Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 20th, 2012, 3:21 am #11

Brian: You already have; you just don't realize it.

Response: [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]"Invalid; BCV for this?"[/color]

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Oops! I do realize it now.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 21st, 2012, 9:01 pm #12

Sarcasm is always the last resort for someone who has nothing substantial to say but still insists on speaking.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 21st, 2012, 10:24 pm #13

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]"An eye for an eye...," Scripture says. It follows: "Sarcasm for sarcasm...." In my case, the difference is that sarcasm in response illustrates the point.[/color]

Here's the point: In a discussion or debate, when all the responder says that the original statement is "invalid," it is his responsibility to rebut with an explanation or evidence that his argument in response is valid. Do not expect the audience to "read your mind."
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on February 21st, 2012, 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 21st, 2012, 11:58 pm #14

It is not necessary to prove the opposite position in order to rebut the original statement. All one must do is show that the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. In this case, there is no reasoning to be done, or can be done, until the lunatic that's using <em> argumentum ad bacculum </em> realizes that his ranting and raving only makes him and, by extension, this website, look ridiculous. You can't teach anyone anything until they are teach-able.
Quote
Share

Tom Brite
Tom Brite

February 22nd, 2012, 2:40 am #15

Sarcasm is always the last resort for someone who has nothing substantial to say but still insists on speaking.
There used to be a person on this board who was so insecure in himself that he insisted that everyone call him by his title of "doctor." This person rarely had anything substantive to say, but still insisted on speaking.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 22nd, 2012, 4:23 am #16

It is not necessary to prove the opposite position in order to rebut the original statement. All one must do is show that the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. In this case, there is no reasoning to be done, or can be done, until the lunatic that's using <em> argumentum ad bacculum </em> realizes that his ranting and raving only makes him and, by extension, this website, look ridiculous. You can't teach anyone anything until they are teach-able.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]If "it is not necessary to prove..." that which is lunacy [from your viewpoint], then, you yourself should be incapable of drawing ANY conclusion from the assertion.

The issue here is the admission and impression you're giving that you understand the assertion and can readily draw your own conclusion that negates the premise.

In simple words, how can you say that a premise or an assertion is "INVALID" [one of your favorite responses] UNLESS you UNDERSTAND that premise or argument in the first place? And you did just that in your post immediately following the initial thread -- several times of "invalid" and other abbreviated responses.

Make up your mind: (1) Either request for further explanation as you are not completely understanding the premise; (2) or reserve your conclusion of "invalid" until a misunderstanding of a premise or an assertion has been clarified; (3) or initiate a brand new thread concerning any doctrinal issue you would want discussed.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

February 22nd, 2012, 5:06 am #17

If Jesus defined both the Jewish and other Pagan religion as a BURDEN laded on the backs of the poor including the Babylonian Tithe, and He died to give us REST from that CROOKED RACE, then why do you suppose the preachers and "scholars" don't have a remote clue about what the words meant and therefore agree with the MUSICATORS that God commanded instrumental praise even if I have to CONFISCATE your church to give occupation and a place in the respectable mainstream for that which both repulses and excites us--like a plane wreck?

Those who bore laded burdens (songs) were promised REST: The Greek Pauo means REST.

I have posted MOST of the ways PAUO is used in the Bible and Greek literature. Whatever you plan to do as "worship services" Jesus said JUST STOP IT. Your burden is to determine which of these things PAUO is said to STOP or SILENCE you can just IGNORE because you need to be a burden lader to justify your existence.

I have left out most of the LINKS so you can focus on the things INCLUDED when Jesus promised REST. You can dig for yourself if you are willing to spend a year or so.

Or you might have a LOGICAL meaning of the word BURDEN and the word REST to fit your patternism.

http://www.piney.com/I.Will.Give.You.Rest.html

If you are unwilling to accept historic scholarship to defend lading BURDENS including "a tax not in time of war" then we wish you the best.

If Jesus gave us REST which has the same meaning as SABBATH which outlawed anything but PREACHING the word by READING the Word then you repudiate the Work and WORD of Jesus Christ who IS the only Master Teacher over HIS flock.

