General Music Chat

Not to hijack your thread - but I'd feel a lot better about it all if the scriptures were actually written by Jesus, or even his contemporaries. Best guesses estimate that they were written 60-100 years after his death, & were influenced more by Paul than any of the disciples (before being edited by various Popes & King James). They were written by ppl who never knew him, yet they are presented in a witness format. I find this questionable.

And what was Paul's (aka "Saul's") job? To assure that the power base remained in Rome.

I think he did his job too well, perhaps.

The only thing that Jesus ever wrote, that's recorded in the Bible, has been ignored. He was doodling in the sand with a stick, but no one ever thought to look at it & record its content for posterity...damned shame, that.

The books that MAY have been written by his contemporaries (some of the Gnostic chapters) have all been outlawed by the Catholic church, & ignored by the rest.

With the human element involved in the editing process, combined with our limited knowledge of the period, I cannot accept it as the word of God, myself.

There have been those that suggested that certain terms used in the book were figures of speach. "Turning water into wine" = converting someone into the fold. "Resurrecting from the dead" is another term meaning the same thing. Creating multiples of fish from one = gathering more ppl into the fold.

The original meaning of the word "messiah" is simply a leader, a king if you will, whose job it is to protect & "save" the race from outside influences, NOT to "save your soul."

From the setting of the holy days, to religious rites, to actual ediiting of certain chapters, I have read that the Emporer Constantine has also muddied up the religion to be far from what it originally intended.

There is so much to question for the thinking mind that really wants to know. Too many years having passed, & too many fingers in the pie, for me to accept that Christainity is anything other than yet another attempt to A) control the masses, B) give the ppl some guidelines to live by that has been said just as well or better in other religions, & C) keep the power base for the entire world in Rome (although we can see that this has pretty much failed in the long run).

Philby, many people share your doubt and oppinion even amongst Christians. But it is easy for me I know it is the word of God for it was written on my heart and soul long before anyone put it on paper. This is the Holy Spirit,I hear the voice of my heavenly father thru the Spirit, as clearly as my earthly father just not in WAV format, if you will. I wish I could explain better. But I cannot explain that anymore than I could explain why I love my wife and children. It just "IS".

well, just got back from Long island NY where I rehearsed for the 2008 East Coast <your> Leaders conference.

The fellow who is going to be leading worship had a very powerful voice, and there were cool harmonies too..

Oh, and my 1987 Ibanez RG550 sang as well...

The leader, a black man from Virginia, really liked what I was playing.
He has a long history of leading worship, publishing songs, mentoring, pastoring, etc.

My heart tells me that he has not been in disobedience all this time.

That's just me.

Actually, I don't care too much if Paul's church worships in that mode.
Shoot, I'm not opposed to a hymn once in a while..

But I guess to purport that the inclusion of human-made instruments is a sin in the eyes of God, the same God who has enjoyed the sounds of various instruments through the many years, chafes pretty hard against my sensibilities.
...and my experience in the past 13 years of my worship journey.

I'll close with this:
I think that if God, who so obviously enjoyed instruments since the creation of time decided NOT to enjoy said worship under a new covenant, don't you think He would have said so EXPLICITLY?
I think so important a subject would have NEVER have been left to such debate if it were so black & white.

over & out.
Cheers lads,
R

ps. edited to include that everything I just said is of no value, as I believe our friend here is solidly set in his church's teaching.

There's some fairly sad stuff here...

http://www.charlotteavechurchofchrist.org/issues.htm

I appreciate your input CP. I appreciate everyone's input. As far as I can tell nobody here has cared that we sing A Capella. Nobody here has said that was wrong. People just have a problem with me saying that it isn't commanded and therefore I wouldn't add it. It's as if they don't want me to think it's a sin to add instruments. It's as if they don't want me to think they sin.

Well, Paul, that must mean you're a pretty influential guy around here, & that's very cool!

It's okay with me whatever you choose to think, though. I would fight to the death for your right to believe as you will, & worship as you will.

My question is - would you do the same for me, knowing that I believe differently?

I would fight to the death for your right to believe as you will, & worship as you will.

My question is - would you do the same for me, knowing that I believe differently?

Absolutely. I appreciate our religious freedom. I led the Church in a prayer last night and specifically thanked God for that freedom.

