Church of Christ Question

Unless you come declare something is "expedient". But then that's just what Moses, Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah thought! Why are the things the CoC does that are not specifically mentioned different?
Once again, you cannot compare those specific commnds under the ceremonial Law, or specific instructions (e.g. Moses) to all of general Church practice today. Once again, you do not do everything EXACTLY as was done in the NT, or nothing that is not mentioned. There was liberty granted in various areas where the explicit Law (which carried over in principle, not necessarily the letter) was silent -- and remember, "THE LETTER KILLS!"

That's funny. Rejecting commandments created totally out of silence is rejecting the Bible. I guess there must be a whole separate invisible Bible. Both the orthodox Jews and Catholics claim essentially the same thing, calling it an "oral tradition". Anyone can get anything into "The Bible" that way!
Meanwhile, what is explicitly mentioned in the Bible can be explained away. They only "held" them, not played them, and didn't need them anyway. Well, then, why were they there? To "represent" something? I guss you must have read Peter Masters too.
Those references show they were present, and therefore not abhorable to God, as you seem to think. It says nothing about "everyone then MUST use them" That is just your overgeneralistic reasoning.

No? Look at what you just quoted. People are "baptized INTO CHRIST". That is the baptism "into His body I was talking about, not a water ceremony, IN ITSELF.

I explained it before, and Link just explained it well also. The ceremony ACCOMPANIED the conversion/confession. He believed, and then was baptized. That was the outward sign of his acceptance of Christ, so yes, he rejoiced when it was all done. But all of the Churches, with the CoC apparently following along, began putting converts through initiation processes such as membership classes, before finally baptizing. This is CONTRARY to what was written, so why doesn't your "silence"/"strange fire" rule outlaw this. I guess this too is "expedient" as well, right? So, as you have never addressed, you apparently must hold the convert off in this "limbo" state for weeks, at least I imagine, until you are ready to baptize him. He is not "saved" until then. Please tell us if that is correct or not. Or do you baptize on the spot like we see in the scripture?

 

Eric:

I baptize according to the scripture. When one desires to have his sins remitted, he is baptized straightway. I do not know anything about making someone wait for a week, a day or two hours, to have his sins remitted. Where did you get the idea he must wait for a period of time to be baptized. I know of some denominations who do this. However, the examples of conversion are immediate.

The church of Christ does not have a converts class before they are baptized. This is contradictory to the very term convert.

I believe the misunderstanding surrounds the phrase believers baptism. Some proclaim that the believer is saved before and without water baptism. In short, it is an outward sign of inward grace. This is what I was referring to as it pertains to your post about I Cor. 12:13. Your comments were confussing.

Let me make my post clear. Jesus said one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized to be saved.( John 8:24, Luke 13:3,Mat. 10:32, Mark 16:16). One is baptized when these conditions are met immediately!!( ACTS 8:30-40). I hope this removes any doubt about what I meant in my last post.

There are some congregations who conduct new converts classes. However, it is after they are converted, not before.

It is clear based on the scriptures what is to be done in the case of baptism and I follow what is written as per ACTS 8:30-40.

I never said anything about a converts class before being baptized. By the way, the new converts class is simply a bible class that teaches new testament Christianity based on the milk of the word. I never said one had to wait to be baptized. Where do you get such imaginative ideas ?

The Eunoch was baptized in water into the body of Christ. The bible says in Acts 8:35  Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Furthermore, the arguments I made about the harps and silence have yet to be rebutted by you.

You seem to think because you do not like them that the scripures and examples will just go way. If your position is correct, why not try a novel idea in making your point... use the Bible... instead of I do not like it.

 

Eric:

You said, Unless you come declare something is "expedient". But then that's just what Moses, Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah thought! Why are the things the CoC does that are not specifically mentioned different?
Once again, you cannot compare those specific commnds under the ceremonial Law, or specific instructions (e.g. Moses) to all of general Church practice today. Once again, you do not do everything EXACTLY as was done in the NT, or nothing that is not mentioned. There was liberty granted in various areas where the explicit Law (which carried over in principle, not necessarily the letter) was silent -- and remember, "THE LETTER KILLS!"

1. If Uzzah, Moses, Nadab and Abihu did that which was expedient, and they did not, God punished them for doing that which is lawful. This makes God unjust based on your argument. Is God unjust? Did he punish them for violating the principle of silence or not? The divine record records nothing about, it is silent on, new carts, men steadying the ark on a cart, strange fire, and striking the rock. You can search the scriptures today and forever with the mind of Einstein and will never find God saying these things, not once. Now ,if I am wrong, you will be able to post the book, chapter and verse where he did say such. I already know what will not be forth coming from you, and I am not clairvoyant. You will not be able to rebutt the argument with the standard I made it.

2. You have yet to establish or substantiate I do anything contray to the expressed will of God as found in the new testament of Christ. Again, book, chapter and verse will suffice. You simply throw out wild accusations.

3. Biblical principles never change. Grace, faith and obedience are required under every dispensation of time. I have proved this proposition with the scriptures from both testaments. I used the SPECIFIC example of singing in this discussion. It is a SPECIFIC ACT. There is a parallel of specifics in both testaments.

 

OK, then I retract my statements on that. I have been trying to get that from you for a long time, and it was more of a question than anything else.
I found it hard to believe you just baptized on the spot, as just about every gropu that I now of wants to make sure the person is truly converted first (understands the basic doctrines, is willing to live for Christ, etc) before baptizing them into their church. As I said, baptism has become associated with joining the organization, moreso than the initial conversion to Christ, and you are right that this is wrong. If you do not practice, then good; you are consistant in that area. Still, if you are out witnessing or whatever, and make a convert, and are not able to baptize him on the spot, then you may stillend up waiting days, at least. And suppose they do not realize your teachings which differ from the rest of Christendom? You've just baptized someone into your church who really is not one in doctrine and teaching with you. Suppose they reject them once you teach it to them?
This is why most Churches do not baptize right away, though I agree that it is not biblical.

 

Yes I did. I said "Those references show they were present, and therefore not abhorable to God, as you seem to think. It says nothing about 'everyone then MUST use them'That is just your overgeneralistic reasoning". Just "holding" them yet they are not needed is really stretching it. This and the whole "silence" thing are just your reading things into scripture that are not there. You think silence is "liberty" to add your own commands and prohibitions to scripture.

IT's not about what I don't like. I've been baptized and would have nothing to lose if your "baptism is necessary for salvation" doctrine were true. I have a home to listen to music in, so I don't need instruments in the Church service. It's you who seem to think that if it is according to your tradition it suddenly appears in the Bible as a command or prohibition.
As I had said somewhere before, with your type of arguments and reading things into scripture, posting book chapter and verse does no good, becuase from you it is just a proof-text that does not really teach what you are saying, and when one of us does post scripture, you just ignore, dismiss, explain away, throw up one of your proof-texts against it. As I said, this is more about what scripture does not teach, so we are dealing with the scriptures you have posted.

They must have thought it was "Expedient". It certainly looked like it would accomplish the same thing. But they were wrong. (see further comment on these instances below). So my point on that is that when you insist on this principle, but then use the excuse of "expedient" when your Church does something not mentioned in the Bible, you could be making the same mistake. You have not proven that what you do really is "expedient" in a way that it is allowable even though God did not specifically "mention" it; according to your own line of excluding something.

I never said he said such. And you have yet to mention where the Church has its own building, salaried pastors, little crumbs of crackers and tiny vials of grape juice, and reading songs out of a book and not just "singing" them (if you do these last few things) are in there. Even your interpretation of other things (such as Acts 20:7 commanding Sunday and replacing the Sabbath) are wrong, and do not really say what you say they do.

Oh, so NOW the criterion is "contrary to the express will of God as found in the NT", rather than "Silence". Well, then, you have yet to establish or substantiate that instruments are contrary to the express will of God in the NT. Where is the "book, chapter and verse" on that? No, you just come up with this "Silence", and try to generalize Old Testament instances of explicit commands that would be violated by using something not specified. But then when the question is turned back on you, the whole criterion changes. Now, it only has to be "expedient" (useful for getting the task done), or "not contrary to the NT" (whether it is "mentioned" or not.)
This is why this argument goes on. You are constantly changing the standards back and forth in a way that always justifies your practice, while condeming others'.

And singing, while a specific act, is not contrary to instruments, any more than it is contrary to reciting the words from a hymnal, projection, or anything else. Speaking is contrary to hitting.
Uzzah was struck for touching the holy object (Num.4:15), rather than how they carried or even steadied it! No "silence" there.
The so-called "strange fire" was connected with the incense, commanded in Exodus 30. God had commanded that the censer was to be filled with "sweet" incense (v.7), so any other type of incense would have been the "Strange incense" (v.9) that would have made up "strange fire". So there is your "explicit command" in that instance.
You have to check the contexts of passages like these, not run off with speculation about some unwritten detail that was not mentioned, but still enforced and try to build some universal "principle" on it from a "silence" that is not even real!
So it's not even really "silence"! God gave an explicit command, and an incense that is not sweet, or touching something, for instance, is not some possible alternative that God is simply "silent" on. He explicitly commanded the opposite! Nowhere is anyone punished like that for doing something that does not contradict God's explicit specification. They were not punished for carrying the ark over one path instead of another, or using one type of incense that is sweet over another that is sweet, or even which exact words to speak to the rock. You cannot even tell the difference between these types of qualifications, yet you are so sure you are right on what is commanded and forbidden. Learn how to take scripture for what it says, and the contexts, without reading things into it, first, and then we can discuss "book/chapter/verse".

 

Eric:
The eight verses in the new testament that are comprehensive as it pertaisnto this subject state unequivocally and SPECIFICALLY the act is to sing. Specifics eliminate generalities.
if your position is true, ppease goive ame one scripture that staes SPECIFICALLY to play. Just one!
It is not a stretch to reazd englsih and understand to hold an object is different than playing it. Furthermore, the implication of Rev. 15:2,3;14:2,3 is that the harp represnts the praise given to God ,not the litreal act of palying a harp.
If you believe it is to be interpreted to play other than what John said, that is holding, on what scriptual basis do you make this conclusion?
Furthermore, if this passage is to be interpreted literal in context then the following must be considered:

1. One must be in heaven. We are not last time I checked.

2. All in heaven must hold-play as you interpret. Hold-play what? How do you know?

3.According to your interpretation, All must play a harp? This eliminates the use of the piano, organ, trumpet. Therefore, those who are currently using instruments are violating the passage because they do not use a harp.
Your argument is absurd.

Yor rebuttal does not even address the silence argument.

1. Where did God State Uzzah do not touch the ark?

2. Where did God say, do not use a cart to carry the ark?

3. Where did God say do not take fire from another source. Where? You have not produced one expressed word where God said not to do any of these things. Why?

I have produced scriptures that explicitly say that God commanded them NOT. Moses spake NOTHING. God has set a breach because we have NOT sought him after due order.I have posted the book chapter and verses. You refuse to address then because you cannot refute them. You make a claim that the context proves your point. We will see.

God NEVER allows man to act in faith without his word.( Romans 10:17;14:23).

I have produced scripture that specifically states and validates my position. My position is that the new testament teaches the act of singing. I challenge you to do the same for your position. Just one scripture that says play. I have done it for singing. You can search today, tomorrow and forever and you will not be able to do it. The reason is simple God NEVER said to do it that way.

