Acts 13:48

[SheepWhisperer]

If I may,. I would like to pick up a conversation which was ended in another thread.....

SheepWhisperer said.......

The Greek word is "tasso"

Cassidy said............
And there is your problem. You can't read Greek. The word is not "tasso."


The word is τεταγμενοι. As you can't read it I will transliterate it for you.

Tetagmenoi. You say "the Jews,after hearing the Gospel preached, rejected So they turned and preached it to the Gentiles." Yes, and "all those appointed to eternal life believed."

They did not appoint themselves, that would require a middle voice verb. This verb is passive voice, indicating something that was done to them.

I think you better bow out before you make an absolute fool of yourself.

And let me give you some advice. Throw away your Stong's Concordance. It is as wrong as you are. Over and over we see Strong making the root fallacy (as here). Remember, Strong's is a concordance, not a lexicon.

Before posting again I highly suggest you read D. A. Carson's, Exegetical Fallacies. (Baker Academic, 1996) ISBN 0801020867.

It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

Since the verse doesn't give the name of anyone or anything which "ordained" them, could it occur to you that the verb "ordained" is in the "static" or "stative passive" voice which is further reinforced by the use of the word "were" immediately preceding, which is a form of the verb "be"? If so, they were in a state of being ordained. Again, sir, the verse doesn't say WHO ordained them. You can only assume. And I never said that they "appointed" themselves to anything. I said they "ordered, arranged set, disposed" themselves to belief in an afterlife. Do suicide bombers fervently believe in an afterlife? You know they do sir. What a minute.....before you go saying that I'm comparing the REAL Heaven to a Muslim fantasy; I'm just trying to get you to understand that SOME "gentiles" have "disposed themselves" to obtaining immortality even before they come to faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus. That is a fact sir.
.

 

[TCassidy]

I said they "ordered, arranged set, disposed" themselves to belief in an afterlife.

Exactly, which makes it an impossible understanding. They could not "dispose THEMSELVES" which would require a middle voice verb. It is clearly passive voice.

End of discussion. Your utter desperation is really sad. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

The participle does not change the meaning of the narrative. They were in the state of having been appointed (by God, according to the context) to eternal life.

Give it a rest. You are way out of your depth. Don't let your desperation make you look foolish.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Exactly, which makes it an impossible understanding. They could not "dispose THEMSELVES" which would require a middle voice verb. It is clearly passive voice.

End of discussion. Your utter desperation is really sad. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

The participle does not change the meaning of the narrative. They were in the state of having been appointed (by God, according to the context) to eternal life.

Give it a rest. You are way out of your depth. Don't let your desperation make you look foolish.

No sir. The verse does not say that God ordained this. You have to assume it. And there are far worse things than looking foolish.

 

[TCassidy]

No sir. The verse does not say that God ordained this. You have to assume it. And there are far worse things than looking foolish.

Remember the three principles of understanding your bible.

Context.
Context.
Context.

The context is the thesis "husband - wife." The antithesis is "Christ - His church."

Couldn't be clearer.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If I may,. I would like to pick up a conversation which was ended in another thread.....

SheepWhisperer said.......





Since the verse doesn't give the name of anyone or anything which "ordained" them, could it occur to you that the verb "ordained" is in the "static" or "stative passive" voice which is further reinforced by the use of the word "were" immediately preceding, which is a form of the verb "be"? If so, they were in a state of being ordained. Again, sir, the verse doesn't say WHO ordained them. You can only assume. And I never said that they "appointed" themselves to anything. I said they "ordered, arranged set, disposed" themselves to belief in an afterlife. Do suicide bombers fervently believe in an afterlife? You know they do sir. What a minute.....before you go saying that I'm comparing the REAL Heaven to a Muslim fantasy; I'm just trying to get you to understand that SOME "gentiles" have "disposed themselves" to obtaining immortality even before they come to faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus. That is a fact sir.
.

Brother, you are drowning here. You're outright rebellion of God's word is appalling.

They were appointed to believe. To be appointed means to have happen beforehand. This means it was God who appointed them to believe.

Why do you rebel at the thought of God appointing ppl to believe?

 

[Rippon]

It sounds like SW is telling God to mind His own business --it's up to autonomous man to determine things of eternal significance.

 

[kyredneck]

Context.
Context.
Context.

ROFL!!!

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Context.
Context.
Context.

The context is the thesis "husband - wife." The antithesis is "Christ - His church."

Couldn't be clearer.