Phil 2:12 ................ work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

That's a good quote, Paul! I'll use it the next time someone tries to convert me.

Thanks!

Not to hijack your thread - but I'd feel a lot better about it all if the scriptures were actually written by Jesus, or even his contemporaries.

The source material DOES come from Jesus' contemporaries bro. The writings are derived from oral traditions of the disciples and assistants or followers of the disciples who travelled with them.

The only reason you don't see earlier writings, is that the disciples were fully expecting Jesus' return in THEIR OWN lifetimes. There was no need in their minds to write anything down, they were teaching and building the churches directly and expected Jesus to come at any moment. As the years went by and discples are aging and being martyred, it becomes obvious that future generations would benefit from having the oral teachings written down.

Best guesses estimate that they were written 60-100 years after his death, & were influenced more by Paul than any of the disciples (before being edited by various Popes & King James). They were written by ppl who never knew him, yet they are presented in a witness format. I find this questionable.

The oral traditions, well known and spread throughout the churches was written down. What was written down was the teachings of the disciples, about what they DID witness. Half of the New Testament is from Paul. He was a very zealous follower of Christ and church builder. He is witnessed to by Jesus himself in spirit, on the Road to Damascus. There is NO REASON to believe this was not truthful and a pivotal moment in Paul's life. As on fire as Paul was for spreading Jesus' gospel, is how much on fire he was previously, for persecuting Christians. He was a revered member of Jewish society, and had letters authorizing him to seize anyone he found from "The Way" (what the early movement was called) and bring them back bound.

Paul would never risk the carefully crafted career he had built, if he didn't believe beyond a shadow of the doubt, that Christ himself had appeared to him. Paul lost his sight in this encounter, and when he was at a home praying, God speaks to a follower called Ananias, and tells him where Paul (originally known as Saul) is, and says to go to Paul. Ananias is fearful though, because they have all heard what this man Saul is doing to the church. But God tells Ananias that He has given Paul a vision that Ananias will come to him, and that Paul is a chosen instrument of God, and will suffer many things for his name's sake.

Besides being a scholar on Judaism, Paul also had the benefit of having citizenship in Rome. A huge priveledge, that allowed him many more avenues in spreading the Gospel than the early disciples had.

Being a respected scholar in Judaism, and having Roman citizenship, Paul would NEVER have threatened all that, if something earth shattering had not happened to him. Jesus was the earthquake bro.

The books that MAY have been written by his contemporaries (some of the Gnostic chapters) have all been outlawed by the Catholic church, & ignored by the rest.

This is a tired old argument always coming from those looking to tear down Christianity. Ancient writings outside the bible are very dubious in nature. The early church, would pass around Gospel accounts and so forth for edification, but what happened was, that other writings began slipping in, that had no history or precedent to them. Not knowing where these other writings were coming from, and the accepted writings already being considered holy and sacred, it became important to determine which writings were authentic and which were not. A process began, which took decades to accomplish. With various rules in place, for whether something was likely to be "inspired" or not, like whether they had already been accepted by the church, whether it's author was an apostle or closely related to an apostle, whether there was a sense of higher moral authority, meaning did the writing have the air of spiritual authority and inspiration of God, was the writing in accordance with accepted scripture, or does it contradict already accepted writings? There was a laundry list of guides to use, along with prayer and debate, to help determine the truly inspired writings from other manuscripts. I mean, clearly, if all the other gospels claimed that Christ would return, and one supposed "gospel" came along and claimed special information that in fact, Christ was NEVER intending to come back, then that would be strong evidence that this was fake or contrived.

But you need to understand that this process was not haphazard, as there was much at stake, and differing factions involved. This was all ironed out and prayed over, as I said, over huge periods of time, to establish consensus on what is now the Bible. However, even still, the potestant Bible differs from the Catholic bible.

So, logically speaking, I have to admit, that man's involvement alone, necessitates the acknowledgement that there may be minor mistakes, either in translation, or possibly even inclusion, if the Catholics are right. But I think it is reliable to say that these books "ARE" inspired, and holy, and relevant.