You cannot have it both ways. In your last post you mention SPECIFICS about the above accounts. However, none of these specifics state not to use fire from another source, or not to steady the ark, or carry it on a cart. The texts you quote say absolutely NOTHING about the above. God was silent about carts, strange fire, steadying the ark. Not one word. If so where. Please quote it! It is IMPLIED BY WHAT GOD HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED. This is not to say he addressed the issue explicitly. He did not. Specifics prohibits the use of generalities.

On the other hand, you try to use what God did not say specifically to authorize instruments. It is a blatant falsehood to espouse playing and singing in the new testament is the same thing. The scriptures state SPECIFICALLY the noun that acts, and it is man not a machine. At least be consistent. Specifics either eliminate generalities or things not stated, or they do not. The specified act of singing using one's mind, heart,and fruit of the lips, eliminates using an instrument that has neither heart, mind, or lips. It elimiantes anything that SPECIFICALLY CANNOT speak with words that dwell in you (people- you) To argue they are the same is one of ab absurdeum.
I have addressed the context of these passages. In fact, I make my position using the scriptures. You have used unsubstantiated opinion,I do not like it, and out right misrepresentation of word meanings in plain english.

Your last post makes the case that what God has said SPECIFICALLY prohibits that which he has not commanded,( silence- spake nothing, commanded them not, not after the due order)or any other general possibility.

He who proves too little, proves too much!!

 

Frank wrote,
**The point of I Cor. 11 is that those in Coritnh were not properly partaking of the Supper.**

I agree with you that they were not partaking properly of the Supper. Notice, scripture uses the word Supper, not snack.

**This meal was not comanded. The exclusionary wanton behavior was condemned because it showed disrespect for Christ and respect of persons.**

The example of Christ was to eat an actual meal. The Corinthians wre eating an actual meal.

**Furthermore, the Bible says in Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, This is a fellowship meal. It is not the same context as Acts 20:7. Context is the final factor for understanding word meanings.**

I am inclined to view both of these as references to the Lord’s Supper. Why else would scripture mention it? Also, notice that according to I Corinthians 10, partaking of the “Lord’s Table” is a ‘fellowship meal.’ I know of no other fellowship meal the New Testament prescribes for Christians to participate in our church meetings before the Resurrection.

**In regards to temptation, we are never given more than we can stand the we may be able to bear it. This is quit different from the bear jumped into the water after the Salmon.**

What do you have in mind? How does this tie in to the current discussion?

**As for singing, it is clear by the context, the meaning of words in the text, from history and and scholarship, the church of the first century sang unaccompmnied by instruments. **

I thought you didn’t put much weight in history. Historically, the first three centuries of Christian church meetings were influenced by patterns from the synagogue. Early RM leaders (like the Campbells) looked back to the 2 or 300’s for models of church.

But also notice that these meetings were somewhat liturgical, and soon evolved away from the type of meeting commanded in the New Testament, as described in I Corinthians 14. While history is valuable, the fact that certain 2nd century Christians had never heard music in their meeting, or did not have mutually participatory meetings is no basis for doctrine.

Church liturgy was influenced by the Jewish synagogue, which got rid of its instruments around 70AD over mourning for the destruction of the temple. (Btw, are you mourning the destruction of the temple? ) In Paul’s day, and in Christ’s day before the resurrection, synagogues were using musical instruments, as was the temple. When the temple was destroyed, the synagogues stopped. No doubt Paul sang right along to the music before preaching the Gospel.

**They actually sang together many psalms. Your contention about solos is unsubstanitated.**

It is clear from I Corinthians 14:26 “every ONE of you hath a psalm’ that some sung solos. Also, if you want too look at history, have a look at Tertullian’s Apology from about 200 AD. He says that after the Supper (the Agape, as he explains it is called) each one was called before all and sang a song from his heart or from the scriptures to the Lord.

From I Corinthians 14:26, I see a case for solos. What I don’t see is a command or a clear example to sing congregationally in the church while here on earth.

On the other hand, I do see that Christ and the apostles sang a hymn after the Lord’s Supper, and I’ve read that Ashkenazik, Sephardian, and Yemenite Jews all sing certain Psalms ‘congregationally’, as a group that is, after the Supper. There was also ‘congregational singing’ in John’s heavenly vision. I wouldn’t condemn congregational singing. But if I used your method of interpretation, I might.

** Speaking to yourselves requires a minimum of two people communicating to each other. This is why it is called speaking to yourselves. The pronoun is plural.**

That is not what we are disagreeing about. It’s that you seem to think both people are speaking at the same time. I’m saying the verse could refer to the speakers ‘taking turns speaking.’ That is, taking turns singing solos to one another. If the ‘spiritual songs’ were given on the spur of the moment by the Spirit, it would more likely be solos rather than congregational singing.

**Your Argument fails as per the following:

1. If you contend instruments are included, and they are not, then everyone must use them or they violate Ephesians 5;19.**

That doesn’t make sense. It would only make sense if I were insisting that a ‘psalm’ has to be accompanied by musical instruments in order to be a ‘psalm.’ I am not arguing for that.

**2. If the vision of John authorizes the use of an instrument,then all should learn to play the harp or they violate what is written.**

Your conclusion here is not logical. I Corinthians 14 authorizes speaking in tongues and interpreting in church. If someone does not interpret tongues in church, is he violating what is written?

**3. If the vision of John is a example of music in the church, and it is not figurative, it necessitates the following:
a. All must hold the harp.
b. All must be in heaven.
c. All must sing the song of Moses and the Lamb.**

That doesn’t make sense. If you study the uses of ‘church’ in scripture, there are possibly three or four senses (maybe more.). One is a gathering of people, another is people who regularly gather (or all the saints that gather in the administrative unit of a city), and another is the ‘heavenly church.’ The end of Hebrews 12 also seems to be speaking of this ‘heavenly church’ which includes saints alive and dead.

If we see members of the ‘church ‘in heaven _ assembling _ and singing with musical instruments, we need to take that into account when we consider this issue.

But notice that the passage in Revelation DOES NOT command that all must hold the harp, or that all must be in heaven, or that all must sing a particular song. Your conclusions here are not logical.

**Furthermore, spiritual beings have no need for the temporal.The vision of harpers holding their harps represents praise to God.**

If God were as against instrumental music in worship as you seem to be, why would He give us such a picture. Btw, what is your basis of authority for interpreting this passage different from what it actually says? Do you claim to be a prophet? Do you claim direct revelation from God, because I sure don’t see any scripture that says we can allegorize the harps out of this verse. You seem to be grasping at straws.

If the saints in heaven can play harps to ‘represent praise to God’ why can’t the saints on earth do the same?

**The written word says they were holding them, not playing them.**

Look at Revelations 14:2
“I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps.”

The harpers are harping in this verse. That’s where the sound comes from. In verse 3, we see that the harpers sang a new song before the throne. There is nothing to debate. It’s right there in the Bible.

**The fact you do not like the divine respect God has for his silence and his expressed will is a problem of you rejecting the bible.**
You are the one inventing commandments about where the Bible is silent. Sin is transgressing the law. Show me the law against instruments in church meetings.

**Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire because they offered strange fire to God that and I quote," which he commanded them not."( Leviticus 10:1,2).**

Show me where the Bible equates instruments with fire used to offer animal sacrifices.

Btw, I am not aware of any scripture which speaks of what fire was to be used beforehand. But my understanding of the priesthood is that Moses told and showed Aaron what to do, and frequently gave divinely authorized judgments on different issues. There may have been many details Moses showed and told these priests that are not in scripture. The priests had a certain prescribed way of doing things, and they did something different, and God judged them.

A few verses before, Moses had showed them how to do things, and they did it a different way. Nadab and Abihu weren’t doing something that they could see from scripture God already approved of for centuries. They were doing things differently from how they had been taught by a prophet of God.

**Jesus could not be the High priest on earth. Jesus being from Judah could not serve in this capacity. Why? God had already expressed his will, and I quote, MOSES spake NOTHING concerning the priesthood." ( Hebrews 7:14).**

The verse does NOT say that is why Judahites could not be priests.

***In II Samuel 6:1-6, Uzzah was struck dead for steadying the shaken ark as it was riding on a new cart. God was displeased with two things. One, God did not give his expressed permission for Uzzah to steady the ark under these circumstances. He was silent. Two, The Ark was to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites using staves.( Exodus 25:13-15). God never said to use a cart. He was silent about carts. The divine record says God was displeased and punished the violators one with death. Note: in I Chronicles it is done by the expressed will of God. 26 And it came to pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that they offered seven bullocks and seven rams. Note: in I Chronicles 15:28, the difference in obeying the expressed will of God from those who do not. The Bible says, " 28 Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps."***


Uzzah was part of the company transporting the ark in a way contrary to what God had instructed. He also touched the ark. The verse you quote about instruments is about instrumental music later one, when they sent the ark up to Jerusalem the _right _ way. There was also instrumental music when the ark was taken the wrong way. It is clear that God didn't strike anyone dead because of musical instruments.

This passage doesn't argue against instrumental music. Christians who sing instrumentally accompanied songs in church are in obedience if they teach and exhort one another, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and make melody in their hearts to the Lord. The Ephesians and Colossians passages don't specifically command the use of instruments (as I interpret it, anyway.)

Your opposing instrumental music here would be akin to someone in David's day arguing that it was wrong to transport the ark with musical accompaniment, because the Law specified that the ark be transported on poles carried by Levites. I can just imagine his statements now. "The ark is to be transported by Levites on poles. If we add musical accompaniment, we aren't obeying the express command of God," my imaginary figure says.

But the problem is that whether there is musical accompaniment or not, if the ark is transported according to the Law, it is transported according to the Law. The Law didn't command or forbid instrumental accompaniment when transporting the ark. When David had the ark transported the wrong way, there was musical accompaniment. When he had it transported the right way, there was musical accompaniment. The command was about how to transport the ark, and didn't mention music. The command in the New Testament doesn't mention instruments either. You shouldn't try to invent Laws that don't exist.

When men violate the expressed will of God by appealing to what God did not say they seperate themselves from God and cause death and punishment. The Bible says in Chronicles 15:13, For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.
14 So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.

***Moses struck the rock in the wilderness. Unfortunatley, God had spoken expressly that he was to speak to the rock. The divine record tells us he was not allowed into the promised land because of his transgression. God never told he could not strike the rock. Rather, God told him expressly what to do.( Numbers 20:7-12;27:12-14).**

If you will look at he passage, it doesn't say that Moses spoke to the rock. He did hit it. God said to speak to the rock, and as far as the passage shows, he didn't do it.

Instrumental music is different. This would be more akin to a situation in which Moses obediently speaks to the rock, but also uses hand gestures and makes facial expressionswhen he talks. Would God get angry at Moses and say "You did what I said by speaking, but I didn't say to use any hand guestures and facial expressions, so you aren't going to make it to the promise land."? I don't. Especially not if Moses, in this illustration had an anceint book of scripture showing how much God appreciated people using hand gestures and facial expressions when they talked.

The New Testament commands speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Adding musical instruments to singing is just like adding facial expressions to speaking. The two go hand in hand, especially when you look at the Old Testament passages about musical instruments, and consider the etymology of the Greek word for 'psalm.'

