xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I feel the Holy Spirit, I have had visions, God has spoken to me and directed my life and that doesn't maje me prideful. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yes you can feel the Holy Spirit in a God centered Worship Setvice and if you don't feel it at your Church, I would sugggest that there is a nog problem in your Church.

---

There is a difference between "feeling the Holy Spirit" and "sensing the presence of God."'

It might sound like a subtle difference, but in fact it is not.

I sense the presence of God at an Orthodox Liturgy, but this is something I sense externally to me. On the other hand, feelings are your internal reaction and interpretation of what is occurring around you.

The general idea of the modern evangelical service is the present a product compatible with the pre-existing sensibilities of the viewer so that the external mechanics generate a feeling within a person that they equate to feeling the Holy Spirit.

It's the difference between this (not offered with any specific doctrinal implications, but as a general example)



and this



This is why the early church did not permit instrumental music in its worship, and the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy does not allow it to this day.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

I feel the Holy Spirit, I have had visions, God has spoken to me and directed my life and that doesn't maje me prideful. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yes you can feel the Holy Spirit in a God centered Worship Setvice and if you don't feel it at your Church, I would sugggest that there is a nog problem in your Church.

---

There is a difference between "feeling the Holy Spirit" and "sensing the presence of God."'

It might sound like a subtle difference, but in fact it is not.

I sense the presence of God at an Orthodox Liturgy, but this is something I sense externally to me. On the other hand, feelings are your internal reaction and interpretation of what is occurring around you.

The general idea of the modern evangelical service is the present a product compatible with the pre-existing sensibilities of the viewer so that the external mechanics generate a feeling within a person that they equate to feeling the Holy Spirit.

It's the difference between this (not offered with any specific doctrinal implications, but as a general example)



and this



This is why the early church did not permit instrumental music in its worship, and the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy does not allow it to this day.

---

There is no difference between feeling the Holy Spirit and sensing the presence of God because the Holy Spirit IS God.

As far as the Early Church not permitting instruments in Worship Service that is BUNK. That is not Scriptural and even IF they didn't, there is nothing Scripturally to say that we can't use musical Instruments in Worship. Actually, Scripture encourages musical instraments in Worship. Read Psalms. Are you a Reformed Presbyterian by chance? You sound like one of them.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There is no difference between feeling the Holy Spirit and sensing the presence of God because the Holy Spirit IS God.

---

You missed my point. It wasn't about the difference between the persons of the Trinity.

Quote:

---

As far as the Early Church not permitting instruments in Worship Service that is BUNK. That is not Scriptural and even IF they didn't, there is nothing Scripturally to say that we can't use musical Instruments in Worship. Actually, Scripture encourages musical instraments in Worship. Read Psalms. Are you a Reformed Presbyterian by chance? You sound like one of them.

---

I don't go to the Church of Christ, but this is a pretty good summary of the history of music in Christian worship.

A HISTORY OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

Here's the short version: "We reach the seventh century. In AD 667, the bishop of Rome, Vitalian, known to Catholic historians as St. Vitalian, received an organ as a gift. He introduced the organ into one of the churches in Rome. Perhaps you remember what happened. The first time that organ was played in a worship service, a howl of anger and protest was heard, and did not desist until the organ was removed. The very first instrument of music used by Christians in divine worship was in the seventh century, but did not stay in because of the protest against it."

Instrumental music returned in the Roman Catholic church after the great schism around 1100.

Several notable figures in the reformation were against it.

Old Testament references to musical instruments in temple worship don't have anything to do with the church - as a dispensationalist you of course have to agree with that.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Man, you really don't know the Bible:

"Then he (Jesus) said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures". - Luke 24:44

Your history about the Saduccees accepting only the Torah has no historical basis in facts. The Pharisees accepted the very Tanakh being referenced by Jesus in Luke 24:44 above. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of ALL important Jewish books, which included BOTH the canonical and non-canonical.

You're the one who hasn't done the research.

---

If you do a modicum of (honest) research, you will discover that the Sadducees DID only accept the Pentateuch as canon.

This is affirmed in Acts 23 in the resurrection debate and Hippolytus and Origen both (2nd & 3rd century) affirm this.

No serious historian today believes that they accepted other books as canon.

This is why Jesus rebuked them only using the Torah.