Now when people like Paul and the Church of Christ, base a whole new doctrine on whether the Bible records instrument use in church or not, or allows it or not, this is the shakey ground they get into, and why I believe that if God lives inside you, then your conscience is the most reliable guide one can have.

There have been those that suggested that certain terms used in the book were figures of speach. "Turning water into wine" = converting someone into the fold. "Resurrecting from the dead" is another term meaning the same thing. Creating multiples of fish from one = gathering more ppl into the fold.

Which is ridiculous because the Bible details the events as historic and provides very detailed accounts of all the occurances. It is pretty clear when the Bible is using analogies and parables, and when it is not. The water to wine tings for example, tells an entire story of Jesus' mother coming to him during a wedding feast, and details their conversation, Christ's miracle, and the response of the host of the event as well, where he says that most people serve the good wine first and serve the cheap wine later, when they won't know the difference.

All such attempts as these, are merely skeptics attempts at discrediting any religious or miraculous phenomena. Which can never be fully successful, when millions of people alive today have experienced miracles that don't neatly fit scientific understanding.

The original meaning of the word "messiah" is simply a leader, a king if you will, whose job it is to protect & "save" the race from outside influences, NOT to "save your soul."

Not exactly right. The word "messiah" literally means "annointed one" or "chosen one" and it is Jewish in concept, and has ONE meaning, which is a ruler from the Davidic line who will come to rule the people during a messianic age.

Some Jews believe that this messiah did come, and his name we call "Jesus" and these became the first Christians. People who still consider themselves Jews however, obviously wait for the coming of this messiah still.

From the setting of the holy days, to religious rites, to actual ediiting of certain chapters, I have read that the Emporer Constantine has also muddied up the religion to be far from what it originally intended.

Some of this is debatable and some of it is outrightly ridiculous. Constantine converted to Christianity after seeing a vision during a battle, where a sign of the cross was seen in the sky and the words "In this sign conquer", and Constantine basically took this to mean he would be victorious if he became Christian. I have often wondered if maybe the vision was indeed true, but rather than a confidence booster for war, God instead meant it to show him to "conquor in love" and not war? Just something I have wondered personally.

There's no denying that Constantine had a SUPREME effect on Christianity, but firtly, becoming the first Chritsian Emporor, and reversing the persecution of Christians by demanding that all Christian property be returned to Christians, as well as basically making Christianity the state religion of Rome. But he largely left religious issues to the church. And I mean LARGELY. The church was to determine the proper manner of worship, etc... He occassionally stepped in, although fairly rarely, to decide matters which the church could not resolve. If I am not mistaken, the acceptance of Christ being both man and God, was largely settled by him, as he put an end to "Arianism" which espoused a belief that Jesus was more than human, but less than God. Kind of a minor deity. But for the most part, he left the church to settle all religious issues, and he was a life-long benefactor and protector of the church and Christians in general. He played a huge role in Christianity becoming a world wide religion.

That's a good quote, Paul! I'll use it the next time someone tries to convert me.

Thanks!

Paul likes using broad quotes to mean what he wants them to mean, so better be careful.

Focus on the "fear and trembling" part, before you get too comfortable that you are gonna be just fine, with whatever you decide to believe.

That's a good quote, Paul! I'll use it the next time someone tries to convert me.

Thanks!

Paul likes using broad quotes to mean what he wants them to mean, so better be careful.

Focus on the "fear and trembling" part, before you get too comfortable that you are gonna be just fine, with whatever you decide to believe.

.....examples please.

Not to hijack your thread - but I'd feel a lot better about it all if the scriptures were actually written by Jesus, or even his contemporaries.

The source material DOES come from Jesus' contemporaries bro. The writings are derived from oral traditions of the disciples and assistants or followers of the disciples who travelled with them.

The only reason you don't see earlier writings, is that the disciples were fully expecting Jesus' return in THEIR OWN lifetimes. There was no need in their minds to write anything down, they were teaching and building the churches directly and expected Jesus to come at any moment. As the years went by and discples are aging and being martyred, it becomes obvious that future generations would benefit from having the oral teachings written down.

Best guesses estimate that they were written 60-100 years after his death, & were influenced more by Paul than any of the disciples (before being edited by various Popes & King James). They were written by ppl who never knew him, yet they are presented in a witness format. I find this questionable.