**God repects his expressed will and silence. It is unacceptable for men to act without faith which is found in his word, not the absence of it.(Romans 10:27;14:23). **

You shouldn't use instruments in church with your stance because of Romans 14:23. It's ironic that you should pick that scripture, because, in the immediate context, those who were not acting in faith were doing so because of a lack of understanding or a weak conscience. You have a weak conscience on this issue. Others who do use instruments have plenty to put their faith on, since the Bible says so many good things about the use of musical instruments in praise to God.

Really, I can't see any reason for you to hold to these views on music unless you think that your 'undenomination' has arrived when it comes to understanding all aspects of the truth. I especially can't see why you would reject the scriptural facts that church meetings are supposed to be about 'every one of you' edifying one another, unless again, it stems from a belief in the idea that your 'undenomination' has all the answers. Just think where you would be if the Campbells had convinced themselves that they ahd all the answers when they were Presbyterians, and had not been open to adjusting their viewpoints if not supported by scripture. Actually, some Restorationists in the CC and CoC movements realize the mutually edifying nature of a church meeting, at least on missions fields.

 

It is quite obvious from the bolded statments, the way you read both my posts and scripture, and it is no wonder you read commandments where there are none, and fail to differentitate between NT practice and your own tradition. The truth is, you're NOT reading, and while you keep accusing me of "unsubstantiated opinion", that is precisely what you are giving. You have your mind made up, and that's it. So this shows just what I said before; "Book, chapter and verse" does no good with you, because even when I give them, you gloss right over it, claim it doesn't address the issue, and go back to your own privately interpreted proof-texts.
But to answer your claims, I will give them again.

1) No, It does not say "Uzzah do not touch the ark"; because the command not to touch "any holy thing" was given in the Numbers passage, and that was all that was needed. It was in the written Torah, and every Jew that lived then was to have read it, so there was no "silence" on it. Just like God does not have to personally command every individual not to kill or worship and idol.

