Come to me all ye that LABOR and I will give you REST

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 16th, 2012, 7:24 pm #1

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Brian Cade
Brian Cade

February 16th, 2012, 7:57 pm #2

<em>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?</em>

Non sequiter. Invalid.

<em>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.</em>

Non sequiter. Invalid.

<em>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.</em>

Non sequiter. Invalid.


<em>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.</em>

BCV for this?

<em>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.</em>

Non sequiter from the above.

<em> A SERVICE under the Law and now is called HARD BONDAGE</em>

Incomplete sentence.

<em> Musicators and Fabricators are NOT Disciples and cannot be Christians.</em>

Non sequiter; invalid conclusion.

<em>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.</em>

Weak conclusion; also invalid.

Grade = fail.
Quote
Share

B
B

February 16th, 2012, 10:58 pm #3

I believe people would take Brian more seriously if his responses to Ken consisted of meaningful dialogue instead of short phrases and single words like "Non sequiter [sic]. Invalid"; "Incomplete sentence"; "Weak conclusion; also invalid."

Since Brian uses "non sequiter [sic]" multiple times, it would be to his advantage if he spelled it CORRECTLY as "non sequitur."
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 16th, 2012, 11:19 pm #4

I believe that this is proof that he attended a Preacher's School or School of Preaching. Now, education if fine but such schools or the best universities are no better than their faculty.

This kind of logic appears quite often when they use it to defend a creed.

For instance,

God commanded instrumental worship under the LAW
We are not under the law
Therfore, instrumental is not specificially commanded.

First premise is utterly false or they would not have to resort to human logic which is FORBIDDEN by the Logos word. If human logic had any value then Jesus wasted His time and life.

By looking for logical set ups they totally miss being a DISCIPLE which wouldn't give any of any time to make music for that one hour or so when we gather to listen to Jesus. That leaves about 165 hours for anyone to sing and play to their hearts content.

The other false logic is "the law of singing."
If singing with instruments is a sin
The you cannot sing a song out of the blue book with instruments monday morning.

The extreme of logical legalism is that we see singing with an instrument as a superstition to be avoided.

I have noticed that there seems not to be the ability of any of the imposers to come face to face with the assertions to produce another jot or tittle which validates playing instruments while pretending to teach the word in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and all the rest.
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 17th, 2012, 12:44 am #5

I believe people would take Brian more seriously if his responses to Ken consisted of meaningful dialogue instead of short phrases and single words like "Non sequiter [sic]. Invalid"; "Incomplete sentence"; "Weak conclusion; also invalid."

Since Brian uses "non sequiter [sic]" multiple times, it would be to his advantage if he spelled it CORRECTLY as "non sequitur."
Oops, I stand corrected - "non sequitur". Substitute for "non sequiter" in my previous post as needed.
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 17th, 2012, 12:56 am #6

I believe that this is proof that he attended a Preacher's School or School of Preaching. Now, education if fine but such schools or the best universities are no better than their faculty.

This kind of logic appears quite often when they use it to defend a creed.

For instance,

God commanded instrumental worship under the LAW
We are not under the law
Therfore, instrumental is not specificially commanded.

First premise is utterly false or they would not have to resort to human logic which is FORBIDDEN by the Logos word. If human logic had any value then Jesus wasted His time and life.

By looking for logical set ups they totally miss being a DISCIPLE which wouldn't give any of any time to make music for that one hour or so when we gather to listen to Jesus. That leaves about 165 hours for anyone to sing and play to their hearts content.

The other false logic is "the law of singing."
If singing with instruments is a sin
The you cannot sing a song out of the blue book with instruments monday morning.

The extreme of logical legalism is that we see singing with an instrument as a superstition to be avoided.

I have noticed that there seems not to be the ability of any of the imposers to come face to face with the assertions to produce another jot or tittle which validates playing instruments while pretending to teach the word in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and all the rest.
<em>I believe that this is proof that he attended a Preacher's School or School of Preaching. Now, education if fine but such schools or the best universities are no better than their faculty.</em>

Never have, never will.