The oral traditions, well known and spread throughout the churches was written down. What was written down was the teachings of the disciples, about what they DID witness. Half of the New Testament is from Paul. He was a very zealous follower of Christ and church builder. He is witnessed to by Jesus himself in spirit, on the Road to Damascus. There is NO REASON to believe this was not truthful and a pivotal moment in Paul's life. As on fire as Paul was for spreading Jesus' gospel, is how much on fire he was previously, for persecuting Christians. He was a revered member of Jewish society, and had letters authorizing him to seize anyone he found from "The Way" (what the early movement was called) and bring them back bound.

Paul would never risk the carefully crafted career he had built, if he didn't believe beyond a shadow of the doubt, that Christ himself had appeared to him. Paul lost his sight in this encounter, and when he was at a home praying, God speaks to a follower called Ananias, and tells him where Paul (originally known as Saul) is, and says to go to Paul. Ananias is fearful though, because they have all heard what this man Saul is doing to the church. But God tells Ananias that He has given Paul a vision that Ananias will come to him, and that Paul is a chosen instrument of God, and will suffer many things for his name's sake.

Besides being a scholar on Judaism, Paul also had the benefit of having citizenship in Rome. A huge priveledge, that allowed him many more avenues in spreading the Gospel than the early disciples had.

Being a respected scholar in Judaism, and having Roman citizenship, Paul would NEVER have threatened all that, if something earth shattering had not happened to him. Jesus was the earthquake bro.

The books that MAY have been written by his contemporaries (some of the Gnostic chapters) have all been outlawed by the Catholic church, & ignored by the rest.

This is a tired old argument always coming from those looking to tear down Christianity. Ancient writings outside the bible are very dubious in nature. The early church, would pass around Gospel accounts and so forth for edification, but what happened was, that other writings began slipping in, that had no history or precedent to them. Not knowing where these other writings were coming from, and the accepted writings already being considered holy and sacred, it became important to determine which writings were authentic and which were not. A process began, which took decades and decades, and by some accounting, hundreds of years, to accomplish. With various rules in place, for whether something was likely to be "inspired" or not, like whether they had already been accepted by the church, whether it's author was an apostle or closely related to an apostle, whether there was a sense of higher moral authority, meaning did the writing have the air of spiritual authority and inspiration of God, was the writing in accordance with accepted scripture, or does it contradict already accepted writings? There was a laundry list of guides to use, along with prayer and debate, to help determine the truly inspired writings from other manuscripts. I mean, clearly, if all the other gospels claimed that Christ would return, and one supposed "gospel" came along and claimed special information that in fact, Christ was NEVER intending to come back, then that would be strong evidence that this was fake or contrived.

But you need to understand that this process was not haphazard, as there was much at stake, and differing factions involved. This was all ironed out and prayed over, as I said, over huge periods of time, to establish consensus on what is now the Bible. However, even still, the potestant Bible differs from the Catholic bible.

So, logically speaking, I have to admit, that man's involvement alone, necessitates the acknowledgement that there may be minor mistakes, either in translation, or possibly even inclusion, if the Catholics are right. But I think it is reliable to say that these books "ARE" inspired, and holy, and relevant.

Now when people like Paul and the Church of Christ, base a whole new doctrine on whether the Bible records instrument use in church or not, or allows it or not, this is the shakey ground they get into, and why I believe that if God lives inside you, then your conscience is the most reliable guide one can have.

There have been those that suggested that certain terms used in the book were figures of speach. "Turning water into wine" = converting someone into the fold. "Resurrecting from the dead" is another term meaning the same thing. Creating multiples of fish from one = gathering more ppl into the fold.

Which is ridiculous because the Bible details the events as historic and provides very detailed accounts of all the occurances. It is pretty clear when the Bible is using analogies and parables, and when it is not. The water to wine tings for example, tells an entire story of Jesus' mother coming to him during a wedding feast, and details their conversation, Christ's miracle, and the response of the host of the event as well, where he says that most people serve the good wine first and serve the cheap wine later, when they won't know the difference.

All such attempts as these, are merely skeptics attempts at discrediting any religious or miraculous phenomena. Which can never be fully successful, when millions of people alive today have experienced miracles that don't neatly fit scientific understanding.