2) No, God doesn't say not to use a cart. But then THAT WAS NOT WHAT UZZAH WAS STRUCK FOR! It was an unspecified "they" who put the ark on a new cart (it had probably been on another one even before that), and they continue moving it. Then, as soon as Uzzah touches it, HE is struck. Why weren't THOSE people struck as soon as they put it on a cart, if that was what angered the Lord? We see a whole sequence of events, then suddenly someone is struck for doing a particular thing. Why assume it was what other people had been doing all along that God struck this person, at this particular time for?
It's AMAZING, that you ignore what the text SAYS God struck the person for, and instead make up your own "transgression" that is not even mentioned, and then proceed to use the fact that it is not mentioned to prove your point! Pure circluar argumentation! Unbelievable!
So then if you would have been there, what would you have done? You would have carried it on staves, confident you were doing it all right and "adding nothing to what God said", and then when it still tipped over, you would have still tried to touch it, and...
~~~ZAP!!!~~~
Your methods of interpeting scripture are dangerous!

3) Not one expressed word on the fire? Exodus 30? Since you obviously didn't see the "book, chapter verse" references, then here, lets print them out.

1 ¶ And you shall make an altar to burn incense upon. You shall make it of acacia-wood.
7 And Aaron shall burn SWEET incense on it every morning; when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it.
8 And when Aaron lights the lamps at evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.
9 You shall offer no strange incense on it, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meal offering. Neither shall you pour drink offering on it.

These things, the incense particularly, would have consituted the "Strange fire". As I said, when you read a passage like the Nadab and Abihu incident, Uzzah, or anything else, you may have to search the scripture to find out what the meaning of things are. It may be elsewhere in scripture, but nevertheless, the same God-breathed Holy Writ. Not make assumptions, or concoct your own interpretation. Scripture interprets scripture! But you don't want to do that. You want to dictate "God destroyed people for doing something He was silent on, so I say the same principle applies to instruments". You keep accusing me of saying "I don't like it", even though I have NOT ONCE said any such thing, and even showed that it wouldn't make any difference to me personally if you were right. Yet we see it is you who are making things up out of nowhere, as if just because you say that is what it means.

I didn't say they were "the SAME". I said one could be done without excluding or contradictiong the other. So now you twist my words to try to prove your case. Also then, "singing using ones heart, mind..." would also exclude reciting it out of a book, as well; in factthat would come closer to violating the spirit of that passage than an instrument would. But you ignore that as well.

Link answered this well. Your responses don't make sense (non-sequiturs); and Revelation 14:2 does show the harps being played. Once again, you are not reading all the scripture; just your prepackeged set of proof-texts, which you also are not getting right either.

 

Link:

1.If the interpretation of the Revelation passages is literal as you claim, the following must be true. Harps are to be played or held -played.
2.Those who play them must be in heaven to play them.
3. All must play the harp to be acceptable to God in this issue. If not,why not?

You cannot have it both ways. It is either literal or it is not. Again , that is your problem.

Furthermore, based on the rules of english and words in the text of Ephesians 5:19, a plurality of people must pluck. There is not one denoimination that does this. If I am wrong, please post the evidence. Speaking to yourselves is a PLURAL reciprocal, receptive pronoun phrase. This is what all the English teachers at my school tell me. I guess you know more about english than they do.

The point of using the word bear in overcoming temptations and finding the salmon is UNLESS YOU READ THE CONTEXT YOU CANNOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD BEAR. THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF PSALLO AND SING. The context defines it SPECIFICALLY.

Your claim that mechanical instruments being used prior to 600 is a falsehood. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate this. If I am wrong, post the evidence. Josephus, the jewish historian, states that the early Christians were to spiritual to use them.

I have made my case with the scriptures. However, history and scholarship buttress the position.

The following is a list of scriptures that you have provided to support mecahnical instruments of worship in the new testament church. BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000.


The Lord's Supper was authorized for the first day of the week, not every day of the week. ( Acts 20:7). This is how I know the passage in Acts 2:46 refers to a common meal. Again context and totality of harmonious evidence. Pentecost was always the first day of the week. It followed the 7th sabbath. ( Leviticus 23:15,16, Acts 2:1).

If I am wrong produce a scripture that authorizes one to eat the Lord's Supper every day of the week instead of the first day.

 

Acts 2:46; and don't say it is not the same thing as Acts 20:7, because the same phrase is used: "break[ing] bread".
Actually, as I briefly mentioned, Acts 20:7 does NOT say "you must meet for Church fellowship/worship every Sunday and have the Lords Supper". In both cases, they met. They met every day, (both in the Temple, and then in different houses) and ate in their meetings. The first day of the week was but one of the days they met, so of course, it would be recorded.
This further proves that it was a meal, not little crumbs and a tiny vial.

 

Eric:
It is obvious you cannot produce any scriptures where God specifically states to Uzzah, Nadab and Abihu, not to touch the ark or offer the strange fire. The simpe fact is God never said it. He was silent about this. However, they should have known by the specific command. The same could be said about Christ as the High Priest being from Judah. There is not one scripture produced that says those of the tribe of Judah cannot be priests. Why? God never said it. He was silent. God was specific about who was to be High Priest. It was enough for Christ, but it is not enough for instrumentalist. However, like it or not, God has specifically defined the action to sing. ( Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19).

You said, " Link answered this well. Your responses don't make sense (non-sequiturs); and Revelation 14:2 does show the harps being played. Once again, you are not reading all the scripture; just your prepackeged set of proof-texts, which you also are not getting right either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible says in Revelation 14:2  And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
Note: A VOICE WAS HEARD. The VOICE of harpers harping with their harps. A voice harping is not the same as the instrumnet being played. The harping describes the voice heard. Note Context: voice of thunder, waters, harps.Your grammar has failed you on this claim as well.

Your claim I used preset prooftexts is absurd. I posted all eight verses that address the issue in the new testament. By the way, Jesus used prooftexts. You criticze the very method Jesus rebutted many false arguments. I am not surprised. ( Mat. 22:23:33, John 10:34).

You said, " I didn't say they were "the SAME". I said one could be done without excluding or contradictiong the other. "
This is another falsehood. Playing the instrument violates the SPECIFIC COMMAND TO SING. The insturment cannot let words dwell in it with all wisdom. It cannot speak to yourselves. It cannot make melody in the heart. It cannot use the fruit of it's lips. WHY? The instrument is not human. The commands of God were written to people not to machines.( Speaking to yourselves). When did a thing become a person? Your argument is absurd. It is a contradiction of the scripture to use the instrument. Touching the ark, offering strange fire, putting the ark on a cart, striking the rock instead of speaking to it, ALL violate the specific comand given in their respective context.

 

Frank wrote,

**1.If the interpretation of the Revelation passages is literal as you claim, the following must be true. Harps are to be played or held -played.
2.Those who play them must be in heaven to play them.**

This doesn't make any more sense than it does the first time you said it.

If the Bible literally shows people playing literal harps in heaven, there is still no command that one has to be in heaven to play the harp. If common sense weren't enough to help us understand it, the Bible is pretty plain on this issue. The Old Testament commands people on earth to play harps to God.

Revelation shows us people playing harps in heaven. It doesn't teach that all who play harps must be in heaven, or that all in heaven had to play their harps.

I have some questions for you: aren't these saints a part of the church?

Aren't they having an 'ekklesia' (assembly) in Revelation 14?

Where does the Bible specify that acceptable practices of the church only apply to earth and not in heaven, or that acceptable practices of the church that apply to heaven do not apply to heaven as well. If the saints in heaven are a part of the church and the saints on earth are also, what is your scriptural basis for making the rules for the church earth separate from the rules for the church on earth. Even now, the saints of the church are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus. So if we are in heavenly places now, why should we not abide by the heavenly design for church meetings?

Would you agree that the implication of scripture is that those who sang to the music of the harp in Revelation were doing what right by their singing?

**3. All must play the harp to be acceptable to God in this issue. If not,why not?**

Why not? Because the scripture does not teach this. There is no logical way to get this idea out of the passage. No passage of scripture teaches that all must play the harp to be acceptable to God. However, the Bible does teach that God should be praised with the music of the harp.

**You cannot have it both ways. It is either literal or it is not. Again , that is your problem.**

A literal interpretation doesn't have anything to do with the illogical conclusions you are drawing.


**Furthermore, based on the rules of english and words in the text of Ephesians 5:19, a plurality of people must pluck. There is not one denoimination that does this. If I am wrong, please post the evidence. Speaking to yourselves is a PLURAL reciprocal, receptive pronoun phrase. This is what all the English teachers at my school tell me. I guess you know more about english than they do.**

As an English teacher myself, my guess is that your English teachers did not tell you this about Ephesians 5:19. The passage does not say to 'pluck to yourselves.' It says to speak to yourselves. The speaking is to be done by a plurality.

If 'psalm' in the passage means an instrumentally accompanied hymn, then if one person plays the harp or the guitar and the rest sing, then the hymn is instrumentally accompanied. The passage doesn't specify that all have to pluck, but that the readers 'speak.' (Btw, I am not arguing that a psalm necessarily has to be accompanied by instruments in order to be a psalm.)

**Your claim that mechanical instruments being used prior to 600 is a falsehood. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate this.***

What are you talking about? I have not said anything about 600. Are you talking about AD? The claims I have made is that instruments were used in the temple from before the time of Christ until the first century. You should be able to find that in the Bible if you would look through Chronicles and the Psalms. Psalm 150 was written before 600AD.

The fact that instruments were used in the synagogue before the destruction of the temple is a well-accepted fact by those who study such things. I used to have a list of links on this subject. Right now I am visiting relatives in the US, so I am not set up with my usual Bible search program and other options. If you would do a little searching on the Internet, you could find the same things I found, e.g. a post exilic musical instrument used in the synagogues, and commentary from Jews and others on the issue of music stating that instruments were removed from the synagogues over mourning of the destruction of the temple. The instrumental music debate has gone on among Jews, with Reformed Jews reintroducing instruments, while the Orthodox do not because they either hold to tradition or because some of them still see it as inappropriate since there is no temple.

**If I am wrong, post the evidence.**

I'm trying to get some visas arranged and doing some other things on a short schedule. If you are going to try to argue so adamantly against instruments, you should first take the time to do some simple web searches for instruments in the synagogue and temple in the first century before you post on such issues.

**Josephus, the jewish historian, states that the early Christians were to spiritual to use them.**

Please show me the quote from Josephus. I seriously doubt he said that Christians were too spiritual to use musical instruments.

**I have made my case with the scriptures. However, history and scholarship buttress the position.**

I don't see where you have made a case. You try to eisegete a principle of making laws out of silence into scripture. But the scriptures aren't silent on the use of instruments to praise the Lord. It is loud in favor of it.

**The Lord's Supper was authorized for the first day of the week, not every day of the week. ( Acts 20:7). This is how I know the passage in Acts 2:46 refers to a common meal. Again context and totality of harmonious evidence. Pentecost was always the first day of the week. It followed the 7th sabbath. ( Leviticus 23:15,16, Acts 2:1).**

What does the day of Pentecost have to do with the Lord's Supper? Acts 2 doesn't specify whether the 3000 partook of the Lord's Supper immediately after baptism. The Lord's Supper was instituted on Passover, three days before the first day of the week, since that was the day Jesus was resurrected. So clearly, the institution of the ordinance was not on the first day of the week-- unless you argue that that week only had three days in it.

Furthermore, I know of no scripture that commands that this be celebrated on the first day of th week or even suggests it-- unless of course you argue that Acts 20, which speaks of when the disciples met on the first day of the week to 'break bread' were partaking of the Lord's SUpper. I wouldn't disagree with you if you believed they were. But then I would point out that you should also consider that Acs 2 says that they broke bread daily from house to house. We have two scriptures about the day on which we are to break bread-- one saying 'daily' and the other saying 'the first day of the week.' Otherwise, what scripture can you offer to support the first day of the week? If you use Acts 20 as a parttern for when to have the Lord's Supper, you must also accept Acts 2. It would seem that you are assuming that your tradition is always supported by scripture.

**If I am wrong produce a scripture that authorizes one to eat the Lord's Supper every day of the week instead of the first day. **

Produce scripture that authorizes it on the first day of the week first.

 

Link:
It is obvious you cannot produce one scripture in the NEW TESTAMENT that authorizes playing an instrument. The passages in Revelation do not even teach so. The one passage you mention states those in heaven are holding the harp. Do yourself a favor and look up the word for hold in the greek and the word play and see if the words are the same. Then, get back with me and let me know if they are the same. This should be interesting. The harpers holding the harp is symbolic of praise to God. This is symbolic of praise to God. Yo calim theyare playing them. However, that is not what the text says. Do you actually think spiritual non-fleshly beings will have temporal items in heaven?Moreover, the evidence does not harmonize with your claim as per the eight other pasages that address this matter.(Mat. 26;30, Acts 16:25, Romans 15:9,I Cor. 14;15, Ephesains 5:19, Col. 3:16, Hebrews 2:12,James 5:13). This is the totality of the harmonious evidence in the law of Christ that references worship or praise to God. Every passage requires one to sing. You will have to go outside the law of christ and the Bible to find anyone using the instrument in his blood bought church. This is exegesis of the highest order.

Your interpretation of the passage in revelation contradicts the other eight passages and is to be rejected because it is false.