Perhaps others are unwilling to trump the Word of Christ and the UNIVERSAL meaning of the Word Jesus PICKED. REST means REST as in the word REST. A SERVICE under the Law and now is called HARD BONDAGE. Musicators and Fabricators are NOT Disciples and cannot be Christians.

Paul warned about those who COULD NOT READ BLACK TEXT ON WHITE PAPER: those are excused from class to do LYING WONDERS which includes all of the performing ARTS and ARTISTS to keep up the DELUSION until it is time for us to go.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Let's get back into the discussion. The beginning of the following chapter (c. 12) mentions "sabbath" (rest), keeping in mind that this was still within the period of Christ and His disciples and under the old covenant, near but prior to the establishment of the church. But in chapter 11, in context, let's review the last few verses [with emphases mine, d.c.]:
[/color]
[24] But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest<b>. <b>Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls<b>. <b>For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light<b>.</b></b></b></b></b>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Without deviating too much from the premise presented in the initial message, I would like to bring up the following elements into the discussion, as I look into the passage in more detail and try to relate the various elements amongst each other:

1) the day of judgment (future)
2) the communication between the Father and the Son
3) ... and vice versa, but where is "the Spirit of God"?
4) "ye that labor and are heavy laden"--who are they?
5) "will give you rest" -- distant future? near future?
6) "my yoke is easy" -- is there still that "yoke"?
7) "my burden is light" -- is there still that "burden"?
8) rest -- is it from the old covenant "sabbath"
9) etc.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

February 22nd, 2012, 5:48 am #18

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]If "it is not necessary to prove..." that which is lunacy [from your viewpoint], then, you yourself should be incapable of drawing ANY conclusion from the assertion.

The issue here is the admission and impression you're giving that you understand the assertion and can readily draw your own conclusion that negates the premise.

In simple words, how can you say that a premise or an assertion is "INVALID" [one of your favorite responses] UNLESS you UNDERSTAND that premise or argument in the first place? And you did just that in your post immediately following the initial thread -- several times of "invalid" and other abbreviated responses.

Make up your mind: (1) Either request for further explanation as you are not completely understanding the premise; (2) or reserve your conclusion of "invalid" until a misunderstanding of a premise or an assertion has been clarified; (3) or initiate a brand new thread concerning any doctrinal issue you would want discussed.[/color]
Post has nothing to do with the subject.

You might want to go back and be baptized into CHRIST?







Last edited by Ken.Sublett on February 22nd, 2012, 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: February 16th, 2012, 8:07 pm

February 22nd, 2012, 6:15 am #19

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Let's get back into the discussion. The beginning of the following chapter (c. 12) mentions "sabbath" (rest), keeping in mind that this was still within the period of Christ and His disciples and under the old covenant, near but prior to the establishment of the church. But in chapter 11, in context, let's review the last few verses [with emphases mine, d.c.]:
[/color]
[24] But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest<b>. <b>Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls<b>. <b>For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light<b>.</b></b></b></b></b>
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Without deviating too much from the premise presented in the initial message, I would like to bring up the following elements into the discussion, as I look into the passage in more detail and try to relate the various elements amongst each other:

1) the day of judgment (future)
2) the communication between the Father and the Son
3) ... and vice versa, but where is "the Spirit of God"?
4) "ye that labor and are heavy laden"--who are they?
5) "will give you rest" -- distant future? near future?
6) "my yoke is easy" -- is there still that "yoke"?
7) "my burden is light" -- is there still that "burden"?
8) rest -- is it from the old covenant "sabbath"
9) etc.[/color]
Not responsive to any of the requests.

Please define PLAY, Labor or Rest.
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on February 22nd, 2012, 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

February 22nd, 2012, 1:48 pm #20

There used to be a person on this board who was so insecure in himself that he insisted that everyone call him by his title of "doctor." This person rarely had anything substantive to say, but still insisted on speaking.
And then there are some folks whose excessive abundance of skatol precludes their recognizing any posts of substance.
Quote
Share