|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:20/01/2008 17:12:21)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
Reply To brolga
(Date Posted:20/01/2008 17:30:33)
query: p12 your article; "and they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues...." The Reformation Study Bible p1560 in it's comments, states, the 120 who were present, inclusive of the experience.
question: Joel's prophecy "in the last days" Acts 2:v17. When he refers to 'the last days' is it the last days of the old covenant, and now fulfilled at pentecost, or is he talking about the Gospel age and end of world?
brolga |
Good morning, Ralph. Thanks for the feedback. WRT your query, the commentary in the RSB is precisley that, commentary. Such represents the views of the person/people who wrote that particular section ofthe study notes, and commentary of this sort normally isn't based on what the Hebrew of Greek text actually states, but the English translation that forms the body of the particular Study Bible. From time to time I'll read comments in the RSB, the NIVSB and the NJSB, and find myself saying, "...well, they 'goofed' up there!"  And to answer your question, according to NT teaching, the "Last Days" began with the ministry of Jesus Christ. I hope this helps, Blessings, Ian
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:20/01/2008 18:08:18)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:21/01/2008 14:06:42)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
5#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To brolga
(Date Posted:21/01/2008 15:48:11)
Good morning, Ralph.
Thanks for the feedback, it is appreciated.
From my point of view, I found the article quite understandable, but in some sections, to not have a basic understanding of the Greek and Hebrew language structure would be a little incomprehensible. A trait that Revivalists sadly are void of.
Indeed. But it is precisely in the areas of Greek grammar and syntax that the proper meaning of the respective passages is to be found, consequently, I attempt to provide sufficient detail to allows others to verify my arguments, should they wish to. It also has answered most, if not all, my questions regarding that section of scripture. I do not think it is too complex, and that coming from someone like myself all should be able to understand the message.The trick was in trying not to be overly repetitive whilst still reinforcing the salient features of the text, and I'm not sure that I've overly succeeded in this respect. I think there remains "wiggle" room for alittle tweaking, yet. You have certainly made your point, and I believe makes great ammuntion for the fight for truth against Revival false doctrine.That was the aim!  PS. I'm not nick-picking, found, I believe, just a couple of miss prints: vis;
page 28, "Cornelius immediately dispatches.....to seek 'our' ( out ?) Simon Peter"
page 29, ...."Cornelius' house. Peter placed his host's guests 'as' (at ?) ease by......"
page 23, ....ushering in the 'irrupting' Kingdom of God........ What is the meaning of irrupting?
Well, I did most of my work on the thing very late in the evenings (usually around 1130 through 0100), as that was the only time available to me. So some spelling mistakes have slipped in. My greatest embarrassment (to date), however, results from a slip that was picked up by a member here, the former "Prophet" (and who has nearly completed his BTh). He noticed that I spelled "shaliach" incorrectly in Hebrew!  The problem is that "taw" and "khet" look almost identical in the square script, and at one o'clock in the morning, when using a 10 point Hebrew font, on an english keyboard, I "goofed"! Rest assurred that that stuff-up will be corrected!  But to answer your question regarding "irruption". It is not a spelling error! To "irrupt" is to burst in, or intrude suddenly. Ergo "irruption" describes a violent breaking-in Blessings, Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:24/01/2008 07:12:56)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:24/01/2008 07:21:01)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
8#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To brolga
(Date Posted:24/01/2008 16:40:45)
Discussing what people like to hear, a friend emailed me this after my view of need for a basic knowlege in theology;
I find a lot of Pentecostal Churches often only use one or two scripture as a springboard for whatever message they want to preach. Often, it seems to me out of context. I have had it explained that they are preaching a revelation that they have had and so it is ok to read out of context because they are teaching their revelation???? They teach their revelation from the scripture they got it from.
That is where I find difficulty. I don't mind if your interpretation of the scriptures is different to mine but "revelations of what God is saying in the present" is an entirely different ball game.
That is where I am at present. How to understand that "revelations of what God is saying - to individuals - Pastors - Prophets etc in the present" is of more interest to christians than understanding the Bible. I have been told that if a "teacher" ie someone who is teaching what the Bible says is advertised, hardly anyone is interested but if a "prophet" ie someone who tells you what God is saying to you right now comes, people come out of the woodwork to hear what they have to say.
brolga |
Ralph,
Here's my take. If a person is going to base a message on a Scripture, than the message must derive from and support what the Scripture actually teaches. As I've said for many a year: "a text without its context is a pretext for a proof-text"!
Personal "revelation" in Pentecostal circles is usually short-hand for "bunk and hocum". Given that the Holy Spirit "wrote" Sctipture, do you think it likely that he would suddenly depart from it via the mouth of a "prophet"? 