The word psallo is for sing. The word for speaking to yourselves is from the word laleo and it means to talk, utter words, tell, preach. The word focuses on ARTICULATION of a distinct sound of the FORMED HUMAN LANGUAGE. When is the last time you heard an instrument use HUMAN LANGUAGE? If words have real meanings, which in your eyes, really does not make much difference, then your contention about the phrase speaking to yourselves is wrong. By the way, my english teachers do not have to tell me how to use a dictionary or lexicon, but yours obviously failed to teach you how to use one.

No one is questioning that Jews used instruments. However, even they did not do it right. The Bible says in Amos 6:5,  That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;

Your argument from the law of Moses has absolutely nothing to do with new testament Christianity. I am not subject to the law of Moses. The Jews also went to Jerusalem three times a year. Do you do that? It was commanded. Do you offer sin offerings that consist of bulls and goats. It was commanded. Do you burn incense? It was commanded. You are making an argument you do not even believe. Furthermore, the Old law was NEVER INTENDED FOR US. (Deut.5:1-5). Gentiles were not subject to the law. The Bible says in Romans 2:14, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Furthermore, the context of Acts 20:7 and Acts 2:46 are different. The Lord's Supper was observed as per the example of the apostles.( Acts 2:42). The Bible says in Acts 2:42,And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The only recorded time of the apostles observing the Lord's Supper is on the first day of the week. ( Acts 20:7). According to Acts 2:42, Christians followed this example steadfastly. Furthermore, Christians assembled on the first day to give.( I Cor. 16:1,2). Moreover, Jesus promised this Supper would be new when it was instituted in the new testament. Matthew 26:29 says,  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. The context of chapter 26 also includes breaking bread and singing. ( vs. 26,30). Therefore, it was not a sabbath or everyday observance as they did under the old law. This would not make it new but the same. The Christians at Corinth came together to partake of the Lord's Supper. It was for this specific purpose.( I Cor. 11:17-26). This was not an everyday event. In fact they abused the Lord's supper by making it a common fellowship meal. Paul states in I Cor. 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. You should get all the facts before making your conclusions.

Your contention is based on an assumption that ignores context and the related passages on the subject. The inspired Paul commanded us to obvserve the traditons we have been taught by word or epistle.( II Thes. 2:15). Biblical tradition is a good thing. It is commanded by God. To play instruments of music and observe the Lord's Supper on any other day than the first day is to observe a traditon not taught by inspired word or epistle. It is a hobby of men.

Now produce the scripture that teaches us the APOSTLES observed it on another day.

Since you doubted the statement I attributed to Josephus, read it for yourself in the documented text listed at the end of the quote.

“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments of music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).

 

So I must produce scripture showing God telling these things directly to those men (I admitted it wasn't there), yet you acknowledge that they should have known by the command. That was precisely what I had said. And the point... (And this somehow disproves my argument?) But then, you go into your ridiculous "Jesus/Judah and the priesthood" argument, which we already disproved. The same thing with these other scriptres. Jesus was the spiritual high priest, so naturally did not come to be a physical high priest in a Temple which was on its way down anyway. Instead of taking this simple fact as the reason He was not High Priest, you once again build some silent "command" out of nowhere. (Where did the idea of Him being High Priest in the Temple come from anyway? You just made it up to try to buttress your argument. A pure red herring!)

OH, REALLY? I hate to put it this way, but your argumentation is really hitting the bottom of the barrel. You're taking a literal reading of the English word "voice", but look it up in the Greek: "phônê"-- "a tone; also translated "noise", "sound". In fact, the sound of an instrument is called a "voice"! If you look at one of those electronic keyboards where you can choose different instrument sounds, they are called "Voices". Just give it up already! You're arguing against scripture, not our "opinions". You should have thought it out before trying that one.

A proof text is only good if it really proves what you're trying to teach. And we see yours are WAY off! Don't compare your method of blatant eisogesis to Christ, who IS truth, and the author of scripture. ("proof-texting" is criticized a lot because it usually refers to a shoddy method of slapping "book chapter:verse" at the end of a teaching as "proof", without really showing that it proves the doctrine. This opposed to sound exegesis of the scripture).

Who ever suggested God was speaking to a machine, or it was a "person"? This is another bad straw man. God tells man to make melody in the heart and use the fruit of the lips. Man does this, and if he is at the same time playing an instrument, how does that take away from the heart and lips? How is the instrument obeying a command to sing? It's your arguments that are totally absurd!
And to take your line of reasoning, God did not command a book to make melody in its heart, or use the fruit of it's lips, which it cannot do, because it is not human.
You're arguments are getting worse and worse. It's time to admit that you HAVE in fact spoken where God has not spoken (contrary to what the CoC claims its policy is); and confess the sin of "adding to God's Word" (Pr. 30:6, Rev.22:18), and causing unecessary "strife, division...etc". (1 Cor.3:3, 2 Cor.12:20, Gal. 5:20 1 Tim.6:4, 2 Tim.2:23, James 3:14, 16)

 

Frank wrote,
***It is obvious you cannot produce one scripture in the NEW TESTAMENT that authorizes playing an instrument. The passages in Revelation do not even teach so. The one passage you mention states those in heaven are holding the harp.**

It mentions harping with their harps. Were the harpers harping or not? Do you agree with the verse? Do you know any reason to think the KJV missed it here. If so, please show your evidence. Being so convinced that your tradition is right that you assume the Bible _must_ mean what you think it means is not enough. No doubt, this is why the JW's translated 'a god' into John 1:1, because they were so convinced of their doctrine that scholarship didn't matter.

**Do yourself a favor and look up the word for hold in the greek and the word play and see if the words are the same. Then, get back with me and let me know if they are the same.**

I'm vising relatives and I don't have my Greek resources. Do you have some information you'd like to share, or are you so convinced that you must be right in what you believe that you think that surely there _must_ be something in the Greek that proves your contention?

**The harpers holding the harp is symbolic of praise to God. This is symbolic of praise to God.***

First, show me this chapter and verse, that is that holding harps is symbolic of praise to God.

Second, if the use of harps in praise to God is forbidden for the church, why would God use something forbidden as a means of communicating the idea of 'praise to God' to churches? Obviously God doesn't have the negative attitude toward instrumentally accompanied instruments that you do. Of course, there is no scripture that teaches that instruments in praise to God are now forbidden.

***Do you actually think spiritual non-fleshly beings will have temporal items in heaven?**

I would not say that Revelation is without allegory. But I do know that God gave John these visions for a reason. When God inspired the vision of the harps and the harp music, He knew that centuries later, non-instrumentalists would argue agains the use of instruments in church meetings. Why would He put that in there if instruments were forbidden? The Bible doesn't go into much philosophical discussion over what the items in heaven are made of. Hebrews lets us know there is an ark of the covenant in heaven. If these things are made up of atoms or some kind of spiritual material, the Bible does not say. Btw. who says that heavenly harps are temporal items?

**Moreover, the evidence does not harmonize with your claim as per the eight other pasages that address this matter.(Mat. 26;30, Acts 16:25, Romans 15:9,I Cor. 14;15, Ephesains 5:19, Col. 3:16, Hebrews 2:12,James 5:13). This is the totality of the harmonious evidence in the law of Christ that references worship or praise to God. Every passage requires one to sing.**

There is no contradiction at all. In Revelation, the people are singing as well. It is just in this passage, a type of musical instrument is specifically mentioned. Ephesians 5:19 doesn't specify a musical instrument, but the verse can certainly be obeyed if someone present is playing the harp. Instruments aren't mentioned. The verse doesn't specify that they not be used either. The passages do harmonize.

** You will have to go outside the law of christ and the Bible to find anyone using the instrument in his blood bought church. This is exegesis of the highest order.**

You are the one trying to use Old Testament verses about temple ordinances to try to set rules for New Testament church meetings. Your entire line of argument about strange fire is based on the idea that God treats church meetings the same way he treated the priestly ceremonies in the temple. Assuming I accepted your arguments about silence' and priests coming from Judah, which I don't, your argument is also based on a verse about the _Old Testament_ priesthood. You assume that the same rules apply for the church. Christians are under grace. Paul wrote of those who would spy out the liberty of those who are in Christ. He wrote where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

What is your basis for believing

***The word psallo is for sing. The word for speaking to yourselves is from the word laleo and it means to talk, utter words, tell, preach. The word focuses on ARTICULATION of a distinct sound of the FORMED HUMAN LANGUAGE. When is the last time you heard an instrument use HUMAN LANGUAGE? If words have real meanings, which in your eyes, really does not make much difference, then your contention about the phrase speaking to yourselves is wrong.***

I see many words and a lot of rhetoric. What I don't see is your point. What exactly are you talking about? No one said anything about instruments singing.

If people sing, the presence of instrumental accompaniment doesn't take away from the fact that they are singing.

Let me ask you a question, does the lead singer in a rock band sing? Or do we only call it 'singing' if there are no instruments. If you know English, you know that singing doesn't have to be acapella before we call it 'singing.'

** By the way, my english teachers do not have to tell me how to use a dictionary or lexicon, but yours obviously failed to teach you how to use one.**

What are you talking about? Would you share a specific example?

**No one is questioning that Jews used instruments. However, even they did not do it right. The Bible says in Amos 6:5, That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;**

They used instruments at times when they should have been mourning over their sin. This passage doesn't say the Israelites were using their instruments to praise God as David did, however. It goes on to talk about their wine drinking. They were partying when they should have been serious.

The Bible has plenty of positive things about praising God to instrumental accompaniment.

**Your argument from the law of Moses has absolutely nothing to do with new testament Christianity.**

You are the one arguing that God doesn't allow things not specifically permitted--based on your interpretation of Old Testament scriptures, and scriptures about Old Testament practices. What I am doing is getting a _principle_ from the Old Testament that shows God's positive attitude toward saints offering praise to God with instrumental accompaniment.


** I am not subject to the law of Moses.**

You seem to have invented a law that is more stringent in some ways that the Law of Moses. Those under the Law of Moses were allowed to praise God with instruments.

And you haven't dealt with the fact that many early Christians tried to keep the Law of Moses. They participated in temple ceremonies. We see this in Acts 21. Even Paul participated in temple ceremonies. The Jewish Christians who tried to keep the Law must have tried to be obedient to the Psalms, which commanded Israelites to praise God to instrumental music. There is no reason from scripture to condemn these saints of God for doing so. If early Christians could give offerings in the temple (possibly even animal sacrifices) and be justified by faith in Christ, how could instrumental music be a sin? Instrumental music cannot logically be seen as being in conflict with the atonement. If sacrifices were still permitted, then surely instrumental music was not forbidden. If you don't believe me about the sacrifices, notice that Paul cut his hair in Cencrea, for he had made a vow, and read about the offering he was going to give in the temple, and then compare it with the Nazarite vow. He may have cut his hair in Cenchrea so the unvowed hair would not be mixed with the Nazarite hair growth (so his hair wouldn't be extra long.)

** The Jews also went to Jerusalem three times a year. Do you do that?***

Your reasoning would lead us to believe that it was _forbidden_ to keep the Old Testament Laws. The Psalms did command instrumental praise of God, after all. I don't see any evidence for this at all. It goes against the early churches understanding of the Law as revealed in the book of Acts.

***Furthermore, the context of Acts 20:7 and Acts 2:46 are different. The Lord's Supper was observed as per the example of the apostles.( Acts 2:42). The Bible says in Acts 2:42,And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.***

Why should breaking bread in Acts 2:42 be any different from the breaking of bread in verse 46? It is clear from verse 42 that these people were continuing in the apostles' teaching, which would imply that their remembrance of the Lord's Supper was proper.

Also, notice that they were breaking bread from house to house. Consider that when you read Paul's words about the Corinthians having houses to eat and to drink in. He wasn't forbidding eating the Lord's SUpper in homes or instituting a separate fellowship meal. Rather, he was telling them they had a place to eat if their intention was merely to fill their bellies or feast.

***The only recorded time of the apostles observing the Lord's Supper is on the first day of the week. ( Acts 20:7).***

First, your statement is false. The Lord instituted the Supper on a Passover, which clearly was not on the first day of the week, since it was three days before the first day fo the week, and a week has seven days. No matter how you count the days, you can't logically come up with Passover on the first day of the week.

Acts 20 passage does not teach that the Lord's Supper must be remembered on the first day of the week or that this is the only day on which it was allowed. We should also keep in mind that the first day of the week, Biblically starts on what we call 'Saturday night' and this may have been when they broke bread, particularly if they were eating the "Lord's SUPPER."

*** Furthermore, Christians assembled on the first day to give.( I Cor. 16:1,2). Moreover, Jesus promised this Supper would be new when it was instituted in the new testament. Matthew 26:29 says, But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. The context of chapter 26 also includes breaking bread and singing. ( vs. 26,30). Therefore, it was not a sabbath or everyday observance as they did under the old law.***

I don't see how you can use Matthew 26:29 to argue for a different day of the week to celebrate the Supper. We are still waiting for this verse to be fulfilled, and this is similar to Paul's teaching that we show forth the Lord's death until He come. There is no evidence of Christ eating the Lord's Supper with the disciples after the day of Pentecost. One day, we will have the marriage supper of the Lamb.