---

The historians you got your google facts from rely on the hearsay evidence from church fathers like Origen, Hippolytus, and Jerome, none of which cited any Jewish sources for their claims. These historians did not extensively study the topic of the canon of the Jews as much as scholars like Roger Beckwith, who wrote the book on the Old Testament canon. Scholars like him disagree with the traditional claim that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon. There just aren't any primary Jewish sources from which this claim is based on. As N.T. Wright says, the only real credible evidence from which to draw conclusiions come from Jewish sources, such as Josephus, rabbinic literature, and the New Testament itself:

• Josephus - according to scholar F.F. Bruce, most historians misinterpret Josephus as saying that the Sadducees only held to the Torah. He says that actually, Josephus was only saying that they rejected the oral Torah of the Pharisees, not the Prophets and Writings of the Tanakh;
• Rabbinic Literature - in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90b:810 recounts a debate between a leading Pharisee and the Sadducees in the 1st century about the topic of the resurrection. In it, the Sadducees argue from the Prophets and Writings as well as from the Torah (the entire Tanakh);
• The New Testament - in Matthew 2:3-6, King Herod summons all the chief priests of Israel, who most scholars believe were the Sadducees at that time, in order to find the location where Jesus was prophesied to be born - they quoted the book of Micah from the Prophets. Also, Jesus never "rebuked the Sadducees" for only using the Torah. Acts 23 does NOT say that the Sadducees did not accept the whole Tanakh. These are just a common misinterpretations and non sequiturs from those passages.

So, your "research" is shallow, and your comment that "no serious historian" believes the Sadducees accepted books outside the Torah is a complete joke. You have no real evidence for your claim outside of hearsay from the church fathers. You just don't know what you're talking about, you're just regurgitating what you're told.

---

This is somewhat comical on multiple points!!!

Jesus himself ONLY used the Torah in discussion with the Sadducees. The fact alone has better legs than you forcing your narrative in Luke 24:44.

You also argue that men, who lived in the time adjacent to the apostles, didn't know better than a modern-day "scholar" like Roger Beckwith who is writing more than 1600 years later. You'll have to do better than that.

Speaking of him, you present HIS view as dogmatized canon. When one does research, you'll find that his view is the MINORITY position. Most scholars hold the traditional view of the Sadducees and their limited canon.

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

.

This Is The Chariot Of The Lord. UFOs In The Bible ?maybe they are the vehicles of Angels and Demons::

Ezekiel 1:4-28 KJV
[4] And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. [5] Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. [6] And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. [7] And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass. [8] And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. [9] Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. [10] As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. [11] Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. [12] And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went. [13] As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. [14] And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. [15] Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. [16] The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. [17] When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. [18] As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four. [19] And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. [20] Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. [21] When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. [22] And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. [23] And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. [24] And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. [25] And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. [26] And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. [27] And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. [28] As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

---

I doubt it, but IF it did, it also made it well known taht those books were NOT a part of the actual Biblical Canon.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

---

The Bible itself says the earth is round and hangs upon nothing, like outer space.

.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

---

The Bible itself says the earth is round and hangs upon nothing, like outer space.

---

Isaiah 40:22 KJV
[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job 26:7 KJV
[7] He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, And hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

---

^^^ The perfect example of how you aren't capable of basic logical thinking, and thus further discussion is fruitless. The point was not that the minority opinion is always correct. The point was that the fact it is a minority opinion doesn't mean it's wrong. That's the argument YOU were making.

Is there really any reason to go on? You have demonstrated you simply aren't capable of logical, rational discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

---

^^^ The perfect example of how you aren't capable of basic logical thinking, and thus further discussion is fruitless. The point was not that the minority opinion is always correct. The point was that the fact it is a minority opinion doesn't mean it's wrong. That's the argument YOU were making.

Is there really any reason to go on? You have demonstrated you simply aren't capable of logical, rational discussion.

---

But as far as the Flat Earth through thing goes, the Bible clearly says that the Earth is round some have said that that word actually means spherical and it also says that it hangs upon nothing meaning it hangs in outer space as it does. Read the verses I just posted.

.

A PRAYER OF SALVATION:

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

.

I hope you all had a great weekend

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

There is no difference between feeling the Holy Spirit and sensing the presence of God because the Holy Spirit IS God.

---

You missed my point. It wasn't about the difference between the persons of the Trinity.

Quote:

---

As far as the Early Church not permitting instruments in Worship Service that is BUNK. That is not Scriptural and even IF they didn't, there is nothing Scripturally to say that we can't use musical Instruments in Worship. Actually, Scripture encourages musical instraments in Worship. Read Psalms. Are you a Reformed Presbyterian by chance? You sound like one of them.

---

I don't go to the Church of Christ, but this is a pretty good summary of the history of music in Christian worship.

A HISTORY OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

Here's the short version: "We reach the seventh century. In AD 667, the bishop of Rome, Vitalian, known to Catholic historians as St. Vitalian, received an organ as a gift. He introduced the organ into one of the churches in Rome. Perhaps you remember what happened. The first time that organ was played in a worship service, a howl of anger and protest was heard, and did not desist until the organ was removed. The very first instrument of music used by Christians in divine worship was in the seventh century, but did not stay in because of the protest against it."

Instrumental music returned in the Roman Catholic church after the great schism around 1100.

