Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Authority for Jewish Synagogues

February 11 2005, 6:12 PM 

David and Eddie,

Ken Sublett has given an extensive review of the subject of Jewish synagogues, yet you seem not to have read his posts about it. He quoted Psalm 74:8 (KJV), which definitely mentions "synagogue." Although some believe that synagogues arose during the Babylonian exile when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Acts 15:21 (KJV) implies that synagogues existed even in the time of Moses, before the first Temple was ever constructed: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

Synagogues were in every Jewish community in Old Testament times as places for religious instruction and weekly worship. The purpose of the Temple in Jerusalem was for the offering of the sacrifices as required by the Mosaic Law and for public assembly at the several feasts that were required throughout the year. These sacrifices and feasts would not have been observed in the local synagogues. And it would not have made sense for Jews living on the far boundaries of the Holy Land at the time to travel every sabbath day to Jerusalem to the Temple for worship. But they were required to make the journey for the mandatory sacrifices and feasts.

Were synagogues authorized or scriptural? They fit the criterion of "necessary inference from Scripture" as posted earlier. Since we know that Jesus was sinless, it is pure heresy to believe that He could have defied His Father and participated in anything that His Father had not authorized. Since synagogues are mentioned in Scripture and neither the prophets nor Jesus condemned them, why would anyone believe that they would not be authorized?

 Respond to this message   
David Hardin
(no login)

Re: Authority for Jewish Synagogues

February 14 2005, 1:41 PM 

Dr. Crump,

“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”

Temple worship is commanded. Synagogue worship is not commanded.

David Hardin

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: Authority for Jewish Synagogues (David Hardin)

February 14 2005, 9:33 PM 


It's quite clear that you are determined to believe that Jesus engaged in something that God allegedly did not command; if God commands something, He authorizes it and approves of it. Very well, you are quite free to believe that. Permit me to exercise a bit of logic before returning to the law of exclusion. If Jesus truly engaged in something that God had not commanded, authorized, or approved of, then we would have to conclude that Jesus defied or disobeyed God and sinned. To defy or to disobey God is to sin. Therefore, all of Christendom is wrong about Jesus being sinless; He was no better than the rest of us. Now don't change tracks and say that Jesus was sinless but at the same time did that which God had not commanded. Jesus (unless He was a liar) said that we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon, at the same time. Jesus could not serve God and still engage in synagogue worship, if God did not authorize synagogues. That reasoning would not be sound at all. Jesus was either all-divine and all-obedient to His Father, or He was a rebellious sinner.

From your reasoning of synagogues, you imply that all biblical commands must come directly from God, or they are not binding. You would seemingly deny apostolic example and direct biblical inference. If that is true, then our worship on the first day of the week is not authorized by God; hence, we sin every week. God directly commanded worship on the seventh day in the Ten Commandments. Where did God ever say, "Thou shalt worship Me on the first day of the week"? Nowhere in the New Testament will anyone ever find a direct command from God (or even from Christ) to worship on the first day. But remember that seventh-day worship pertained to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus fulfilled; it is no longer binding in the Gospel age. Yet we have apostolic example and biblical inference that early Christians met on the first day to break bread. Does this mean that the apostles engaged in that which God didn't authorize or approve of? Whom do you think authorized the apostolic example and the direct biblical inference? In addition to God’s direct commands, aren’t apostolic example and direct biblical inference sufficient to prove that something is scriptural, divinely authorized, and without sin?

Now to the law of exclusion and synagogues. Yes, God authorized Temple worship. However, that does not prove that He did not also authorize synagogues at some point for religious instruction. Does the law of exclusion even apply here? The law of exclusion applies, unless direct inference from Scripture elsewhere overrides it. That should be quite evident. But if you fixate only on Temple worship and deliberately ignore what the Scriptures elsewhere infer about synagogues, then you abuse the law of exclusion to satisfy your own personal prejudices.

We have biblical inference in passages like Exodus 18:20, Deut. 6:4-9, Jeremiah 36:12-15, and others, which indicate that God commanded for His people to have instruction in His Law. No, synagogues as such are not specifically mentioned, only vaguely implied. But the real clincher is Acts 15:21, which states that synagogues long predated the apostolic age. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if God had not authorized or approved of synagogues at some point in Old Testament history, His prophets would have openly condemned them (for they were very good at condemning disobedience to God), and Jesus would not have set foot in them.

The biblical inference is clear that synagogues were authorized. Believe it or not.

 Respond to this message   
David Hardin
(no login)

Jesus and the Law of Exclusion

February 15 2005, 11:34 AM 

Dr. Crump,

We have not left the man made law of exclusion. We are dealing with a biblical test of it. Your argument is circular. “Permit me to exercise a bit of logic before returning to the law of exclusion. If Jesus truly engaged in something that God had not commanded, authorized, or approved of, then we would have to conclude that Jesus defied or disobeyed God and sinned. To defy or to disobey God is to sin.”