** This would not make it new but the same. The Christians at Corinth came together to partake of the Lord's Supper. It was for this specific purpose.( I Cor. 11:17-26). This was not an everyday event. In fact they abused the Lord's supper by making it a common fellowship meal. Paul states in I Cor. 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. You should get all the facts before making your conclusions.***

I have repeatedly commented on these facts. Paul doesn't rebuke the Corinthians for eating a meal. He does rebuke them for making what should be the Lord's Supper into their own supper. He doesn't say it is wrong to eat a meal, but tells them if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home because they were eating the meal as if it were about satisfying their hunger.

**Your contention is based on an assumption that ignores context and the related passages on the subject.***

What are you talking a bout specifically.

** The inspired Paul commanded us to obvserve the traditons we have been taught by word or epistle.( II Thes. 2:15). Biblical tradition is a good thing. It is commanded by God.***

I agree with this, and I pointed this out to you earlier. This is one reason why I believe churches should have mutually participatory meetings, since this is a tradition we see in scripture.

*** To play instruments of music and observe the Lord's Supper on any other day than the first day is to observe a traditon not taught by inspired word or epistle. It is a hobby of men.**

Show me scripture to support this. I can see in scripture where the supper was observed specifically on two different days of the week. Acts 4:26 seems to hint at the idea that they may have eaten the Lord's Supper daily.

**Now produce the scripture that teaches us the APOSTLES observed it on another day.**

The early saints were continuing in the apostles' teaching when they celebrated it. Btw, what apostles do you think were in Troas in Acts 20 besides Paul? I can see a case for Silas, for example, being an apostle. Are these the kind of apostles you are thinking of?

***Since you doubted the statement I attributed to Josephus, read it for yourself in the documented text listed at the end of the quote.

“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments of music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).***

As I suspected, there is no indication that Josephus said that the Christians were too spiritual to use musical instruments. Re-read this quote carefully. Josephus tells of the wonderful effects of instruments in the temple, but the Catholic Encyclopedia, written in modern times, asserts that the first Christians were too spiritual for this. The problem with this conclusion, though, I would imagine, is that they are using sources later than Josephus to conclude that Christians did not use instruments in their church meetings. Are there any primary sources that mention that singing in church meetings was acapella before the second century? Synagogue singing was acapella at that time.

 

Link:
1. The verse says a VOICE as harpers harping.

2. You have provided NO SCRIPTURE that teaches us to play in the new testament.

3. You cannot REFUTE the documented evidence so you just dismiss it.

4. The Lord's Supper was to be NEW. Therefore, it was NOT to be taken on the night he instituted it under the old law. You just ignore scripture to avoid the truth.( Mat. 26:29). You do not understand english any better that the Greek Laleo.

5. The only time the Bible records an apostle partaking of the Lord's Supper is on the first day. ( Acts 20:7). You have produced no scripture that that teaches they partook on any other day. NONE! Your assertion that Acts 2:46 was the Lord's Supper was taken on any other day is unsupported by scripture.

6. There is no history before 600 A.D of any denomoination using instruments. Every major a scholar of greek condemns the practice. The list includes: Wesley, Spurgeon, Clarks, Luther, Calvin, Barnes, Knox. They condemn the practice based on what the scripture teaches. I have posted there direct statements in a previous thread. Consider the following:
CLARKE "I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity.

'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.' I say the same." (Adam Clark, Methodist)

CALVIN "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33
AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)
ROBERTSON "The word (psalleto) originally meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord" (A. T. Robertson, Baptist Greek scholar, Baptist Studies in the Nestle James, comment on James 5:13)

We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
BARNES "Psallo … is used, in the New Testament, only in Rom. 15:9 and 1 Cor. 14:15, where it is translated sing; in James 5:13, where it is rendered sing psalms, and in the place before us. The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart" (Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian, Notes on The Testament, comment on Eph. 5:19).
KNOX "a kist (chest) of whistles." (John Knox, Presbyterian, in reference to the organ)
WESLEY 'I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685) LUTHER "The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal… The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762).
Now, provide evidence that refutes this.

 

**1. The verse says a VOICE as harpers harping.**

The KJV says the voice of harpers harping with their harps. Do you have any reason to see this as a mistranslation? What is your evidence?

**2. You have provided NO SCRIPTURE that teaches us to play in the new testament.**

The New Testament is not a piano lesson, so I wouldn't expect it to teach us to play an instrument. You haven't presented any teaching in the New Testament against the use of instruments. The New Testament shows that many of the early Jewish believers tried to keep the Law, and that Paul even participated in temple ceremonies. Why would instrumental music be considered evil?

*3. You cannot REFUTE the documented evidence so you just dismiss it.*

What documented evidence? That Josephus thought music in the temple had wonderful effects, and the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article thought the early Christians were too spiritual to use them? What does that prove? Do you believe everything in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

**4. The Lord's Supper was to be NEW. Therefore, it was NOT to be taken on the night he instituted it under the old law. You just ignore scripture to avoid the truth.( Mat. 26:29).**


This scripture has yet to be fulfilled. Where did Jesus partake of the Lord's Supper after the night He was betrayed as recorded in scripture. Btw, have you ever heard anyone else interpret the verse the way you do?


**5. The only time the Bible records an apostle partaking of the Lord's Supper is on the first day. ( Acts 20:7). You have produced no scripture that that teaches they partook on any other day. NONE! Your assertion that Acts 2:46 was the Lord's Supper was taken on any other day is unsupported by scripture. **


This comes down to your legalistic way of interpreting scripture. If Acts shows people eating the supper on a particular day, you assume that it was the only day they could eat it. I have shown you scripture for another day of the week: Matthew 26. The fact that Jesus want partake of the cup again until some future date does not negate that fact.


**6. There is no history before 600 A.D of any denomoination using instruments. Every major a scholar of greek condemns the practice. The list includes: Wesley, Spurgeon, Clarks, Luther, Calvin, Barnes, Knox.**

Do you even think any of these men were saved?

** They condemn the practice based on what the scripture teaches.**

You haven't shown any scripture that condemns the practice. Can you show where they did.

**
I have posted there direct statements in a previous thread. Consider the following:
CLARKE "I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity.**

All men have opinions. Where is the scripture?


ROBERTSON "The word (psalleto) originally meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord" (A. T. Robertson, Baptist Greek scholar, Baptist Studies in the Nestle James, comment on James 5:13)**

This is actually an argument against your position, since the use of 'psalleto' opens up the possibility for instrumentally accompanied music. Robertson doesn't back up his assertion that it can refer to singing with the voice and heart with anything. What can he back it up with except for _interpretation- of what the passages mean, which is the point in question. Paul lived in a time when the use of instruments in synagogue meetings--which he participated in-- was in practice. He also participated in temple ceremonies, and instruments were used in the temple.

*"We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."*

Are you opposed to the use of microphones then? Seriously, this is a good question. The New Testament makes no mention of them, and they are similar to musical instruments.

**LUTHER "The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal… The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762).
Now, provide evidence that refutes this. **

I don't need any evidence to refute such things. Hitler made use of some of Luther's other comments against the Jews. Luther’s dislike of the organ is just an opinion and is not supported with any scripture. The Psalms encourage praising the Lord with musical instruments, and the Jews sang these Psalms. There is no reason to blame the Jews. They didn't have organs in the time of Baal.

 

Link:

I asked you for scripture and you provided NONE! You attempted to force the meaning of a passage in Revelation. However, the text says a Voice was heard. As for your objection to Amos 6:5, consider the following:
Musical Worship Teams, Outlawed and Restored -- Ezekiel 40
Musical worship teams: The Levites usurped priestly duties with musical instruments and linen choral gowns. They were outlawed in Ezekiel but restored in the time of Josephus. He warned that this had and would destroy the Jews once more. When Messiah came they tried to triumph over him with musical wind instruments. Psalm 41 prophesied this of Judas.
See that there was no praise service in the synagogue because in Numbers 10:7 it was outlawed when calling an assembly or Qahal or synagogue or church in the wilderness.
If you get nothing else please grasp that not among the Jews nor in the most vile pagan temples did the musicians enter into the Holy Places. Among the Jews, the Holy Place is a carnal type of the spiritual body of Christ. No Levitical musician could enter into this type of the church of Christ even to clean out the garbage.
The temple musicians in a "religious sense" (grouped with prostitutes in pagan religions) were in the court making a loud mocking noise during the sacrifice and burning of animals.
In fulfilment of the prophetic type, it was prophesied in Psalm 41 and fulfilled in the Dead Sea Scroll translation that Judas and the military musicians would attempt to turn Jesus into a coward.

In earlier fragments we quoted scholars who believe--with a lot of Biblical evidence--that David changed the worship practices of Israel to be like that of the nations by adding musical worship teams because they were going to spend all of their resources on a temple like the nations in which God would not and could not dwell.
The Bible shows that David and the commanders of the army reorginized the military Levitical musical worship teams, who had forced soldiers into battle with panic music. They would now serve the new temple-state which David made possible with military victory. Furthermore, these musical worship teams intruded into the actual place of animal sacrifices and were dressed in fine linen reserved for the priestly class:
All the Levites who were musicians--Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and their sons and relatives--stood on the east side of the altar, dressed in fine linen and playing cymbals, harps and lyres. They were accompanied by 120 priests sounding trumpets. 2 Chr 5:12NIV
Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets 2 Chr 5:12KJV
The word is not MUSICIANS but singers:
Shiyr (h7891) sheer; or (the orig. form) 7788 (1 Sam. 18:6), shoor; a prim. root [rather ident. with 7788 through the idea of strolling minstrelsy]; to sing: - behold [by mistake for 7788], sing (-er, - ing man, -ing woman).
Shuwr (h7788) shoor; a prim. root; prop. to turn, i. e. travel about (as a harlot or a merchant): - go, sing. See also 7891.
Josephus notes that the Levites performing priestly services (hard bondage, Abad) caused the fall of the nation ONCE and that their political campaign to wear linen garments and perform would cause their fall again: and it did.
You will remember, of course, that God only authorized two trumpets.
While Judah was not exempt and finally fell, it was the unfaithful or even unlawful Levites in Israel who pushed calf worship to the limit. Their worship is described by Amos and others as being much like the calf (Apis) worship at Mount Sinai which was accompanied with lots of singing and musical accompaniment. Idols were later added to the Jerusalem temple. The priest-musicians were often foreigners.
In Ezekiel's Idealized Temple (Eze 40f) the Levites who usurped priestly duties (as they had tried to do in the Wilderness) were banned from the religious worship services as performers. In both Israel and Judah idols were worshipped right in the temples. This was Solomon's ancient wineskin kingdom in which the walls were broken down and pagan idols were worshipped.
"professional musicians emerged in Israel about the time of David and Solomon. From then on, we have abundant historical evidence of the role which the professional musicians played in the organization of the temple ritual." (International Dictionary of the Bible, p. 461, Abingdon).
The people as congregation never sang with instrumental accompaniment.
Ezekiel - Music Condemned in the Idealized Temple
Writers hope to add provisions for the singers within Ezekiel's description of a temple which would never be built. It was, therefore, a spiritual temple. In 40:44, the KJV adds:
And without the inner gate were the chambers of the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the north gate; and their prospect was toward the south: one at the side of the east gate having the prospect toward the north. Ezekiel 40:44
However, the NIV reads:
Outside the inner gate, within the inner court, were two rooms, one at the side of the north gate and facing south, and another at the side of the south gate and facing north. Ezekiel 40:44 NIV
The RSV, LXX, LIV, Amp, LB, Moffat, NEB and several other English versions omit any reference to singers and follow the Greek text rather than the Hebrew (Masoretic).
This is sending us a message that God did not need sacrifices, temples or the musical worship teams attached to animal sacrifices. When Christ has accomplished His once-for-all sacrifice there is not call for music during sacrifices.
This is fortunate, because even the KJV which mentions singers defines the two chambers and does not include singers or musical instruments:
And he said unto me, this chamber, whose prospect is toward the south, is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house. Ezekiel 40:45
And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the Lord to minister unto him. Ezekiel 40:46
Why are the Levitical singers and musical worship teams left out of the idealized, perhaps spiritual kingdom?
Ezekiel, in the idealized temple (beginning in Ezekiel 40), blames the reassigned Levites for Israel's failure. They were quick to recruit from non-Levitical talent and these were often Canaanites because of their musical talent. The Levites would be demoted from roles of overseers and made into true ministers (servants rather than rulers)--
"Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity (perverse); therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity. Eze 44:12
And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed. Eze 44:13
They would be put in charge in the sense of being watchmen or custodians.
The priests sounded the trumpets in war or for assembly. They also sounded them, as God commanded, at the beginning and ending of the sacrifice. However, they did not, as God commanded, play the trumpets in a loud, rejoicing or triumping-over way. Of the Zadokite priest Ezekiel wrote:
And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. Eze 44:17
Ezekiel does not provide for the Levite's musical worship teams to play their little instruments of confusion in the new Idealized Temple. The priests, however, used the trumpets much like we might use a church bell.
The Levites came near to "prophesy" which was to sing their own songs accompanied with various musical instruments while the sacrifices were being made. This was clearly added by David and vastly enlarged by Solomon for the temple rituals. These, however, were not the services where the common Israelite worshiped.