Personal "revelation" doesn't stand over Scripture, it stands under it; the latter being judged according to the former and not the reverse.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Didaktikon
|
9#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:29/01/2008 18:25:59)
All,
Thank you to the few who have offered comment to, and critique oof, the Acts essay. I am facing a little pressure to revise and release the article to a broader readership than simply the BETA group, so failing any further comments, I intend polishing the essay this weekend and commencing to distribute the final version from Monday.
There have been some substantial changes in written expression, and a little expansion in certain areas (both exegetical and theological).
I will be distributing the piece to a number of Revivalist pastors (excluding the CAI, as I doubt they would read it anyway).
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 29/01/2008 18:29:25)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:29/01/2008 19:42:31)
May there be good fruit for your efforts Ian. brolga
|
|
Didaktikon
|
11#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/01/2008 23:28:56)
Righto,I intend to finalise the "release" copy of my essay on Acts this weekend. Anyone (and everyone) who wishes to receive a PDF copy will need to email me at the address below (this includes those who were "BETA" evaluators)  Blessings,Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:04/02/2008 17:52:24)
Reply to Didaktikon (20/01/2008 2:51 AM).
Righto,I intend to finalise the "release" copy of my essay on Acts this weekend. Anyone (and everyone) who wishes to receive a PDF copy will need to email me at the address below (this includes those who were "BETA" evaluators) Blessings,Ian |
Ian. Thanks for sending me a copy of the finished article. It is brilliant!!! I'm passing it on to my friends now. Jeff
|
|
Didaktikon
|
13#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:04/02/2008 19:22:02)
Thanks, Jeff.
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 04/02/2008 19:22:39)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:04/02/2008 22:46:16)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:05/02/2008 00:02:11)
Re: Summary article on Acts Ian, haven't had a chance to read it right through yet but have printed it out & photocopied several copies to distribute to some 'thinking about leaving RF' friends. Good work Ian, well done! Urch
|
|
Didaktikon
|
16#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To is_aimoo_guest
(Date Posted:07/02/2008 23:24:15)
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I've been receiving a steady stream of emails from the people who requested copies of the essay, as well as the occasional one or two from some who had copies passed on to them by others. I was particularly interested to discover that the essay has provoked a little discussion among groups of people in RCI and RF assemblies from Townsville to Melbourne, Sydney to Perth. To be honest, it has surprised me just how quickly the paper has been distributed throughout the country!
For interest's sake, I've been advised of one pastor (who shall remain nameless  ) who publically denounced the essay (and the author) from the platform, and who then went on to obliquely warn people not to read the thing should it come into their possession!
Anyway, I'm more than happy for anyone to contact me seeking clarification of what I've written, what is intended by what I've written, and so forth. I only hope and pray that Revivalist pastors are as open to discussing the issues raised by the paper, with members of their assemblies.
God bless,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:09/02/2008 07:13:11)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:09/02/2008 18:11:01)
Reply to brolga (20/01/2008 2:51 AM).
Ian,
I have been having a regular half hour weekly session (bible study) with two Jehovah's Witness, just to see for myself their version of things. It hasn't taken much to see the scriptures are different to their beliefs. The discussions where going along fine, until I wanted them, to at least, have a browse at your article on Acts. The question was asked if we believed in the 'trinity', I answered yes, that is when the barriers went up. They said they wouldn't even bother looking as any that believes the trinity, is a false religion. They also claim that it is only them that are the only true church. (broken record) . They have challenged me that they will prove I am wrong. I have been searching the scriptures etc and am finding it a very complex issue as we know the word trinity is not in the bible, but there seems to be more texts, than not, that only make sense when you read them as God the Father, Son and HS. Do you know of any reliable scource I can refer to on this matter and/or will I find it as part of my course later ? Thanks.
Ralph
|
Hi I find this website a good resource | CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY | www.carm.org | HOME PAGE |
|
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="4411" endspan --> The Trinity God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. (See also, "Another Look at the Trinity")
Jesus, the Son, is one person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.
There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the members of the Godhead. For example, the Father chooses who will be saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit seals them, (Eph. 1:13).
A further point of clarification is that God is not one person, the Father, with Jesus as a creation and the Holy Spirit is a force (Jehovah's Witnesses). Neither is He one person who took three consecutive forms, i.e., the Father, became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. Nor is God the divine nature of the Son (where Jesus had a human nature perceived as the Son and a divine nature perceived as the Father (Oneness theology). Nor is the Trinity an office held by three separate Gods (Mormonism).
The word "person" is used to describe the three members of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.
The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically derived from Scripture. The list is not exhaustive, only illustrative.
The first step is to establish the biblical doctrine that there is only one God. Then, you find that each of the persons is called God, each creates, each was involved in Jesus' resurrection, each indwells, etc. Therefore, God is one, but the one God is in three simultaneous persons. Please note that the idea of a composite unity is not a foreign concept to the Bible; after all, man and wife are said to be one flesh. The idea of a composite unity of persons is spoken of by God in Genesis (Gen. 2:24). There is only one God The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9
www.carm.org
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
19#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 03:19:31)
Brolga, JW's deny Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is just one of the many prophets of the Bible (their own special Bible)to them.