Several notable figures in the reformation were against it.

Old Testament references to musical instruments in temple worship don't have anything to do with the church - as a dispensationalist you of course have to agree with that.

---

Yes they do have to do with the Church. There was no commandment againstvit under the Law and there is no commandment against it under grace. Whatever is not forbidden is pwrmissable.

Romans 5:13 KJV
[13] (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

---

I doubt it, but IF it did, it also made it well known taht those books were NOT a part of the actual Biblical Canon.

---

The "deuterocanonical" books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. This includes the original KJV of 1611 and the Gutenberg Bible. The allegation that the Roman Catholic church added them to the scriptures at the Council of Trent is simply a fiction that is not supported by history.

Everyone with a 66 book Bible needs to understand that their bible is a 200 year old abridged edition that uses a Masoretic text created by Christ-rejecting rabbis roughly 800 years after the crucifixion as the basis for the Old Testament. While the King James is the best of these, it still retains the Genesis time shift edits made by the Masoretes.

Particularly if you're a sola scriptura Christian, that is a critical problem for the faith you claim.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.

Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.

The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.

To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.

---

So, Flat-Earthers, a minority opinion, are correct in saying the world isn't round. Gotcha.

You can claim that today's scholars "have access to a broader historical picture" cuts both ways. Lee Martin McDonald, protestant PhD from University of Edinburgh also supports the Torah-only position for the Sadducees, as does theologian and Bible-scholar Gary Michuta and a host (the MAJORITY) of other bible scholars.

Your MINORITY view doesn't jive with today's scholars, Church fathers, or the bible.

Simple question, did the Gutenberg Bible 1455, 60 years before Luther, contain the Deuterocanon?

---

I doubt it, but IF it did, it also made it well known taht those books were NOT a part of the actual Biblical Canon.

---

The "deuterocanonical" books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. This includes the original KJV of 1611 and the Gutenberg Bible. The allegation that the Roman Catholic church added them to the scriptures at the Council of Trent is simply a fiction that is not supported by history.

Everyone with a 66 book Bible needs to understand that their bible is a 200 year old abridged edition that uses a Masoretic text created by Christ-rejecting rabbis roughly 800 years after the crucifixion as the basis for the Old Testament. While the King James is the best of these, it still retains the Genesis time shift edits made by the Masoretes.

Particularly if you're a sola scriptura Christian, that is a critical problem for the faith you claim.

---

They were not accepted by they Jews as being Cannanical. They were not in the early Canons. They were jncluded later with the understanding that they were not Scripture and not part of the Cannon, the Catholics started including it later. No wonder they are so screwed up. Sola Scriptura is what I believe. If you don't then you are in serious error and danger.

.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

They were not accepted by they Jews as being Cannanical. They were not in the early Canons. They were jncluded later with the understanding that they were not Scripture and not part of the Cannon, the Catholics started including it later. No wonder they are so screwed up. Sola Scriptura is what I believe. If you don't then you are in serious error and danger.

---

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Macedonian Greek pharaoh of Egypt, sent seventy-two Hebrew translatorssix from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israelfrom Second Temple era Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek, for inclusion in Library of Alexandria. The Jews of Alexandria celebrated the translation with an annual festival on Pharos, where the Lighthouse of Alexandria stoodthe location where the translation was said to have taken place. The resulting text, the Septuagint, does include the deutrocanonical books.

You need to understand that the modern Jewish canon of the Old Testament was finalized after Christ and eliminated the more problematic text that the Jews from the period before Christ accepted (as above). Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Textfive books of the Torah, eight books of the Nevi'im (Prophets), and eleven books of the Ketuvim (Writings)as the authoritative version of the Tanakh. But this canon dates to 800 AD, created by Jews who knew about Jesus and had rejected him as a requirement to create this canon.

The Masoretic Text of Rabbinic Judaism is not a reliable source for Christians because of this.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 KJV
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; [6] who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due

.

AI Mode
All
Videos
Forums
Images
Short videos
Shopping
Web
Books
News
Maps
Flights
Finance
Search tools
Feedback
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord
Song by The Maranatha! Singers 1979

Overview
Lyrics
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Higher and higher and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Higher and higher and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord (humble thyself in the sight of the Lord)
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Higher and higher and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Up into heaven and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Higher and higher and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Up into heaven and He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up)
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord
Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: Robert Byron Hudson
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord lyrics Universal Music - Brentwood Benson Publ., Cccm Music
Videos
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord (Lyric Video) - Maranatha! Singers
YouTube His Gathering Place
Jun 16, 2024

3:03
The Maranatha Singers | Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord Lyrics
YouTube House of the LORD
Apr 24, 2024

5:10
Humble Thyself In The Shine Of The Lord by Maranatha! Music - Lyrics Video
YouTube Inspirational Eagles
Feb 27, 2024

2:58
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord | Maranatha! Singers - Praise 3
YouTube Job Gamaliel
Jan 29, 2026

3:03
People also ask
Where in the Bible does it say "humble thyself in the sight of the Lord"?
What does it mean to humble thyself in the sight of the Lord?
What are the lyrics to the song "Teach Me Thy Way, O Lord"?