<em>For instance,

God commanded instrumental worship under the LAW
We are not under the law
Therfore, instrumental is not specificially commanded.

First premise is utterly false or they would not have to resort to human logic which is FORBIDDEN by the Logos word. If human logic had any value then Jesus wasted His time and life.</em>

Evidence?

<em>By looking for logical set ups they totally miss being a DISCIPLE which wouldn't give any of any time to make music for that one hour or so when we gather to listen to Jesus. That leaves about 165 hours for anyone to sing and play to their hearts content.</em>

Emotive language is not evidence.

<em>The other false logic is "the law of singing."
If singing with instruments is a sin
The you cannot sing a song out of the blue book with instruments monday morning.</em>

Your conclusion does not follow, i.e. non sequitur.

<em>The extreme of logical legalism is that we see singing with an instrument as a superstition to be avoided.</em>

Non sequitur; your conclusion does not follow from your previous emotive statements.

<em>I have noticed that there seems not to be the ability of any of the imposers to come face to face with the assertions to produce another jot or tittle which validates playing instruments while pretending to teach the word in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and all the rest.</em>

This makes no sense.

Grade = Fail







Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

February 17th, 2012, 1:38 am #7

Statement: God commanded instrumental worship under the LAW
utterly false.

Rebuttal: Proof?

Answer: God did not command instrumental worship under the law.

I can't find where God did not command instrumental worship.
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

February 17th, 2012, 6:17 am #8

<em>I believe that this is proof that he attended a Preacher's School or School of Preaching. Now, education if fine but such schools or the best universities are no better than their faculty.</em>

Never have, never will.

<em>For instance,

God commanded instrumental worship under the LAW
We are not under the law
Therfore, instrumental is not specificially commanded.

First premise is utterly false or they would not have to resort to human logic which is FORBIDDEN by the Logos word. If human logic had any value then Jesus wasted His time and life.</em>

Evidence?

<em>By looking for logical set ups they totally miss being a DISCIPLE which wouldn't give any of any time to make music for that one hour or so when we gather to listen to Jesus. That leaves about 165 hours for anyone to sing and play to their hearts content.</em>

Emotive language is not evidence.

<em>The other false logic is "the law of singing."
If singing with instruments is a sin
The you cannot sing a song out of the blue book with instruments monday morning.</em>

Your conclusion does not follow, i.e. non sequitur.

<em>The extreme of logical legalism is that we see singing with an instrument as a superstition to be avoided.</em>

Non sequitur; your conclusion does not follow from your previous emotive statements.

<em>I have noticed that there seems not to be the ability of any of the imposers to come face to face with the assertions to produce another jot or tittle which validates playing instruments while pretending to teach the word in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and all the rest.</em>

This makes no sense.

Grade = Fail






Brian's responses are improving, but he still has a tendency to resort to short phrases and single words to "express" himself. Complete sentences explain his opposing views more clearly.
Quote
Share

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

February 19th, 2012, 7:33 am #9

Oops, I stand corrected - "non sequitur". Substitute for "non sequiter" in my previous post as needed.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Brian,

So far you haven't presented your rebuttal. I am disappointed in your responses:[/color]
Non sequiter. Invalid.
Non sequiter. Invalid.
Non sequiter. Invalid.
BCV for this?
Non sequiter from the above.
Incomplete sentence.
Non sequiter; invalid conclusion.
Weak conclusion; also invalid.
Grade = fail.
Never have, never will.
Evidence?
Emotive language is not evidence.
Your conclusion does not follow, i.e. non sequitur.
Non sequitur; your conclusion does not follow from your previous emotive statements.
This makes no sense.
Grade = Fail
Oops, I stand corrected - "non sequitur". Substitute for "non sequiter" in my previous post as needed.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Let us learn from you.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Brian Cade
Brian Cade

February 20th, 2012, 2:44 am #10

You already have; you just don't realize it.
Quote
Share