ECT What Kind of Death?

[Jerry Shugart]

It is Acts 2 that he refers to as "a new dispensation."

Let's look at his words again:

"Who can fail to mark the contrast between the earlier and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles? Measured by years the period they embrace is comparatively brief; but morally the latter portion of the narrative seems to belong to a different age. And such is in fact the case. A new dispensation has begun, and the Book of the Acts covers historically the period of the transition."​

He says that a new dispensation began between the earlier chapters (plural) and the later chapters.

According to you he is saying that a new dispensation began between the "first" chapter and the later chapters. All you prove is that you cannot understand simple English.

He does not see the following as the ACTUAL MAD does; he does not see Acts 9 and 10 as as "a new dispensation."

Then again, neither do you, Jerry. Your incompetence has you beginning it in Acts 13.

I have a sound basis for starting the present dispensation at Acts 13 and you have never provided anything at all which demonstrates that it started at Acts 9. In fact, you have never ever indicated what you think determines the beginning of the present dispensation.

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 happened at Acts 13.

Now I have gone into detail explaining exactly what determines the beginning of the present dispensation. Now it is your time. I expect you to say: "What determines the beginning of the present dispensation is...."

 

[musterion]

I don't believe Paul ever preached the Kingdom to Jews. He was given a new good news to preach right from the start; the doctrines orbiting that good news were increasingly fleshed out by revelations from Christ as time went on, but it was something new and very different from the start. From the get go, Paul preached Christ and Him crucified to all, but he made himself as a Jew to reach Jews and so naturally (common sensically) he appealed to the Messianic prophecies to establish Who Christ was...but that does not mean he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom.

I think we all agree that there is a clear (but to us, somewhat muddy/messy, hence all the disagreement) transition in Acts that corresponds to years of time. That's why it seems to me that even under the apostolic administration of Paul, there were doctrinal changes as time went on. Sign gifts are probably the simplest example to point to. Point is, things he told the Corinthians were specific to that period of his revelational continuum (if you will) and are not reflected in things he later wrote to, say, the Ephesians when he had received a much fuller body of revelation.

Does any of this make me an Acts 9/28 hybrid? I don't think so but don't care if anyone says it does.

 

[Danoh]

To cite Anderson again, Jerry - to no avail - again, I'm sure...

"Who can fail to mark the contrast between the earlier and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles? Measured by years the period they embrace is comparatively brief; but morally the latter portion of the narrative seems to belong to a different age. And such is in fact the case. A new dispensation has begun, and the Book of the Acts covers historically the period of the transition. “To the Jew first” is stamped on every page of it. The Savior’s prayer upon the Cross (Luke 23:34) had secured for the favored nation a respite from judgment. And the forgiveness asked for carried with it a right to priority in the proclamation of the great amnesty. When “the apostle of the circumcision,” by express revelation, brought the gospel to Gentiles they were relegated to a position akin to that formerly held by the “proselytes of the gate.” And even “the apostle of the
Gentiles” addressed himself first, in every place he visited, to the children of his own people. And this not from prejudice, but by Divine appointment. “It was necessary,” he declared at Pisidian Antioch, “that the word of God should first be spoken to you.” (Acts 13:46 (R.V.); c.f. 17:2, 10; 18:1-4) Even at Rome, deeply though he longed to visit the
Christians there (Romans 1:2), his first care was to summon “the chief of the Jews,” and to them “he testified the kingdom of God.” And not until the testimony had been rejected by the favored people did the word go forth,

“The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear
it.” (Acts 28:17, 23, 28)

But, it will be objected, the Epistle to the Romans had been already written. (The Silence of God , pages 30, 31).

I like that last sentence there. :chuckle:

He knew he was off.

But like just Bullinger also does (in Bullinger's later writings), whenever he (Bullinger) is off; he mentions a note about it, but then goes with his error anyway.

Classic Acts 28er "reasoning."

In plain English, Jerry, the "new age" Anderson is referring to in that book is the Pentecostal Dispensation supposedly begun at Pentecost to Israel (ALONE) under Peter, changed to the Jew FIRST, and only then to the Gentiles (ALSO) under Paul til the end of this supposed Pentecostal Dispensation at THE END OF Acts 28.