"There is ample evidence, both in scriptural and in rabbinical sources, that the art of singing was diligently cultivated, especially in the temple. I Chr. 25 not only relates the initial organization of the temple singers, but uses in its terminology the words 'trained in song' and 'skillful." The Talmud even hints that lack of correct singing annuled the value of the sacrifice (B. 'Arak. 11a). The musical training of a Levitical singer took at least five years of intensive preparation (B. Hullin 24a). (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 460, Abingdon).
The pagan, Levitical and early Catholic musical worship teams involved taking those not qualified or authorized to be overseers of the flock. They dressed them up in clerical garb and assured talent to make them appear to have authority. Before women were permitted this clergy privilege, young boys were dressed up like women but became a distinct clergy class because they were male but seemed female. The staged performance (1) usurped adult male authority, (2) appealed to the sexual drive of the men, and (2) replaced the Biblical text and especially Psalms with self-composed praise songs which taught wrong doctrine.
This music among the Jews was so completely put down that permission to restore it had to be granted by the king who, it was suggested, would gain honor from the novelty. He could even pretend that he invented the priestly musical worship teams, which was as ancient as Babel. The musical worship teams performed an ancient, pagan ritual with magical incantations as power devices to gain magic from the gods. This was why figuratively the "congregation" was deprived of their "song books" or "Bible" and were forced to be spectators. This was because if you did not say the words just right the gods might harm you.
"There is but one step from a musical incantation to religious music. In the Bible, apotropaic practices are perfectly compatible with monotheistic worship. Thus cultic music appears on three or four levels in the OT:
in the frenzied songs of the professional prophets (1 Sam. 10:5-6);
in the early numinous ordinances... in Leviticus and Numbers,
and eventually, in the organized songs, chants, and psalms of the temple and of the professional Levitic musicians." (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p. 458, Abingdon). (See Homer Odyssey XI.260 ff)
The songs or chants of the Rabbi would not be very complex harmony with a jungle beat. This was always considered part of the female nature. When the young girls went out to play (clergy around Jesus) they wanted to blow their little whistles, dance, and get everyone excited to join in their game. This is why God outlawed female leadership for that short period when the assembly comes together.
"'The women's songs have preserved, to some extent, the qualities of uninfluenced chant: they belong to the group of tunes directed by motoric impulse (as in dance or occupation songs.)" (Bible Dict., p. 458).
Have you noticed the "motor impulse" of infants when they hear a musical beat? It is human nature because it feeds directly into the heart beat and other frequencies which make the body operate. By analogy, if you put an electrical charge into a dead frog's legs it will still jump but there is no "spirit" making the frog look alive.
When Paul became a man he put away childish things.
Jewish Music a Magical Priestly Duty
In the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible it is noted that the liturgical music was considered a mystery to which the laiety must not be admitted. Don't get upset: God promised Israel that if they wanted a king like the nations so that they could worship the kings would destroy them or lead them into captivity. Therefore, what is recorded in the period of the Monarchy is not spiritual worship or organization but "like the nations" surrounding Israel:
"The enigmatic musical superscriptions... to the psalms constitutes a real musical terminology, which, however, is almost unintelligible... either the original meaning of these musical terms was then generally forgotten, or, on account of the continuous tradition of the temple, it was still understood, but as a secret closely guarded by the priestly class." (International Dictionary of the Bible, p. 459, Abingdon).
"In Ancient Egypt, priests kept all secrets of astronomy, music and architecture inside the temples. Those sciences were not intended to be known by common people. Likewise, the sons of the pharos who adopted the new religion "Christianity" kept one of the oldest musical heritages in the workd sung for more than 2000 years in Coptic Churches till our age. Nowadays only few hundreds of deacons and Egyptian people in the whole world can sing those beautiful tunes in the Coptic Language (which is the last form of evolution of Ancient Egyptian language).
Blind Singers, tomb carving at Tel El Amarna
Levite Musical Worship Teams Not Authorized According to Josephus
When David and the commanders of the army reassigned the warrior musicians for the developing temple state it was not intended that they function as priests. They were used for dedicatory and purification rituals connected with the civil state but were not used as part of '"congregational worship." This was not true in Israel as Amos makes us aware that they took David's invention and used them for daily "worship" in their house of the king (as god).
"Herodotus mentions that when in Egypt, he was astonished to hear the very same mournful but ravishing 'Song of Linus, sung by the Egyptians (although under another name)... Linus was the same god as the Bacchus of Greece, or Osiris (merged with Apis of Mount Sinai fame) of Egypt; for Homer introduces a boy (soprano) singing the song of Linus, while the vintage (new wine festival) is going on, and the Scholiast says that this song was sung in memory of Linus, who was torn in pieces by dogs... In some places in Egypt, for the song of Linus or Osiris, a peculiar melody seems to have been used. Savary says that, in the temple of Abydos, 'the priest repeated the seven vowels in the form of hymns, and that musicians were forbid to enter it.' (Hislop, Alexander, The Two Babylons, p. 22, Loizeaux Brothers.)
These manipulation (facilitation) secrets are taught during "choir practice" or the rehearsal of the musical worship team ritual. The congregation is not competent to make the clergy presentation. In ancient paganism, in fact, to sing the magical song or play the idol-instrument might get you zapped by the god unhappy with your talent.
"There is a lack of technical information in our sources (about temple singing); its cause is the deliberate silence of the priests, which is, however slightly, lifted but once, by Josephus, himself a priest. Only in one passage he discloses one of the internal 'stage secrets' of the priests performance."
Then Josephus is partially quoted but we will quote the entire passage from Whiston:
"Now as many of the Levites, which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests
for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired;
and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for.
Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions. (Antiq. XX.ix.6).
The "stage secrets" of course was that the musical worship teams were injecting morphine-like drugs into the worshipers, primarily the monks or priests, and made the sensual feelings feel like the enthus o mania of the pagan "churches." The king would gain credit and perhaps "tenure" because of the public applause.
The priests took away the psalms and composed or arranged their own words and style of singing. This took the words out of the hands of the lowly laiety so that they had to hear, admire and "follow the leaders" of the priestly singers. This was a "hand feeding" method which allowed their own ideas to prevail over the Word of God. In effect, the king or presiding pastor, did mortal combat with those who might have prevented destruction--the elders.
Instrumental Music, Musical Worship Teams and Warfare
God gave the trumpets to signal in warfare and they were usually used, as by Gideon, to panic the enemy into cowardice. Numbers 10:7 specificially outlaws the "loud rejoicing" which was to prove one's superiority over the enemy to be used for the "assembly." This is why in all ancient civilizations:
"For nonliterate peoples, music often serves purposes other than entertainment or aesthetic enjoyment. Certain wind instruments are closely associated with the supernatural, and their sounds connote powerful magic. Australian Aborigines, for instance, identify the sound of a bull-roarer with the voices of supernatural beings; for the Plains Indians, the same sound signifies an awesome natural phenomenon, such as thunder. Wind instruments are often among a group's most important ritual objects, and in some cultures they are specially venerated. The Kamairua Indians of the Amazon rain forest keep their giant flutes (three to four feet long), wherein spirits are believed to dwell, in a special shrine where they are worshiped. The flutes and drums of New Guinea are similarly housed and worshiped.
"Wind instruments in primitive cultures also serve nonreligious functions. In New Guinea, bamboo trumpets were once played
to frighten an enemy during battle and
to alert a village that the victorious warriors were coming home with the corpses of the foes.
"Conch-shell trumpets are used for signaling in the Pacific coastal regions of Colombia and in the Ecuadoran highlands.
Trumpets also may be associated with the office of king or chief, as in West Africa,
where their use is strictly controlled by tribal law. "wind instrument" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Paul in Greek and the Prophets in Hebrew used a word which meant either instruments of war of musical instruments of idolatry. The Ante Nicene Fathers knew that instrumental music was so effective because it was really a Weapon of war.
"Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made.
In reality, man is an instrument for peace,
but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them,
become instruments of conflict, for inflaming the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal.
But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute
which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)
Those who add musical worship teams or their mechanical counterpart--the organ--know full well that they will triumph over and divide the church. Some will run to safety but others will remain on the "ship" but ritual worship dominated by a team will grate their nerves. Worship services, in the words of Paul, will "do more harm than good" and people cannot go home saying "it was good for us to have been here" and be better equipped for life.
When Psalm 41 says that Judas as Satan't change agent would not triumph over Messiah it uses the same form of musical rejoicing which was explicitely forbidden for Israel when they came together to listen To God. Judas carried a "bag for carrying mouthpieces of wind instruments in" and Jesus said of the clergy:
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, Mt 11:16
And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. Mt.11:17
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Mt 11:20
"On the return of friends long absent, and particularly on the return of a victorious army, bands of women and children issue from the town and villages to form a triumphal procession to celebrate the victory, as they go along,
gratify the soldiers with dancing, instrumental music, and extempore songs, in honor of the generals who have earned the highest distinction." (Peloubet's Notes, 1903, p. 224).
When The Spirit Christ (Jn 14:18) guided the apostles into all truth they had not the slightest urge to conduct worship as a musical praise service. Rather, singing is the result of filling up with the Word (Spirit) of Christ and then teaching one another with it.
When musical worship was again added as a clergy ritual to oversee the flock they adopted Levitical songs, clerical robes and thereby violated God's original commandment.
Scholars Condemn Instrumental Music
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter XXII commenting on Amos:
Ye who come to the evil day, who are approaching, and who hold to false Sabbaths; who lie on beds of ivory, and are at ease upon their couches; who eat the lambs out of the flock, and the sucking calves out of the midst of the herd; who applaud at the sound of the musical instruments; they reckon them as stable, and not as fleeting, who drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments, but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Wherefore now they shall be captives, among the first of the nobles who are carried away; and the house of evil-doers shall be removed, and the neighing of horses shall be taken away from Ephraim.-So Also Were Sacrifices and Oblations.
Accordingly He neither takes sacrifices from you nor commanded them at first to be offered because they are needful to Him, but because of your sins. For indeed the temple, which is called the temple in Jerusalem, He admitted to be His house or court, not as though He needed it, but in order that you, in this view of it, giving yourselves to Him, might not worship idols. And that this is so, Isaiah says: `What house have ye built Me? saith the Lord. Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. X , Ambrose, Book III, Chapter VI, 27.
"A banquet of death is set out with royal luxury, and when a larger concourse than usual had come together, the daughter of the queen, sent for from within the private apartments, is brought forth to dance in the sight of men. What could she have learnt from an adulteress but loss of modesty? Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offence against God. For what modesty can there be where there is dancing and noise and clapping of hands?
31. What say you, holy women? Do you see what you ought to teach, and what also to unteach your daughters? She dances, but she is the daughter of an adulteress. But she who is modest, she who is chaste, let her teach her daughter religion, not dancing. And do you, grave and prudent men, learn to avoid the banquets of hateful men. If such are the banquets, what will be the judgment of the impious?
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. XIV, John Chrysostom, Homily I
[1.] They that are spectators of the heathen games, when they have learned that a distinguished athlete and winner of crowns is come from any quarter, run all together to view his wrestling, and all his skill and strength; and you may see the whole theater of many ten thousands, all there straining their eyes both of body and mind, that nothing of what is done may escape them. So again these same persons, if any admirable musician come amongst them, leave all that they had in hand, which often is necessary and pressing business, and mount the steps, and sit listening very attentively to the words and the accompaniments, and criticising the agreement of the two. This is what the many do.
"Again; those who are skilled in rhetoric do just the same with respect to the sophists, for they too have their theaters, and their audience, and clappings of hands, and noise, and closest criticism of what is said.
"And if in the case of rhetoricians, musicians, and athletes, people sit in the one case to look on, in the other to see at once and to listen with such earnest attention; what zeal, what earnestness ought ye in reason to display, when it is no musician or debater who now comes forward to a trial of skill,
but when a man is speaking from heaven, and utters a voice plainer than thunder? for he has pervaded the whole earth with the sound; and occupied and filled it, not by the loudness of the cry, but by moving his tongue with the grace of God.
And what is wonderful, this sound, great as it is, is neither a harsh nor an unpleasant one, but sweeter and more delightful than all harmony of music, and with more skill to soothe; and besides all this, most holy, and most awful, and full of mysteries so great, and bringing with it goods so great, that if men were exactly and with ready mind to receive and keep them, they could no longer be mere men nor remain upon the earth, but would take their stand above all the things of this life, and having adapted themselves to the condition of angels, would dwell on earth just as if it were heaven.
[2.] For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence,
this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he hath another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty. For he will appear before us having "put on Christ" (Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii.
27), having his beautiful "feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace" (Eph. vi. 15); wearing a girdle not about his waist, but about his loins, not made of scarlet leather nor daubed outside3 with gold, but woven and composed of truth itself. Now will he appear before us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable,) but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked; not making the audience believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harper or any music. All heaven is his stage his theater, the habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as are angels already, or desire to become so, for none but these can hear that harmony aright, and show it forth by their works;
