jerk with our own.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Danoh is right, see his post.

She said nothing which answers the points I made about what Heir said.

if you and Heir and Danoh are right then we must believe that Paul had already gone to the Gentiles and then later the Lord told him to depart from Jerusalem and go to the Gentiles.

The greatest eye opener in my life is when I realized that Paul preached to Gentiles that fell on each side of this promise. The blessing side (Acts), and the cursing side (post Acts).

What are you referring to when you speak of the "cursing side" which was post Acts?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clearly, you are unable to sort some of these issues out.

Clearly, you just flat out refuse to believe the Scriptures when those Scriptures contradict your ideas. For instance, you refuse to believe what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews who lived under the law here:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Here the Lord Jesus makes it plain that the Jewswho lived under the law only had to believe in order to be saved.

But His words mean nothing to you because even after being shown His words you say that they could not be saved until they believed and were baptized with water.

Stick to the issues, not to your need to be right. And certainly not to your need to be such a jerk with our own.

You are not my own because mine believe all the verses from the Scriptures and you obviously pick and choose which verses you will believe and which ones you won't.