The context of this part of the chapter is that the Gospel was preached to the Jews and they rejected it. So it was then presented to the Gentiles who accepted it gladly. Verse 48 says they "were ordained", a state of being which mentions no "ordainer". You have to assume who the ordainer was or leave it as it is. I believe it means they were simply "disposed" to a desire for an afterlife and when the ones who were heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they believed "gladly". But you will believe it the way you want.

Brother, you are drowning here. You're outright rebellion of God's word is appalling.

They were appointed to believe. To be appointed means to have happen beforehand. This means it was God who appointed them to believe.

Why do you rebel at the thought of God appointing ppl to believe?

I think God's word is wonderful, it's a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path, it's "very pure", it's quick and powerful. Why do I "rebel" at your doctrine of God supposedly appointing ppl to believe"? Because according to the word of God, that's not what God does. God is not willing that any should perish, He's willing that all should come to repentance, He sent His Son for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, He "so loved the world" that He gave His only begotten Son, on and on I could go, God provided the means and the opportunity for every single person on this planet to be saved if they only believe on His Son. But you deny that. You see my belief as ''rebellion'', I don't.

 

[Revmitchell]

Exactly, which makes it an impossible understanding. They could not "dispose THEMSELVES" which would require a middle voice verb. It is clearly passive voice.

End of discussion. Your utter desperation is really sad. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

The participle does not change the meaning of the narrative. They were in the state of having been appointed (by God, according to the context) to eternal life.

Give it a rest. You are way out of your depth. Don't let your desperation make you look foolish.

what in the world did he do to deserve such harsh words?

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Exactly, which makes it an impossible understanding. They could not "dispose THEMSELVES" which would require a middle voice verb. It is clearly passive voice.

End of discussion. Your utter desperation is really sad. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

The participle does not change the meaning of the narrative. They were in the state of having been appointed (by God, according to the context) to eternal life.

Give it a rest. You are way out of your depth. Don't let your desperation make you look foolish.

This is an excerpt from a Middle English document, written sometime in the late 14th century, which shows another way that the word "ordained" was originally used. Now, the primary way it's used is to refer to the commissioning of a minister, but the English language changes over time: something called "Semantic Drift" Semantic change - Wikipedia. Please tell me, in the way it's used here, who "ordeynes" "concupiscence" in "a man"?

With us, as to temptacioun, which peyne
335
Highte concupiscence./ And this concupiscence,
336
whan it is wrongfully disposed
336
Or ordeyned in man, it maketh hym coveite,
336
By coveitise of flessh, flesshly synne, by sighte
336
Of his eyen as to erthely thynges, and eek
336
Coveitise of hynesse by pride of herte./
337
Now, as for to speken of the firste coveitise,
337
That is concupiscence, after the lawe of oure
337

Source: The Canterbury tales

 

[SovereignGrace]

The context of this part of the chapter is that the Gospel was preached to the Jews and they rejected it. So it was then presented to the Gentiles who accepted it gladly. Verse 48 says they "were ordained", a state of being which mentions no "ordainer". You have to assume who the ordainer was or leave it as it is. I believe it means they were simply "disposed" to a desire for an afterlife and when the ones who were heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they believed "gladly". But you will believe it the way you want.

I think God's word is wonderful, it's a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path, it's "very pure", it's quick and powerful. Why do I "rebel" at your doctrine of God supposedly appointing ppl to believe"? Because according to the word of God, that's not what God does. God is not willing that any should perish, He's willing that all should come to repentance, He sent His Son for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, He "so loved the world" that He gave His only begotten Son, on and on I could go, God provided the means and the opportunity for every single person on this planet to be saved if they only believe on His Son. But you deny that. You see my belief as ''rebellion'', I don't.

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,[Titus 3:5]

It is because He saved us, not the things we added to it. Not our innate faith, or our repentance. We, in our fallen condition, could not exercise faith and/or repentance. Both of these are gifts of God. To say you don't need God to gift you faith and repentance is the epitome of an haughty spirit. You're saying you don't need His help, as you can do that yourself.

Now, you say God gives everyone w/o exception an opportunity to be saved. What about those who died w/o ever hearing the gospel. Faith comes from hearing the word of God. If ppl don't hear the gospel, they can't have faith. Then seeing we're justified by faith, no faith = no salvation.

You're a theological hot mess.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The context of this part of the chapter is that the Gospel was preached to the Jews and they rejected it. So it was then presented to the Gentiles who accepted it gladly. Verse 48 says they "were ordained", a state of being which mentions no "ordainer". You have to assume who the ordainer was or leave it as it is. I believe it means they were simply "disposed" to a desire for an afterlife and when the ones who were heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they believed "gladly". But you will believe it the way you want.

