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

June 5th, 2014, 12:10 am #11

No, we have not concluded any such thing: we have concluded that there is no "musical" content commanded or practiced for the synagogue-ekklesia in the entire Bible. In fact, the Holy Convocation for the REST day prohibits vocal or instrumental rejoicing or speaking out of your own head.

You have to conclude that it is NOT prohibited: singing as an ACT was first introduced in the year 373 so that the bishop's own Bible Stories could be sung in that NEVER TUNEFUL sense. This sowed massive discord. In the words of John Calvin these things have not "statute of limitations."

Just keep speaking out of your head. More below for the readers.
Quote
Like
Share

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

June 5th, 2014, 12:25 am #12

Ken, thanks for being honest. I've suspected for a long time that you did not condone vocal tuneful CONGREGATIONAL SINGING. We all have opinions and we need to be more tolerant and respectful of each other.
No, we need to be respectful of the Word of God and probably the majority of people who suffer from Ahedonia and do not hear the praise singing as helpful and indeed probably hinders the church which is devoted to be A School (only) of the Word (only).

People who wrote on clay tablets knew that you could intentionally hurt people with the "singing" they called crying or wailing and we just get used to rocks in our shoes. The powerful effect of brass called Bell Metal gave people a powerful weapon to knock the superstitious out of their senses long enough to steal their cows.

"Show respect" or tolerate may be the language of violence like the "just show them love." Jesus tossed the musical minstrels out using a word meaning "like dung." Even the very perverse Crooked Race of the male symposium were advanced enough that they always told the singers, flute-girls or harp-girls (rarely a boy) to "go play by your selves" if they had anything of importance to DIALOG. Since Paul DIALOGED until Midnight and did not preach in sermonizing or moralizing, I wonder why there is never a few singers present in a single recorded assembly. Maybe they had RESPECT for the Word of Christ in the Prophets and Apostles as the ONLY educational resource for an EDUCATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Most people are not aroused to what instrumental churches do or not: any disciple has too much to do. It is only when men lie, cheat and steal confessing that they are going to turn your church into a "theater for holy entertainment." Without exception they begin by saying GOD COMMANDED CONGREGATIONAL SINGING. Which dribbles to "singing Twila Paris" which dribbles to Psallo COMMANDS us to impose instruments on you.

I submit that a Disciple of Christ or a collection of 100 men stranded on an island would never, in the name of holy testesterone, ever say, FELLAS let us sing and clap and gyrate. Even the "new style praise books" in conservative churches is impulsed by the female side of the rulership.

I assure you that your tribe has only RACA words for people who will not impose or at least confirm that it's its okey dokey to lie about the "musical thing."

HOW TO PROFANE OR POLLUTE GOD'S REST DAY: this is also the Halal praise word from which we get the word LUCIFER. Please notice that ALL instrumental terms are connected with bad people. Then and now musical performance has little history as entertainment but it is connected with violence and religious exorcism. John Mark Hicks says that God FEASTS with us while be burn the fat and JUBILATE: that is the LU pattern of making the Lord's Supper into a spectacle of disrespect.

This is the word defining "Lucifer cast as profane" out of heaven and into the garden of Eden with his/her wind, string and percussion instruments. The Spirit of Christ calls him a "singing and harp-playing prostitute." The Jubilee by Shelly probably began a radical change of quiet, reverent congregational singing into a PSEUDO instrumental "vocal band." A local professor type love to make the drum beat in the gitty up go singing. If your Praise Team sounds like musical instruments God wants you to know that you have profaned or polluted the Name of the Lord by claiming to INVOLVE him in your lack of reverence. H2490 by Thayer



Last edited by Ken.Sublett on June 5th, 2014, 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

June 5th, 2014, 12:46 am #13

No, we have not concluded any such thing: we have concluded that there is no "musical" content commanded or practiced for the synagogue-ekklesia in the entire Bible. In fact, the Holy Convocation for the REST day prohibits vocal or instrumental rejoicing or speaking out of your own head.

You have to conclude that it is NOT prohibited: singing as an ACT was first introduced in the year 373 so that the bishop's own Bible Stories could be sung in that NEVER TUNEFUL sense. This sowed massive discord. In the words of John Calvin these things have not "statute of limitations."

Just keep speaking out of your head. More below for the readers.
Ken, it seems that you're in a private world of your own. There's only your personal bias that congregational singing is neither proper nor right. If the New Testament doesn't command such singing, it certainly doesn't condemn it either. Only you condemn it.

Enough said.


Quote
Share

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

June 5th, 2014, 12:58 am #14

I didn't say it wasn't proper or right: I said that there is no command, example or remote inference of ANY musical content to the assemblies called by God's authority as Schools of the Word. You have to speak for yourself because you THINK along with close to 100% of the latest spawn of preachers that God COMMANDED singing whatever you want to SANG as an ACT of worship. G.C. Brewer said IT IS A LAW and if you do not do it you sin. I have heard that applied to me personally even when I had used up all of my vocal cords.

Enough personal opinion said but you will keep saying from self. Here is a population clock: watch it for a spell

http://populationinstitute.org/resource ... eportcard/

Because Catholics, Jews and Muslims do not see congregational singing like most protestants, I would say that I fit with the majority.