"The apostle to the circumcision gives place to the apostle to the Gentiles as the central figure in the narrative, but yet in every place the Jew is still accorded a priority in the offer of blessing, and it is not until, in every place from Jerusalem round to Rome, that blessing has been despised, that the Pentecostal dispensation is brought to a close by the promulgation of the solemn decree, "The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles" (The Silence of God, p.56).

Classic Acts 28er "reasoning" in that book "The Silence of God."

You're as blind to the obvious, in your own way, Jerry, as the "ALMOST 28ers" on here have ever remained to their version of reading INTO a thing.

Or "Two Senders" (a descriptive for them yet another actual Mid-Acts Based Pastor-Teacher has found himself having to describe such by, after his own having throughly studied out their many errors).

Obviously these finer things that differ are that complex for some within Mid-Acts - that they can't even see when and where they have confused those things that actually differ with those that actually do not, and vice-versa, even when it is pointed out to them.

Get a clue, Jerry.

These things are much easier to solve for than you end up making them.

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Danoh]

I don't believe Paul ever preached the Kingdom to Jews. He was given a new good news to preach right from the start; the doctrines orbiting that good news were increasingly fleshed out by revelations from Christ as time went on, but it was something new and very different from the start. From the get go, Paul preached Christ and Him crucified to all, but he made himself as a Jew to reach Jews and so naturally (common sensically) he appealed to the Messianic prophecies to establish Who Christ was...but that does not mean he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom.

I think we all agree that there is a clear (but to us, somewhat muddy/messy, hence all the disagreement) transition in Acts that corresponds to years of time. That's why it seems to me that even under the apostolic administration of Paul, there were doctrinal changes as time went on. Sign gifts are probably the simplest example to point to. Point is, things he told the Corinthians were specific to that period of his revelational continuum (if you will) and are not reflected in things he later wrote to, say, the Ephesians when he had received a much fuller body of revelation.

Does any of this make me an Acts 9/28 hybrid? I don't think so but don't care if anyone says it does.

Nope.

All those issues were sorted out long before the likes of E.C. Moore and Jim Brackin (STP's prophessed mentors) picked up the writings of Charles Welch and E.W. Bullinger and mixed their errors with the Acts 9 Position.

Some forty or fifty years ago.

Back when actual MADs AND even actual Acts 28ers BOTH began to refer to such as "Acts 28ers in Acts 9 Clothing."

Or to paraphrase the Apostle Paul's warning in Romans 11: 25 some two thousand years ago...

"Those who do not know their history are doomed to forever repeating it."

But until you yourself begin to rigorously apply that three-fold principle in Acts 17: 11, 12, you yourself will continue to remain in the dark to the obvious no matter who points it out to you.

For until then "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures..." on these issues...

You and your hybrid pals remind me of the following, in a way...

Acts 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To cite Anderson again, Jerry - to no avail - again, I'm sure...

You are so predicable as you never actually address anything when you are shown to be in error. You just ignored what I said here:

Let's look at Anderson's words again:

"Who can fail to mark the contrast between the earlier and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles? Measured by years the period they embrace is comparatively brief; but morally the latter portion of the narrative seems to belong to a different age. And such is in fact the case. A new dispensation has begun, and the Book of the Acts covers historically the period of the transition."​

He says that a new dispensation began between the earlier chapters (plural) and the later chapters.

According to you he is saying that a new dispensation began between the "first" chapter and the later chapters. All you prove is that you cannot understand simple English.

Anyone in their right mind can see that the new dispensation of which Anderson spoke DID NOT BEGIN AT ACTS 2! Do you not know what the word "plural" means and due to your ignorance of these things you are detrmined to misrepresent Sir Robert Anderson. And then you have the nerve to insist that you know more than J.C. O'hair!

And of course I provided evidence from the Bible that points to the present dispensation beginning at Acts 13 and then when I asked for your evidence that it started at Acts 9 you provided NOTHING!

You talk big but when it comes time to put up or shut up you run and hide like a little child.

GROW UP!

 

[Danoh]

You are so predicable as you never actually address anything when you are shown to be in error. You just ignored what I said here:

Let's look at Anderson's words again:

"Who can fail to mark the contrast between the earlier and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles? Measured by years the period they embrace is comparatively brief; but morally the latter portion of the narrative seems to belong to a different age. And such is in fact the case. A new dispensation has begun, and the Book of the Acts covers historically the period of the transition."​

He says that a new dispensation began between the earlier chapters (plural) and the later chapters.