I think God's word is wonderful, it's a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path, it's "very pure", it's quick and powerful. Why do I "rebel" at your doctrine of God supposedly appointing ppl to believe"? Because according to the word of God, that's not what God does. God is not willing that any should perish, He's willing that all should come to repentance, He sent His Son for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, He "so loved the world" that He gave His only begotten Son, on and on I could go, God provided the means and the opportunity for every single person on this planet to be saved if they only believe on His Son. But you deny that. You see my belief as ''rebellion'', I don't.

God is not willing any perish? Then He turns around and tells them that died in their sins, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from, DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’[Luke 13:27]

So, God is not willing any perish, then say He does not know where they're from(meaning He never knew them in an intimate relationship), and call them evildoers.

You're a theological hot mess!

 

[SheepWhisperer]

what in the world did he do to deserve such harsh words?

It's no biggy brother...thanks

God is not willing any perish? Then He turns around and tells them that died in their sins, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from, DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’[Luke 13:27]

So, God is not willing any perish, then say He does not know where they're from(meaning He never knew them in an intimate relationship), and call them evildoers.

You're a theological hot mess!

That's correct. he is not willing that any should perish. But in the judgment when He finally tells the lost "depart from me......I never knew you", that word "knew" means that He never knew them as children, BECAUSE although THEY professed to know Jesus, they had never really trusted Him as Savior. They were false "professors". The world is full of them.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

...........and the "will" of the Father that we are supposed to "do" is to simply "believe on Him who He hath sent".

John 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent

 

[TCassidy]

This is an excerpt from a Middle English document, written sometime in the late 14th century, which shows another way that the word "ordained" was originally used. Now, the primary way it's used is to refer to the commissioning of a minister, but the English language changes over time: something called "Semantic Drift" Semantic change - Wikipedia. Please tell me, in the way it's used here, who "ordeynes" "concupiscence" in "a man"?

You seem confused. God did not inspire the English translation. God inspired the Hebrew and Greek which I have already explained to you.

If you are foolish enough to think the English was inspired by God we have no intelligent basis to continue this discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

what in the world did he do to deserve such harsh words?

By apparently thinking the English corrects the Greek, a la Ruckman.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

You seem confused. God did not inspire the English translation. God inspired the Hebrew and Greek which I have already explained to you.

If you are foolish enough to think the English was inspired by God we have no intelligent basis to continue this discussion.

Some seem to have a propensity for accusing others of things they never said, then refuting those things. Don't they call that "strawman" argument or something like that? I never said God inspired the King James Version. I do, however, believe God "preserves" His "pure" word and is faithful in getting it to men in whatever language they use, don't you? After all, If we can' trust it's accuracy, then how do you know all those Calvinistic things are accurate? I was saved after hearing the Word of God from a King James Bible so I'll just stick with the best I know of OK?

 

[TCassidy]

Some seem to have a propensity for accusing others of things they never said, then refuting those things. Don't they call that "strawman" argument or something like that? I never said God inspired the King James Version. I do, however, believe God "preserves" His "pure" word and is faithful in getting it to men in whatever language they use, don't you? After all, If we can' trust it's accuracy, then how do you know all those Calvinistic things are accurate? I was saved after hearing the Word of God from a King James Bible so I'll just stick with the best I know of OK?

That explains a lot. You don't know what the word of God is so, of course, you can't understand it.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

You seem confused. God did not inspire the English translation. God inspired the Hebrew and Greek which I have already explained to you.

If you are foolish enough to think the English was inspired by God we have no intelligent basis to continue this discussion.

Yes sir, I believe God inspired men of God who wrote it down in Hebrew and Greek. What you told me was, that the Greek word "tasso" was not the correct word and I don't recall you giving me the "Hebrew" one unless Tetagmenoi(sp?) was it. I will study that when I get time, and get back to you on it.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't recall you giving me the "Hebrew" one unless Tetagmenoi(sp?) was it.

<sigh> God inspired the Old Testament in Hebrew (for the most part with some portions in Aramaic/Chaldee) and the New Testament in Greek. As were were discussing a New Testament verse it stands to reason the word in question was Greek. If you are not aware of that then there is no point to continuing.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Yes, and I already aknowledged that early on. I gave you "Tasso" as that Greek word. You said it was the wrong word, remember?