The original meaning of the word "messiah" is simply a leader, a king if you will, whose job it is to protect & "save" the race from outside influences, NOT to "save your soul."

Not exactly right. The word "messiah" literally means "annointed one" or "chosen one" and it is Jewish in concept, and has ONE meaning, which is a ruler from the Davidic line who will come to rule the people during a messianic age.

Some Jews believe that this messiah did come, and his name we call "Jesus" and these became the first Christians. People who still consider themselves Jews however, obviously wait for the coming of this messiah still.

From the setting of the holy days, to religious rites, to actual ediiting of certain chapters, I have read that the Emporer Constantine has also muddied up the religion to be far from what it originally intended.

Some of this is debatable and some of it is outrightly ridiculous. Constantine converted to Christianity after seeing a vision during a battle, where a sign of the cross was seen in the sky and the words "In this sign conquer", and Constantine basically took this to mean he would be victorious if he became Christian. I have often wondered if maybe the vision was indeed true, but rather than a confidence booster for war, God instead meant it to show him to "conquor in love" and not war? Just something I have wondered personally.

There's no denying that Constantine had a SUPREME effect on Christianity, to begin with, becoming the first Christian Emporor, and reversing the persecution of Christians by demanding that all Christian property be returned to Christians, as well as basically making Christianity the state religion of Rome. But he largely left religious issues to the church. And I mean LARGELY. The church was to determine the proper manner of worship, etc... He occassionally stepped in, although fairly rarely, to decide matters which the church could not resolve. If I am not mistaken, the acceptance of Christ being both man and God, was largely settled by him, as he put an end to "Arianism" which espoused a belief that Jesus was more than human, but less than God. Kind of a minor deity. But for the most part, he left the church to settle all religious issues, and he was a life-long benefactor and protector of the church and Christians in general. He played a huge role in Christianity becoming a world wide religion.[/quote]

I personally could care less about how anybody chooses to worship. As noted before, in The United States Of America, its a citizens RIGHT to worship how one wishes, (as long as it doesnt break any laws, or infringe upon others rights.)

I would like to add, as a historical point of interest to the discussion, that for the first millenium of Christianity, virtually ALL music in the church was A capella! ( so Neanderpaul and his congregation sure 'nuff ain't doin' anything that hasn't been done before! )

Whilst it's true that I am a self proclaimed agnostic, I have been known to join in song AND prayer from time to time. A man wiser then myself once told me, "It might not help, but it sure can't hurt!"

Keep to your belief, Neanderpaul.

Howlin' J

Here I stand at the lake o fire, In my hands God,s strat for hire.
Rumblin chords like a rushin flood, shakin satins house, safe in Christ's blood.

.....examples please.

Wow. Many of them bro. Are you seriously going to make me go back through this thread? I tried to help end the damn thing already, and Phil, with his dark other-worldly sense of humor, has now made me go through early church history in general as well as the entire canonization process in particular.

But one off the top of my head was where you quoted a verse on losing your place in heaven for adding to scripture. I don't remember if you quoted the verse or not, but you are referring to Revelations, where it talks about blotting out anyone's name in the Book of Life. But that verse refers ONLY to adding to Revelations. As you surely know, the Bible is actually 66 books, not one book. Well, the Catholic Bible has 73 I think. The verse speaks of a warning to anyone adding to the "book of THESE prophecies" which is only referring to Revelations.

But speaking of Catholics...

Wow, your lose reading of scripture, from a protestant perspective of accepting the protestant version of the Bible, would have put maybe a billion Catholics in hell. That's terrible of you man. I'm sure the number deserving it would be much smaller, probably half as much!

Just kidding my Catholic brothers and sisters!

OK Craig it makes sense that the Rev 22:18 was directed at the book of Rev specifically. I can't imagine anything else Craig. The God did promise that the bible was complete though. Which gives the same idea. Don't add to it.

But anyway the descriptions of the false Church are in I Tim 4:1-3
Here is

I Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Sound familiar?

Just say Craig that the verses I quoted (and yes I did quote the rev verses) are binding. Just say that by sharing it with 1000 people. 5 of them search the bible for themselves, do a lot of soul searching and praying, and then make some changes. If that puts them in the right relationship with God then it would definitely be worth it.