According to you he is saying that a new dispensation began between the "first" chapter and the later chapters. All you prove is that you cannot understand simple English.

Anyone in their right mind can see that the new dispensation of which Anderson spoke DID NOT BEGIN AT ACTS 2! Do you not know what the word "plural" means and due to your ignorance of these things you are detrmined to misrepresent Sir Robert Anderson. And then you have the nerve to insist that you know more than J.C. O'hair!

And of course I provided evidence from the Bible that points to the present dispensation beginning at Acts 13 and then when I asked for your evidence that it started at Acts 9 you provided NOTHING!

You talk big but when it comes time to put up or shut up you run and hide like a little child.

GROW UP!

You proved you are in error.

As usual.

Nothing more.

Just as when I laid out those passages in Acts 9; Acts 15; and Galatians 1 clearly showing Paul had a very thriving ministry among the Gentiles in Acts 9 - way before he was PUBLICLY separated in Acts 13 - in some other wasted post of mine to you, your long having rusted your mind shut in your Acts 13 incompetence failed to see the obvious.

You're just another hybrid of a different color.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8 towards ya.

 

[glorydaz]

Nope.

All those issues were sorted out long before the likes of E.C. Moore and Jim Brackin (STP's prophessed mentors) picked up the writings of Charles Welch and E.W. Bullinger and mixed their errors with the Acts 9 Position.

Some forty or fifty years ago.

Spoiler

Back when actual MADs AND even actual Acts 28ers BOTH began to refer to such as "Acts 28ers in Acts 9 Clothing."

Or to paraphrase the Apostle Paul's warning in Romans 11: 25 some two thousand years ago...

"Those who do not know their history are doomed to forever repeating it."

But until you yourself begin to rigorously apply that three-fold principle in Acts 17: 11, 12, you yourself will continue to remain in the dark to the obvious no matter who points it out to you.

Danoh uses a Bible text to say search the Scripture while he, himself, searches the teachings of men. :rotfl:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't believe Paul ever preached the Kingdom to Jews.

What was he preaching to them here?:

"But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him" (Acts 9:27-28).​

At that time Paul had not yet received the gospel which he was to preach among the Gentiles. He wrote the following:

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).​

When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that Paul did not preach the gospel of grace to the Jews at Acts 9. And here he does speak of preaching the kingdom during the Acts period:

"And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" (Acts 20:25).​

That is the same gospel message which was preached earlier by the Twelve to the Israelites:

"And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick" (Lk.9;2).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just as when I laid out those passages in Acts 9; Acts 15; and Galatians 1 clearly showing Paul had a very thriving ministry among the Gentiles in Acts 9

You are delusional. You have never provided any evidence that Paul had a thriving ministry among the Gentiles at Acts 9!

You run and hide when you make errors and never ever admit that you are in error.

For instance, why should anyone believe that the word "chapters" as used by Anderson is only speaking of "one" chapter.

Do you never tire of making a fool out of yourself?

Is that the only way that you can get the attention which you desire?

 

[musterion]

What was he preaching to them here?:

"But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him" (Acts 9:27-28).​

At that time Paul had not yet received the gospel which he was to preach among the Gentiles. He wrote the following:

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).​

When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that Paul did not preach the gospel of grace to the Jews at Acts 9. And here he does speak of preaching the kingdom during the Acts period:

"And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more" (Acts 20:25).​

That is the same gospel message which was preached earlier by the Twelve to the Israelites:

"And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick" (Lk.9;2).​

Jerry, as I believe I said (if I didn't, I meant to), I see a difference between Paul convicting Jews by proving from their own Scriptures that Christ was indeed Messiah, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom vs the Gospel of the grace of God. That's Paul becoming as a Jew to reach Jews; it is not Paul seeking to know or preach Christ after the flesh. He's still preaching Him as He revealed Himself: according to the revelation of the mystery.

Also...all who are in Christ are, according to Paul, the intended inheritors of the Kingdom of God, so Acts 20:25 does not prove Paul preached the Kingdom gospel aka Great Commission. It's just stating a fact.

 

[musterion]

Did Danoh just call me a hybrid after I think I proved, from his own fuzzy and indistinct definition of "hybrid," that I'm not one?

 

[patrick jane]

Did Danoh just call me a hybrid after I think I proved, from his own fuzzy and indistinct definition of "hybrid," that I'm not one?