"all the rest, like little children who hear, but what they hear understand not, from their anxiety about sweetmeats and childish playthings; so they too, being in mirth and luxury, and living only for wealth and power and sensuality, hear sometimes what is said, it is true,
but show forth nothing great or noble in their actions through fastening themselves for good to the clay of the brickmaking. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit. Homily 1,
THEODORET " 107 . Question: If songs were invented by unbelievers to seduce men, but were allowed to those under the law on account of their childish state, why do those who have received the perfect teaching of grace in their churches still use songs, just like the children under the law?
Answer: It is not simple singing that belongs to the childish state, but singing with lifeless instruments, with dancing, and with clappers. Hence the use of such instruments and the others that belong to the childish state is excluded from the singing in the churches, and simple singing is left." (Theodoret, a bishop of Cyrhus in Syria, Questions and Answers for the Orthodox)
"The strict order of the Church Fathers that only one instrument should be employed, i.e., the human voice, has been observed in the Syriac, the Jacobite, the Nestorian, and the Greek churches to the present day.
So also the synagogue did not use any instrument in the services up to 1810,
in which year the organ was introduced in Seesen, Germany" (Idelsohn, quoted by James Bales, Instrumental Music, p. 259).
Of course, those posing as being a cappela but really promoting instrumetal music by their participation love to claim that those who now refuse to participate in instrumental worship are divisive, sectarian, legalists, fraticidal, idolaters, Satanic, and schismatic (got tired of counting the ways he loves us).
This is because of the Guilt Clause, those who oppose the introduction of instruments or leave because of them are the ones creating the division and are therefore sectarian. This is the charge of Rubel Shelly at Abilene's Restoration Forum XII. The facts about the guilty party is always turned upside down to make the victim look like a sectarian.
At least thee musical sectarians were forced to build their own building rather than steal it from those who bought it:
"The modern organ in Reform Synagogues as an accessory of worship was first introduced by Israel Jacobson at Berlin in the new house of prayer which he opened for the Shabu'ot festival, June 14, 1815...(because this one was closed because other Jews brought suit) The members of the Reform party succeeded in building and dedicating their first temple on October 18, 1818, at Hamburg, where they set up a fine organ, but employed a non-Jewish organist" (Isadore Singer, Jewish Encyclopedia)
"It is still banned by rigid adherents to old ways; but in ordinary conservative congregations it is unhesitatingly employed at weddings and other services on week days" (Ibid., p. 134)


Now, when I give you scholarship from across the spectrum of religion you want scripture. I gave you ALL the scriptures in the new testament about this subject and you want history. I gave you history and you want scripture. I gave you a documented source and you question it but cannot disprove it is inaccurate. Why? You do not like it.

Can you refute any evidence presented? Refute mean to dismiss as untrue by the totality of relaible evidence. For you to dismiss evidence just because you do not like it, proves you cannot substantiate your positon with harmonious scripture, scholarship or new testament history. It proves you hold an erroneous position.

 

Frank,

***I asked you for scripture and you provided NONE! ***

That is just empty rhetoric. We've been talking about scriptures and what scriptures mean and how to interpret scripture.

I John 3:4 says "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." You have yet to show us a verse from the Bible that forbids the use of instrumental music in praise of God."

You haven't shown this. I've shown you where the Old Testament is positive toward praising God to instrumental accompaniment. The scritures are silent on the issue of whether or not to use them in church meetings, but you are quite loud about your opinion. If God hasn't made a law, what right do you have to make one?

As for the articles assertion that the synagogue didn't have musical instruments, see below:

If you would poke around on the web a little bit, or maybe just ask a Jewish scholar, you would find out that musical instruments were used in the synagogue, and removed after the destruction of the temple. There is that Psalm that asks how can we sing the songs of Zion, etc. and about hanging up their harps on the trees. This was during the captivity. The Jews didn't think it appropriate to sing when the temple was destroyed. When it was rebuilt, they played music in the temple, and in the synagogue. The liturgy of the synagogue was based loosely on the temple, with prayer corresponding to the sacrifices if I remember correctly. When the temple was gone, they stopped playing instruments. In the 200's, some Jewish scholars invented a rule to justify it. They reasoned that if a musician broke a string on the Sabbath, he might be tempted to replace it, and thus break the sabbath. They used this as a justification for not having instruments. But the original historical reason had to do with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

I found this quote from the following website about traditional Uganda music who certainly don't seem to have a theological axe to grind: http://www.shorefire.com/artists/folkways/abayudaya/liners_sfwabayudaya.html
"The Abayudaya follow the Jewish prohibition against playing musical instruments during Sabbath worship‹a symbolic act of mourning for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem."

I got the following quote from: http://www.adathemanuel.com/worship/music.html

"Music has always been a component of Jewish rituals and celebrations. The Bible contains several songs, including the one sung by the Hebrew slaves when they crossed the Red Sea to freedom.... For almost two millennia, however, following the destruction of the Temple, instrumental music was not used during communal prayer. This changed in the 19th century when the Reform movement introduced the organ and other instruments into their services. Jews have a rich folk music tradition as well; in recent years, Klezmer music, the folk music of Eastern European Jews, has found a wide audience.


And here is another one: http://www.uahc.org/ca/ca014/sermondec01.html
" Furthermore, following the Temple's destruction, the rabbis banned
instrumental music from worship services as a sign of mourning, which is
still upheld in Orthodox congregations. Early Reform leaders, however,
re-instituted the use of instruments, beginning with the organ, believing
that we no longer needed to mourn the Temple's destruction in this way, if
indeed we needed to mourn its destruction at all."

Here is another website which contains some of the same information: http://www.bethyeshurun.org/organ.htm

 

Frank wrote:
***However, the text says a Voice was heard. As for your objection to Amos 6:5, consider the following: **

Objection to Amos 6:5? I have no objection to amos 6:5. I do have an objection to taking it out of context and trying to make it contradict other scripture. You see, I believe in the inspiration of scripture, and I don't believe in twisting scripture to make it contradict other scripture.

The "scholarship" you quote sounds like the kind of educated but often irrational ramblings posted on Kenneth Sublett's website. Is that where you got it? The author seems well-read, but a lot of his conclusions are based on a kind of LIBERAL interpretation of scripture, done from a CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S perspective.

After reading the article, one might expect the author to say that instrumental church music shot JFK!

The article is basically an attack on the authority of scripture, putting the idea that instrumental music is evil above the direct teaching of scripture. You'll have to produce some better 'scholarship' than that.


***Musical Worship Teams, Outlawed and Restored -- Ezekiel 40
Musical worship teams: The Levites usurped priestly duties with musical instruments and linen choral gowns. They were outlawed in Ezekiel but restored in the time of Josephus. He warned that this had and would destroy the Jews once more. When Messiah came they tried to triumph over him with musical wind instruments. Psalm 41 prophesied this of Judas. **

This is just irrational ramblings. Did you actually _read_ Ezekiel 40 before posting this? And to equate Judas' betraying Jesus as predicted in Psalm 41 (based not on scripture but on his interpretation of a Dead Sea Scroll) is just ridiculous.

**See that there was no praise service in the synagogue because in Numbers 10:7 it was outlawed when calling an assembly or Qahal or synagogue or church in the wilderness.**

This verse doesn't say what he author claims. It says to blow, but do not sound an alarm, so the trumpets WERE supposed to be blown.

Besides, this is talking about the silver trumpets used for alarms and calling. The Law did not limit the use of instruments to these two trumpets. Miriam the prophetess had already played the timbrel and danced and praised God after Israel crossed the Red Sea.

***The temple musicians in a "religious sense" (grouped with prostitutes in pagan religions) were in the court making a loud mocking noise during the sacrifice and burning of animals.**


This author's dislike of instrumental music clearly warps his ability to interpret scripture--comparing the Psalms sung in praise to God with prostitutes and describing it as loud mocking noise. He points out that the musicians were not in the Holy Place, a type of Christ, but were with the burnt offerings. The burnt offerings typified Christ as well!


*****In earlier fragments we quoted scholars who believe--with a lot of Biblical evidence--that David changed the worship practices of Israel to be like that of the nations by adding musical worship teams because they were going to spend all of their resources on a temple like the nations in which God would not and could not dwell.****


This is what people call 'LIBERALISM'-- human beings having the audacity to sit in judgment on the word of God. The Bible is positive toward David. The Psalms are inspired scripture, and are very positive about instrumental music being used in praise of God, commanding the listeners to prais the Lord, and commanding the musicians to play.

Did David institute changes? Yes. But does that mean that God was not pleased with him? No. David was a type of Christ, and he had authority from God to do a lot of the things that he did. Where does scripture teach that anything David instituted in the Tent of Meeting was out of order?

And so what if pagans sang music as well. Pagans ate cheese. Does that making eating cheese a sin? Pagans sacrificed animals? Does that mean that Abraham, Moses, or the priests were wrong to sacrifice animals? No, of course not. The Israelites sang instrumentally accompanied music after crossing the Red Sea. David didnt' invent it. He may have promoted the importance of it.

Trying to turn this into a 'bad thing' is a type of conspiracy theory. There is this 'secret' bit of information in the author's mind, that instrumental music is evil and pagan. The Bible doesn't teach this, but the reader of the Bible is expected to, as the author, interprt all the passages about musical instruments in a negative light. So what he ends up doing is throwing out some of the doctrinal importance of Psalms that command the use of instruments, and instead of relying on scripture, he relies on his own theory that since pagans used instrumental music, instrumental music must be evil.

And like the liberals he takes bits and pieces of historical information to come up with a theory which attacks at the inspiration and validity of scripture. Here, the part being attacked are the parts that are positive about musical instruments.

**The Bible shows that David and the commanders of the army reorginized the military Levitical musical worship teams, who had forced soldiers into battle with panic music. ***

This is a warped interpretation again, equating the praises of the LORD with 'panic music.' And where does he get this idea about David using the music to force people into military service? This sounds like the kind of goofball unsubstantiated theory that liberal theologians and archeologiancs come up with. Clearly this man's prejudice against musical instruments colors his interpretation of scripture.

***victory. Furthermore, these musical worship teams intruded into the actual place of animal sacrifices and were dressed in fine linen reserved for the priestly class: ***

As for this part, and the complaints of Josephus, can you show any scripture that reserves fine linen for only the priestly class? I find it hard to believe that linen, one of their main kinds of cloth, was reserved only for priests. Priests were to wear it while in service, but how does that mean they were the only ones to wear it? I wouldn't be surprised to find the law mentioning other people wearing linen.

***Josephus notes that the Levites performing priestly services (hard bondage, Abad) caused the fall of the nation ONCE and that their political campaign to wear linen garments and perform would cause their fall again: and it did.****

Should we believe his reason for the first fall of the nation, or should we believe it was the sins the Bible tells us were the reasons for Israel's downfall? And is it more likely that God had the nation fall around 70AD and again around 120 ADbecause the Levites were wearing clothes like the priests, or because the Jewish leaders had crucified God's Son and the Jews in general refused to repent?

***The people as congregation never sang with instrumental accompaniment.***

I suggest the author read Psalm 149 which address the congregation, and tells the children of Zion praise the Lord's name in the dance, and sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp, for the LORD taketh pleasure in His people.


***Ezekiel - Music Condemned in the Idealized Temple***

This section doesn't support what the title says. It does mention that the Greek text doesn't mention the singers. But even if one took the Greek text rather than the Mazoretic text, that doesn't condemn music.

Also, if you post something like this on this forum, you have an uphill battle. It asssumes that Ezekiel's temple is supposed to tell us how to have church, and takes a highly allegorical approach. A lot of readers on this forum, myself included, are inclined to see Ezekiel's prophecy as something that is to be fulfilled in a future millineal kingdom. Justin Martyr, whom this author quotes, was a Christian in the early 2nd century. He also believed that there would be a literal kingdom on the earth with the saints and Old Testament prophets living in Jerusalem. I seem to recall that Papias, who knew John, and others from the circles associated with John, believed in a literal kingdom as well. So this belief is very liberal. Justin Martyr may have lived before amillinealism had been invented after all.


**Can you refute any evidence presented? Refute mean to dismiss as untrue by the totality of relaible evidence. For you to dismiss evidence just because you do not like it, proves you cannot substantiate your positon with harmonious scripture, scholarship or new testament history. It proves you hold an erroneous position.**

I've supported my position well. I've shown that the Old Testament is positive toward the use of musical instruments in praise to God, as you can see by my references to Psalm 149 and 150, which commanded praising God to instrumental music.

Others (like yourself) have shown that the Greek word for 'psalm' historically refers to instrumentally accompanied music. I have shown where the New Testament teaches that sin is the transgression of the law. You have yet to show a law that condemns the use of musical instruments in church meetings.

In regard to history, I have shown you sources that you can look up that show that synagogues had instrumental music in the time of Christ and the time of Paul. Christ and Paul both participated in synagogue meetings. Both also participated in the temple.

As for scholarship, there was a lot of scholarship in that last quote you gave, but it was intermixed with subtle liberal attacks on the validity of the scriptures, and conspiracy theory, and it didn't really prove anything anyway. It was more rhetoric than anything else. Comparing the holy music of the Psalms and the other praises David encouraged in the temple to paganism doesn't prove anything but the author's disrespect for music that God approves of.