Only rookie and or incompetent Dispys assert a Dispensation is a time period.
But as you and Interplanner have often asserted, and more often proven: you both failed Dispy 101:chuckle:
ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Only rookie and or incompetent Dispys assert a Dispensation is a time period.
But as you and Interplanner have often asserted, and more often proven: you both failed Dispy 101:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You disagree with her conclusions, therefore her study approach is flawed.
Spell out the 3 main flaws in her approach, if you will. I'd like to know the pitfalls to avoid.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno:
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
No bias in Strong there.
Right Divider
Body part
Matt 27:11 (KJV)
(27:11) And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
You continue to miss my point.
Everyone has some flaw in there approach at one point or another.
Case in point, I used to view the flow in thought from this passage...
Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
...this one...
9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
...differently then I now do.
At the same time, my view back then just did not jibe with the flow of that chapter, but I could not put my finger on what it was I was not picking up on (sensing) from the chapter but, not seeing consciously.
This told me my approach was off somewhere, in some way.
For I refuse to go by "well maybe this" or "perhaps that."
So I left it alone, as I often do with such things, and moved on knowing I just needed more time in Scripture.
To where enough pieces are in place such that they allow seeing what one had been unable to prior to said pieces being in place.
Eventually, as I continued to grow in my understanding through Paul's writings, of how he lays a thing out towards one assertion or another he then brings in, and began to go by that; I began to understand his assertions, their flow, and so on, a bit clearer.
About a year or so later, while reading Romans 9, this time around, when I paused to consider that problem once more, but this time applied how Paul lays a thing out towards his then asserting a thing, I found I understood what all is going on there between those two passages - the very principle Paul applies elsewhere in his writings.
And this kind of a thing is never really over.
It is a real waste on your parts that you take it personally when such things are pointed out to you.
We are simply not on the same level on some of these things.
I see that not only where I find you off on some things, but also when you every so often post something rightly from the OT I had not yet understood.
But you and yours are forever concluding you are being attacked.
Because you and yours are ever on the attack towards anyone who does not hold your views.
Are you yourself not ever asserting that nang's, dodge's, IP's, Tel's and other's approach is off.
Yours is a double-standard you obviously do not see.
My ending a post to any of you with Proverbs 27:17 is ever crowded out by what ever your personal problems are with having a thing pointed out to you by anyone other than your pals.
Yours is an attitude in this that is anything but Mid-Acts.
His is obviously a poor use of Strong's and or other such valuable resources.
And Strong's is called a Concordance for a good reason.
:doh:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
And Heir's are...?
Nope.
I post to you and her on one thing or another I see differently.
I used to post to GM on same. Til he took "great personal umbrage" :chuckle:
I have posted to steko on one thing or another I saw differently, to Musterion, to Nick, to DanP, to GD, to Jerry, to JohnW, to Lighthouse, to Clete, to Tam, and so on.
And I have always welcome the same in return.
You are the ones with the problem.
Even non MADs agree this is your issue with having a thing pointed out to you by other than your pals.
I do not mind exploring one thing or another and never have.
Fact is you are off on some twenty or thirty things :chuckle:
Worry about yours - which are aplenty :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What is your guess on how many things you're off on?
Depends on who considers them off and or from what perspective :chuckle:
But seriously, I'm sure I'm off on some things.
That kind of thing is noticed by one when one is either in front of it and sees one is off, or has it pointed out to them by someone who clearly knows how to study a thing out.
I know I am not off on the various things you have asserted thus far regarding one or another thing in Acts thru Philemon.
Those 15 things that Shawn also rightly concluded you are off on, and other things I have pointed out on here.
Though he was more than a bit abrasive.
As your pals are towards anyone who does not hold your views.
Right Divider
Body part
No, he was NOT!
Nope, he was not.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
All I know is that he was a minister of the spirit of the new testament, and this ministration of the spirit is the ministration of righteousness. It is the righteousness of God found in his gospel.
Right Divider
Body part
"gospel" means GOOD NEWS.....
Was there more GOOD NEWS later? Perhaps one about the DBR?
Problem is, as with the principle I mentioned as to what Romans 9, what you assert is not what Paul was talking about when he then followed what he was talking about, with what he brought up, there in 2 Cor.
In other words, he was not talking about righetousness there in 2 Cor. 3, anymore than he was talking about Prophesied Gentiles in Romans 9, when he then followed what he was actually talking about with his quoting of Hosea, in Romans 9.
What was he talking about in 2 Cor. when he then brought those passages in?
You commit this same mistake with 1 Cor. 11 (which is why you do not hold to the Lord's Supper).
Proverbs 27:17
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What is the spirit of the new testament?
What is the ministration of the spirit?
What is the ministration of righteousness?
Forget that as a first - what was he talking about both prior to and after those passages?
And both prior to, and after that chapter and those passages.
And where else does he go into those prior and after things elsewhere in his writings?
After their overall, same basically related narrative, theme, subject, scope and context is settled, then look to solving for those passages.
Proverbs 27:17.