I always assumed Acts 9 but Jerry made some good points about Acts 13.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh uses a Bible text to say search the Scripture while he, himself, searches the teachings of men. :rotfl:

Can't say I blame ya for mocking yourself like that.

:chuckle:

On a thread in which I have repeatedly proven and Jerry has rightly concluded (obviously by accident on his part), that I do not go by the writings of an Anderson; an O'Hair and so on...

I read them out of curiosity about what such men may or may not have held to, seen or not, and so on.

I'm the one ever harping on the need to be aware of one's study approach.

But it remains obvious why you said the above.

Your eequally ever obvious duplicity and its unavoidable tendency towards resulting personal animosities has once more short-circuited any hope you might rightly discern a thing.

Thing is, you're actually brighter than that.

But you render yourself stupid (during such moments) by that (well, that and your equally ever obvious life-long superstitions).

Repeatedly so.

Rom. 5: 6-8 towards.

 

[Danoh]

I always assumed Acts 9 but Jerry made some good points about Acts 13.

Jerry holds an old, long outdated version of the Acts 13 position.

Together with the mess he has made of it given his ever obvious tendency to read things into a thing.

Instead of having further refined his understanding to where he moved beyond Anderson - as O'Hair did - Jerry has ended up forever stuck in their old paradigm and worse - his own version of it.

And there are two Acts 9 positions.

A - The actual Acts 9 position is one.

B - The other is actually a mix of the Acts 9 position with the Acts 28 position.

B has been dubbed various, equally apt descriptives by various people and Pastors within actual Acts 9.

And there is the Acts 28 position.

Anyway, the actual Acts 9 position holds that Paul preached one gospel from Acts 9 to 2 Timothy 2.

And the actual Acts 9 position solved for all the seeming contradictions posed by Paul's equally seeming odd words and behaviours in Acts when dealing with Jews.

The Acts 28 position never solved for any of those.

Because there approach constantly breaks with the flow of Luke's and Paul's words in Acts and of Paul's in Romans thru Philemon.

Result? It came up with all sorts of errors.

Greeks as blessers; two sendings of Paul; the mystery in Romans is not the mystery in Ephesians; and all other sorts of errors.

This other Acts 9 I came about when E.C. Moore erroneously turned to the writings of Charles Welch (Acts 28 position) in an attempt to solve for those seemingly odd words and behaviours of Paul in Acts.

Result?

Some 50 plus errors, if not more, that said mix of Acts 9 and Acts 28 asserts is Mid-Acts.

Both Acts 9 positions begin the Dispensation in Acts 9, but then this later view ends up mixing the 28er approach with that of the actual Acts 9.

I hadn't been aware of much of said history until sometime after I first began posting on here...

Which is why I referred to said "hybrid" as ALMOST 28ers.

Out of my own amused disagreement with its views as I began reading them on TOL.

Later, I found others had also encountered said "hybrid" and written and or taught against its errors.

Each apparently having arrived at their conclusions against said "hybrid" independently.

Thus, the different descriptives for it...

"Acts 28ers in Acts 9 Clothing."

"The Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid System."

"Two Senders."

And so on.

Bottom-line?

Anyone with a solid study approach who is actually consistent in his application of it cannot but right away see said "hybrid's" 50 plus errors and what they are an obvious result of - of the obvious result of having failed continue the flow of thought of Luke's and Paul's words.

One simple example should suffice to show the more astute how said "hybrid" ends up at every single one of its errors.

At the beginning of Romans 1, Paul praises the well-known faith of the Romans.

At the end of Romans 2, he condemns the well-known hypocrisy of the Jew.

Almost 28ers / Hybrids / Two Senders conclude the Jews in Romans 2 are the Romans as proselytes.

Why?

They break from the flow of Paul's thought.

Every single one of the Hybrid's 50 plus errors shares that exact same incompetence in common.

50 plus, only because that is how many of their errors I have noticed on TOL.

Who knows what other ones they also hold.

Though my real beef with them on here has been their duplicity with anyone who goes against their "gospel of the" - get this - "GRACE of God."

Talk about a hypocrisy.

Their is no grace in the gospel of grace of such, but towards their own fellow hypocrites.

None.

And that is worse then their 50 plus errors.

Far worse.

For Mid-Acts is blamed.

Mid-Acts - the very key to properly understandung the Scriptures - ends up being spit on.

Both by such, and by those they spit on.

Exactly what the Adversary would want - "that the ministry be...blamed."