According to JW's, He is NOT the way to salvation.
Why do you think they come to people's places to indoctrinate them very slowly almost in secret.
They choose to witness to the lonely and the vulnerable in our society.
There are always two of them, to watch each other's backs and to report to the heirachy about each other.
You will never change the way they think and they will never change the way you think.
Sorry, kneejerk reaction. Be careful!!
Cheers,
Glad
(Message edited by Glad-to be out On 10/02/2008 06:07:03)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 03:34:23)
If that "Trinity" from www.carm.org appeals to you, you should have stayed a Revivalist. It reminds me of the sort of stuff the Krishna Consciosness cult used to trot out.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 04:00:21)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 04:38:38)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 05:36:25)
Brolga,
The Trinity article is strong on doctrine, strong on jargon. If it is so important to wrap up the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit if you prefer), into a doctrine that has all the zeal of "speaking in tongues to be saved", why is the word "Trinity" absent from the Bible? Why didn't Jesus or Peter or Paul preach it? They didn't any more than they preached British Israel.
My answer to anyone that asks if I believe in "THE TRINITY" is "why do you ask"? That is usually followed by a diatribe assuming I don't.
I guess I was fortunate enough for the Trinity to have never been thrust upon me as a "you better believe this" doctrine before I became a Revivalist. The sub-cult of Revivalism I joined, didn't (strangley enough I have since learned) push a Non-Trinity position. It wasn't till I was away from any influence that I started reading about the two insistent positions.
Back to my cult days. We used to do "street witness" and often ran into Hare Krishna people. Their Hindu based creed has a grab-bag of god-in-god beliefs that came to mind when I much later first read of the Trinity hoo-ha. I have a friend that says that Jesus is God and prays to Jesus. Didn't Jesus say to ask the of Father in His Name? My Catholic friends used to pray to Mary as the Mother of God. And the Saints. I thought the saints were saved people, like in Colossians 1:2. So is the Trinty in fact a Quadrunity or a whole pantheon for that matter, like the gods on Mount Olympus which the ancient Greeks worshipped?
I am just someone who reads the Bible, prays, enjoys fellowship and a whole lot of other Biblically based things. I don't believe in emphasis where I can see none. I always abhored British Israel, which again, strangley enough was not preached in the sub-sect I first joined. I did believe you had to speak in tongues to be saved. How stupid. Where does the Bible say that? You can sort of make the Bible say that if you do some cunning flim-flam.
God indeed is my Father, and Jesus was, and is, in the form of God (Philipiians 2:6) (See also Colossians 2:9). The Holy Spirit is indeed a "He" not an "it". I do not pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I pray to God, in Jesus Name. I pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me (John 14:26). But to make a doctrine of "God in Three Persons" and call it "Trinity" is superflous at the least and I think dangerous, as it has become a hobby horse like "speaking in tongues to be saved".
Satan is subtle. He will try to con us with side issues wherever he can. We fled that sort of stuff in Revivalist cults, therefore, we of all people, should be vigilant not to replace one confused doctrine with another.
John
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 05:37:09)
Reply to is_aimoo_guest (20/01/2008 2:51 AM).
If that "Trinity" from www.carm.org appeals to you, you should have stayed a Revivalist. It reminds me of the sort of stuff the Krishna Consciosness cult used to trot out. |
Ru a JW or something or maybe an Atheist perhaps??? Try reading it and no I'm not a bloody Revivalist!
|
|
Glad-to be out
|
25#
|
Rank:Poster Grande I
Score:12570
Posts:576
Registered:07/04/2006
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 06:06:03)
Recommended reading for you brolga- "30 Years A Watchtower Slave" The Confessions of a Converted Jehovah's Witness by William J Schnell publisher Baker Books
It was available from Koorong bookstore.
Cheers,
Glad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 06:07:28)
There's that assumption again. JW or atheist perhaps. Neither, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But then again I assumed that you had come from a Revivalist background. Why else would you be here? Other than to mock or lie in wait to deceive, or perhaps just be curious as to why ex-Revivalists (of many shades) come here and spill their guts, so to speak. Why are you here?
Try reading it? I had read it. I didn't and don't disagree with any of the scriptures. I just don't like the packaging. Theological jargon is one-upmanship and if it weren't so dangerously self-righteous, and belittling, I would laugh it off as childish.
A doctor can say to an uneducated person "I intend to perform a total colectomy" to impress his education on the patient, or "I am going to remove your bowel". You can watch Peter Cundall on Gardening Australia and thoroughly enjoy the show or Don Burke and be bored if you haven't got your Latin dictionary at hand becuase he can't call a daisy a daisy, it has to be a "dellis hortenis".