If you discount the habit attenders, the let's tolerate this attenders, what has evolved is a small percentate of tye 7,270,845,733 which has grown by 822 while I was type this and the singy-clappies are motivated by WE GONNA SAVE MORE SOULS.

I would say that the world sees protestant "worship liturgy" as, as it is, a product of the wild frontier, voodoo and snake handlers. Facts SUPPORT that statement.
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on June 5th, 2014, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

June 5th, 2014, 1:34 am #15

If you didn't say congregational singing isn't proper or right, you certainly have posted enough negative messages about it that leave no other impression. And since the New Testament neither commands nor condemns it, then what, exactly, is your beef about congregational singing? You've waged a long, bitter, and futile war with vocal music in the assembly and congregational singing.
Quote
Share

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

June 5th, 2014, 3:25 am #16

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

Congregational singing by definition is not sinful; neither is singing by an individual Christian.

Singing itself is not a command, although it is allowed. There are only a few references to singing in the New Testament -- they do not indicate that singing is a command. Notice:

--- I WILL confess ... and [WILL] sing unto thy name. (Rom. 15:9)
--- I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. (I Cor. 4:15)
--- ... singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19)
--- ... singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col. 3:16)
--- ... will I sing praise unto thee (Heb. 2:12)
--- ... let him sing psalms (Jas. 5:13)

Sounds optional or allowable to me -- either "will sing" OR "singing." If it is a command or imperative, it will say: "You [must] sing."

What's negative about understanding the history of congregational singing or the history of music in the church? As I have expressed before, you can do your own research concerning "music in the church." Then, inform us.

Here's the congregational singing that's DEVIANT: it's when the Praise Team performs musical worship for the congregation or when the song perverts the word of Christ. [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

June 5th, 2014, 3:58 am #17

I was addressing Ken. Yes, we know that the praise teams perform vocal music that is really not suitable for the assembly. Yes, we know that congregational singing that is not perverted and that praises God is not sinful. I'm just trying to figure out why Ken leaves the clear impression that he opposes ANY AND ALL vocal music in the assembly. Since the New Testament neither commands nor condemns it, then what is Ken's problem?

Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

June 5th, 2014, 4:05 am #18

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

Congregational singing by definition is not sinful; neither is singing by an individual Christian.

Singing itself is not a command, although it is allowed. There are only a few references to singing in the New Testament -- they do not indicate that singing is a command. Notice:

--- I WILL confess ... and [WILL] sing unto thy name. (Rom. 15:9)
--- I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. (I Cor. 4:15)
--- ... singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19)
--- ... singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col. 3:16)
--- ... will I sing praise unto thee (Heb. 2:12)
--- ... let him sing psalms (Jas. 5:13)

Sounds optional or allowable to me -- either "will sing" OR "singing." If it is a command or imperative, it will say: "You [must] sing."

What's negative about understanding the history of congregational singing or the history of music in the church? As I have expressed before, you can do your own research concerning "music in the church." Then, inform us.

Here's the congregational singing that's DEVIANT: it's when the Praise Team performs musical worship for the congregation or when the song perverts the word of Christ. [/color]
Sorry Charlie (or in this case Donnie), but even if you own this site, you can't go there! Ken has taken liberties ALWAYS with the Word when he continually blasphemously condemns a capella. So give Ken another slap on the back and tell him thanks for the fleecing follies.

Keep sweeping as hard as you might, but it is still a sin.

You and Ken can continue your slander of me....Like the saying goes, 'if you take it out on me, then you are giving someone else a break'...but if you condone Ken's actions....then you sin also.


EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT
DELAY DELAY DELAY DELAY
Quote
Share

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

June 5th, 2014, 4:35 am #19

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Sorry, Dave (Servant), you're speaking of a cappella as defined today whereas Ken is speaking of a cappella based on its historical origin. When you reach a point of understanding the historical background of a cappella, you will appreciate that knowledge.

When you defend the use of instrumental music in the assembly of New Testament saints, you defend just as well (or perhaps even more) the "worship team" performing on stage. You're loving the performances [don't you?] because it is "a cappella" as defined by you. Can you hardly wait when your "a cappella Praise Team" and muscial instruments perform together?

Sin? Dave, I would leave that to "the righteous Judge"![/color]
Quote
Like
Share

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

June 5th, 2014, 5:04 am #20

I was addressing Ken. Yes, we know that the praise teams perform vocal music that is really not suitable for the assembly. Yes, we know that congregational singing that is not perverted and that praises God is not sinful. I'm just trying to figure out why Ken leaves the clear impression that he opposes ANY AND ALL vocal music in the assembly. Since the New Testament neither commands nor condemns it, then what is Ken's problem?
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Yes, you were addressing Ken -- I knew that. But I'm a poster, too, I think.

No one here is opposed to "ANY AND ALL" vocal music. You ... misunderstanding the very detailed historical info regarding "music in the church"? Very possibly!!!

Audible singing is vocal. It would really be something if "musical worship" were led by a female opera singer with a microphone, wouldn't it?

Vocal music certainly delivers some kind of a message. When the message in vocal music is devoid of "the word of Christ" that is to "dwell in us richly," would you love it or would you oppose it?

What about when the message is lost in the extraordinary musical composition of the (oh -- the extremely complex but beautifully "tuneful") song?[/color]

Quote
Like
Share