Thank you Hybrids.

Ban all the lost GT's you rationalize yourselves into banning.

You yourselves are MAD's worst enemies.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[DAN P]

At the time when those words were spoken the prophetic plan was still in view. But after Israel was temporarily set aside things changed. The Jewish believers were told to be expecting the appearance of the Lord Jesus and that when that happened they would put on bodies just like His body at the rapture:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

Since only members of the Body of Christ will be caught up at the rapture we know that John's epistles were addressed to members of the Church, which is His Body.

Hi , Jerry and in 2 Cor 3:13-15 says that Israel was already set aside as the VAIL was already over there heart !!

Verse 15 says that the Jews UNTIL this day , when Moses is being read , a covering ( VAIL ) lies upon their Heart , remember UNTIL Paul's Day !!

By Acts 13:46 and Acts 18:6 and Acts 28:28 Israel had been set aside !!

Explain 2 Cor 3:13-15 ??

Explain how Jews can be saved during Paul's time IF you can ??

can p

 

[Danoh]

I always assumed Acts 9 but Jerry made some good points about Acts 13.

Jerry gave you his fish.

And it smells like one two.

In contrast, the following is the how-to fish this issue out on your own.

That you might arrive at your own, Scripturally known conclusion.

Based on study approach.

Jerry's supposed "good points" appear that way only when one is unaware of any aspect of the actual flow of Luke's and Paul's thought that Jerry failed to consider.

Just compare for yourself, PJ, Acts 9 with Acts 15 and Galatians 1 in an attempt to identify where Paul went and what he did there, after he left for Tarsus, in Acts 9.

And that is just one means of getting at the truth of this.

For there are other things which together also point out the obvious about Acts 9 and Acts 13.

In short, the Acts 17: 11, 12 approach.

 

[DAN P]

At the time when those words were spoken the prophetic plan was still in view. But after Israel was temporarily set aside things changed. The Jewish believers were told to be expecting the appearance of the Lord Jesus and that when that happened they would put on bodies just like His body at the rapture:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

Since only members of the Body of Christ will be caught up at the rapture we know that John's epistles were addressed to members of the Church, which is His Body.

Hi , Jerry and when was the so-called Rapture spoken of by the apostles , SINCE you say that John letter is also too the B O C ??

Are you saying that John and the 12 also spoke of the MYSTERY and if so , where did john speak of it with a verse ??

How were Jews saved in John's letter and if so explain John 3:3 and verse 5 ??

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Did Danoh just call me a hybrid after I think I proved, from his own fuzzy and indistinct definition of "hybrid," that I'm not one?

Either that, or you read that INTO my words.

As usual.

Out of your personal animosity given your hypocrisy.

Sometime ago, you asked some of the Hybrids a question about Romans.

In that thread where various were asserting their allegiance to STP's in his errors on Romans.

Your question went unanswered.

A Hybrid would not have asked your question, Musti.

And I don't know what of the 25 hybrid based errors written against by Shawn, you might or might not hold to.

For you claim you did not even bother reading that document.

A Hybrid would also not bother.

Just as various of them on here have professed not having bothered.

To that list of 25 errors I can easily add another 25 plus other errors asserted on here by Hybrids I have gone back and forth with on here over the years - only to be accused by them and you of never having done so.

Which has only made the obvious, even more so.

That you guys can't see your errors even when they are pointed out to you.

Are you a Hybrid?

I'm not certain.

You barely ever go into things other than the Cross.

The reat of your time in here is largely wasted on spitting on anyone who does not hold your supposed "grace" view.

That, and posting on one conspiracy nonsense or another.

It is your very kind that prompted me to decide to return to view your kind within Mid-Acts, through the lens of Rom. 5: 6-8.

For to view your kind through your same lens towards anyone you conClyde is not of your hypocrisy, would be to spit on the memory of Rom. 5: 6- 8 in each our stead.

Try that sometime, bigot.

You'll find yourself actually objective as you call a thing out.

You'll then notice each time, those three remaining fingers ever pointing right back at you.

A Rom. 5: 6-8 focus allows that. When given its due honor.

 

[musterion]

I always assumed Acts 9 but Jerry made some good points about Acts 13.

Stam (9) and O'Hair (13) never agreed on it but finally agreed to disagree, I read somewhere.

 

[musterion]

Did Danoh not answer my query while insulting me for asking? Again?