John
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 06:18:49)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 07:04:03)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 08:36:29)
Thanks Brolga,
Hmmmm not fitting our own experiences into the word. There lies a trap we all can fall into, and indeed the correct understanding and a heart attuned to God's Word and His leading by the Holy Spirit would keep us on the straight and narrow way. It's getting and keeping the heart right that is important.
Knowing my propensity in the past to trust what pastors, elders, learned teachers told, advised, directed, only to find they were false pastors, elders, learned teachers has made me very wary, especially when it's self-righteously asserted, and with jargon and pomposity.
I have met few really good teachers in my life, but the ones that were good I can name and tell you what they taught me that stayed with me. Fairness and patience were common traits, followed by an enthusiasm not just to impart, but to give.
John
|
|
Didaktikon
|
30#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To brolga
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 17:14:52)
Ian,
I have been having a regular half hour weekly session (bible study) with two Jehovah's Witness, just to see for myself their version of things. It hasn't taken much to see the scriptures are different to their beliefs. The discussions where going along fine, until I wanted them, to at least, have a browse at your article on Acts. The question was asked if we believed in the 'trinity', I answered yes, that is when the barriers went up. They said they wouldn't even bother looking as any that believes the trinity, is a false religion. They also claim that it is only them that are the only true church. (broken record) . They have challenged me that they will prove I am wrong. I have been searching the scriptures etc and am finding it a very complex issue as we know the word trinity is not in the bible, but there seems to be more texts, than not, that only make sense when you read them as God the Father, Son and HS. Do you know of any reliable scource I can refer to on this matter and/or will I find it as part of my course later ? Thanks.
Ralph |
Good morning, Ralph.
Well, it looks like this thread now has less to do with my Acts essay than it does a nascent discussion on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity!  Consequently, and for the sake of convenience, it's probably best if I summarise my thoughts at this point. Point one. The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They fundamentally deny the deity of the Saviour, consequently, they are beyond the pale of salvation. Point two. If you plan on 'discipling' JW's, then best you plan to be in for the 'long-haul' It takes me, on average, about two years to establish sufficient rapport with these roosters, to be able to get them to open up to alternate positions on a range of issues. And even then, I've only been successful in 'converting' five of them in almost 10 years of trying! They are very tough nuts to crack (far more so tha even the most strident Revivalist)  Point three. The doctrine (more correctly dogma) of the Trinity is the cornerstone of Christian teaching: as Karl Bath once quipped, "Trinity is the name of the Christian God." And the fact that the Latin word 'trinity' nowhere appears in Scripture is completely irrelevant; what is relevant is that the word suitably encapsulates the biblical data on the tri-personal nature of God! It is, bye-and-large, acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity that defines one as orthodox. Heresy, theologically considered, is any teaching that deviates from the revealed (and accepted) teaching of the tri-personality of the Godhead. So if one teaches that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are less than co-equal, co-eternal, perichoretic and so forth, then one is a heretic You will cover the issue during a number of your theology modules at Tyndale: orthodox, heterodox and heretical understandings and/or positions. The subject is complex, with discussions of this sort not being helped by the simple fact that the majority of people who like to dabble in the subject have a much less than adequate understanding and grasp of the history, substance and tenor of the issue than is necessary. Far too many 'first-aiders' and far too few 'doctors', sadly Blessings, Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:10/02/2008 18:13:23)
Hi Ian, thanks. The only comment is, my motive is/was not to convert JWs, but to gain a broader view of the big picture of the reality as it is portrayed in scripture. In other words, to me it was always hearsay about JWs, I am finding out from the horses mouth so to speak. Like the bigitory attitude I used to have against Catholics and Orthodox that because of what was fed to me on face value by Revival. It wasn't until I saw for myself that it wasn't what was lied to me, it is much different. Ralph. PS. If it takes that much effort by the 'best' to convert a JW, what hope would I have?  (just kidding)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
32#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To is_aimoo_guest
(Date Posted:11/02/2008 22:55:27)
All,
I've had a few emails asking about the link between Mark 16 and my essay on Acts. Consequently, I'm making available an older article that I wrote on the former passage, to be read in conjunction with the latter. If anyone wants a copy, simply email me and ask for the Mark 16 paper Blessings, Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Disciple(Ex-member)
|
|
|
RE:Summary article on Acts
(Date Posted:09/04/2008 16:35:39)
I don't know where to pin this post but here will do...
120 vs Apostles.
Unfortunately in this argument, Ian is right...
I suppose that is why this treasured piece of narrative collections is called "Praxis Apostolon " and not " Praxis 120 " . The apostles are definitly in the subject and I am only a baby greek student !!
So cheer up everyone, Greek really is a lot of fun..
Eric
|
|
|
