Thank you for you reply Scott. At least yot try and respond to my arguements. I have posted responses to others on this thread using book chapter verse yet none of them ever respond to what I say. I starting to think I am on their ignore list or something. Maybe that just cant respond to what I have posted because the see the truth in it.
Scott you accuse me of plagerism. This simply is not true. Now at times I put what I have read into my own words and at times paste article that have been written on the subject. I am not publishing what I am saying or quoting for sale in a book. I am not under any obligation in this forum to post a Source at the end of my writtings to show the differing books and bible versions I have read and put together my arguements from. I do however try and mention that the following is a article or I will at times put the source after the quote in brackets (source). For your information not one single thing I used came from that website you found. I have NEVER seen it before in my life. I think you are just trying to use this as some sort of diverson so you can try and take the focus off of the subject.
As I read through your responses which I will go into more detail in another post I noticed that the majority of the time you really never answed the questions. Yes you would make some sort of statement but it wasnt an answer. I also noticed that you dropped the argument about the Psalms not being part of the law. I don't blame you since I completly destroyed that arguement. You also did not really even touch up on the Rev arguement. Again I dont blame you. Now that I think about it you did'nt really even touch upon the psallo arguement either.
You said I misunderstood your 1 arguement but it is very clear as what you are saying. Maybe you need to re-read it again. This clearly states that the use of the silence of the scriptures is a logical falliacies. If this is true anything everthing that is not mentioned can be deemed ok to do. If this is not what you are saying you need to re-word and explain why it is ok include musical instruments based off the silence of scripture but not to include other things than are not specifically condemned in scripture.
Again, I do appreciate your effort in trying, but you have not even began to touch my arguements. God commanded musical instruments to be used in the old law. When the new law came he did not command them to be used. Do you not see how easy a concept this is. I showed you how the law was nailed to the cross and new law/covenant was put it its place. That is why we are not under the law of Moses because it no longer is binding on us today. If you can bring musical instruments from the old law into the new law then we should be able to bring anything we want from the Old law over to the new law. I will comment latter on the rest of your replies that you made.
Cougan
Scott you accuse me of plagerism. This simply is not true. Now at times I put what I have read into my own words and at times paste article that have been written on the subject. I am not publishing what I am saying or quoting for sale in a book. I am not under any obligation in this forum to post a Source at the end of my writtings to show the differing books and bible versions I have read and put together my arguements from. I do however try and mention that the following is a article or I will at times put the source after the quote in brackets (source). For your information not one single thing I used came from that website you found. I have NEVER seen it before in my life. I think you are just trying to use this as some sort of diverson so you can try and take the focus off of the subject.
As I read through your responses which I will go into more detail in another post I noticed that the majority of the time you really never answed the questions. Yes you would make some sort of statement but it wasnt an answer. I also noticed that you dropped the argument about the Psalms not being part of the law. I don't blame you since I completly destroyed that arguement. You also did not really even touch up on the Rev arguement. Again I dont blame you. Now that I think about it you did'nt really even touch upon the psallo arguement either.
Arguments from silence are logical fallacies. CoC states that musical instruments are prohibited because the NT does not speak of them
You said I misunderstood your 1 arguement but it is very clear as what you are saying. Maybe you need to re-read it again. This clearly states that the use of the silence of the scriptures is a logical falliacies. If this is true anything everthing that is not mentioned can be deemed ok to do. If this is not what you are saying you need to re-word and explain why it is ok include musical instruments based off the silence of scripture but not to include other things than are not specifically condemned in scripture.
Again, I do appreciate your effort in trying, but you have not even began to touch my arguements. God commanded musical instruments to be used in the old law. When the new law came he did not command them to be used. Do you not see how easy a concept this is. I showed you how the law was nailed to the cross and new law/covenant was put it its place. That is why we are not under the law of Moses because it no longer is binding on us today. If you can bring musical instruments from the old law into the new law then we should be able to bring anything we want from the Old law over to the new law. I will comment latter on the rest of your replies that you made.
Cougan
Upvote
0