Spotify - Web Player: Music for everyone
https://open.spotify.com
Humble Thyself In the Sight of the Lord - song and lyrics by Maranatha Singers
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord. And He shall lift you up (and He shall lift you up) Higher and higher and He shall lift you up. Humble thyself the ...
People also search for

Spirit Song lyrics
The Maranatha! Singers

Behold What Manner of Love lyrics
The Maranatha! Singers

Make Me a Servant lyrics
The Maranatha! Singers

We Have Come Into His House (Let's Forget About Ourselves) lyrics
The Maranatha! Singers

Father I Adore You lyrics
The Maranatha! Singers

Streetdirectory
https://www.streetdirectory.com
Humble Thyself Lyrics by Acappella
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord And he will lift you up And he will lift you up Amazing grace how sweet the sound

Ultimate Guitar
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord Chords by The Maranatha ...
Sep 12, 2021 e 1] Em D Em Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord [Verse 1] Em D Em Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord [Chorus] C D Em And He Will Lift ...
4.8(18)

Spotify - Web Player: Music for everyone
https://open.spotify.com
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord - song and lyrics by Maranatha! Music
Lyrics. Humble Thyself in the sight of the Lord. Humble Thyself in the sight of the Lord. And He shall lift you up. Higher and Higher And He shall lift you ...
Images
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord Sheet Music PDF ...
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord Sheet Music PDF ...

PraiseCharts
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord

YouTube
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord Chords PDF (Maranatha ...
Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord Chords PDF (Maranatha ...

PraiseCharts
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord - piano instrumental cover with lyrics
Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord - piano instrumental cover with lyrics

YouTube

YouTube Family Worship
12.3K+ views 5 years ago
Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord lyric video
1:08
Lyric Video based on Luke 14:11 Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord lyric video. The Maranatha Singers | Humble Thyself in the Sight of the ...

Lyricsify
https://www.lyricsify.com
Lyrics Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord.lrc The Maranatha! Singers
"Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord" lrc lyrics download The Maranatha! Singers Lyrics Lyrics Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

They were not accepted by they Jews as being Cannanical. They were not in the early Canons. They were jncluded later with the understanding that they were not Scripture and not part of the Cannon, the Catholics started including it later. No wonder they are so screwed up. Sola Scriptura is what I believe. If you don't then you are in serious error and danger.

---

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Macedonian Greek pharaoh of Egypt, sent seventy-two Hebrew translatorssix from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israelfrom Second Temple era Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek, for inclusion in Library of Alexandria. The Jews of Alexandria celebrated the translation with an annual festival on Pharos, where the Lighthouse of Alexandria stoodthe location where the translation was said to have taken place. The resulting text, the Septuagint, does include the deutrocanonical books.

---

False. The resulting text from what you just described was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah only. The rest of the Hebrew canon was translated afterwards, over the next few centuries, by different people and in different places and in different times. Those translations were not, however, of the same quality as the original Torah translation. It was during this period that the non-canonical books (the deuterocanon) were translated into Greek. The "Septuagint" was not a "bible". It was not a single bound source containing the Hebrew canon. It was, rather, a collection of translations of all the important books in the Hebrew religion, still in separate scrolls. The concept that many of you simply refuse to grasp is that BOTH canonical and non-canonical books were translated as part of the "Septuagint". The Jews regarded the deuterocanonical books as useful for reading and instruction, therefore they were also translated into Greek - but they were not considered to be canonical.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

They were not accepted by they Jews as being Cannanical. They were not in the early Canons. They were jncluded later with the understanding that they were not Scripture and not part of the Cannon, the Catholics started including it later. No wonder they are so screwed up. Sola Scriptura is what I believe. If you don't then you are in serious error and danger.

---

You need to understand that the modern Jewish canon of the Old Testament was finalized after Christ and eliminated the more problematic text that the Jews from the period before Christ accepted (as above). Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Textfive books of the Torah, eight books of the Nevi'im (Prophets), and eleven books of the Ketuvim (Writings)as the authoritative version of the Tanakh. But this canon dates to 800 AD, created by Jews who knew about Jesus and had rejected him as a requirement to create this canon.

The Masoretic Text of Rabbinic Judaism is not a reliable source for Christians because of this.

---

False. This canon doesn't date to 800 AD. This is the same Hebrew canon as cited by Josephus in the first century.