Why can you not at least consider the possibility that the premise is faulty? There remains no command for Synagogue Worship. There is no book chapter and verse out of all you and the others have quoted that give authority for Synagogue Worship. You have reasoned your way all around it. Jesus did not defy or disobey God. Jesus did something other than what was specifically authorized. Your man made law defines that as sin.

“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.” At least in this case the alternative was not prohibited by God and not sinful.

The subject at the top of this thread is “Who is dividing the church, and why do some leave the faith?” It may be we teach for doctrine the commandments of men.

Jesus remains sinless despite the man made command! God did approve of the actions of Jesus even though they were not commanded or authorized!

David Hardin

 Respond to this message   
John Waddey
(no login)

Jesus and Synagogue Worship

February 14 2005, 3:27 AM 

In my American Standard Version of the Bible (1901) the word synagogue is found in Ps. 74:8. There the writer laments the fact that "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land..." The footnote renders this "places of assembly." It is conceded by all that synagogues came into existence during the Babylonian exile. When it was impossible for the people to assemble for worship at Jerusalem, they did the best they could and assembled for prayer, praise and study of the Law of God. Upon their return to Palestine they brought their practice with them. Prior to the captivity, sacrifice and designated holy days were observed in Jerusalem at the temple. However, God had made provision for teaching in their local communities and other places as needed (Jer. 36:12-15). The people could consult the prophets in other places as needed (II King 4:38). The people were instructed to teach the law to their children (Deut. 6:7-9). When the Hebrews entered their land, specific territories were allotted to all the tribes save the Levites. They were scattered in cities throughout the other tribal states. That made them available to instruct the people as needed. (Josh. 21:20-42). James said, "Moses, from generations of old, hath them that preach the synagogues..." (Acts 15:21). So those who seek to prove there was no provision for such teaching are making large assumptions. Me thinks this is but a dodge to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible that we are not to add to or take from the things God has authorized for us to do. You fail to consider:
  • That Jesus himself is the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16) and the I AM (John 8:58). He is the Lord of the temple and its worship. He demonstrated this by driving the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:14-16) and by declaring his new message to be a superior way than that of old times (Matt. 5:21-47). If he went to the synagogue for worship, it was not in any way wrong to do so.

  • He who spoke to Moses in the bush (John 8:58) had the right to do as he willed. He did no wrong (I Pet. 2:22) and his way was that of truth (John 14:6). He did not violate his own law.

  • They seek to justify their disobedience by appealing to something they don't know, i.e., that God did not authorize the synagogues. For example we have no example of Jesus offering sacrifices in the temple. Does that prove he did not? We have no example that he gave tithes of his income in the years prior to his ministry. But we would assume that he did so. Because he came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17).

  • That Jesus went to the synagogue implies certain things: (1) That it was the right thing to do in that day and age. (2) That he found it an opportunity to teach those who were seeking God's will.

  • They fail to see that it is always right for God-fearing people to assemble for prayer and study of God's will.

  • The relation of the synagogue to the temple was similar to the relationship between the Lord's Day worship with communion and a midweek Bible Class. We have no specific authority for the Class but we do have generic authority since we are told to read and teach God's Word and to grow in the knowledge thereof (Acts 17:11; II Pet. 3:18).

  • They forget that in the ancient synagogue the Jews never used instruments of music. They were used only in temple worship where they were specifically authorized (II Chron. 29:25).

  • They cannot deny that the Holy Spirit guided the biblical writers to show us that God indeed expects his people to do that which he instructs them to do and the danger of presuming to do something merely because he did not forbid that act (Deut. 4:2). For example Nadab and Abihu, Naaman, and Uzzah in the Old Testament and in the case of the Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:24 and the priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:14).
I marvel at the ingenuity of rebellious sinners who are so determined to have their own way that they try to involve the Savior himself in their presumptuous behavior.

John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now


 Respond to this message   
David Hardin
(no login)

Re: Jesus and Synagogue Worship

February 14 2005, 12:21 PM 

Brother John,

“They fail to see that it is always right for God-fearing people to assemble for prayer and study of God's will.”

“When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”

Your words not mine.

Are you consistent?

David Hardin

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Jesus and Synagogue

February 14 2005, 3:06 PM 

I agree with you. I say again that Jesus promised to build HIS ekklesia which means synagogue but is not related to CHURCH which adds on extras as did the synagogue which was ORGANIZED but not originated in Babylon.

A synagogue is an ekklesia and they both simply mean ASSEMBLY. The word SYNAGOGUE is A GREEK WORD and we do not find it often in the HEBREW text. Make sense? However, in the Greek version the word is EKKLESIA. Jesus said to COME LEARN OF ME. When they assembled or synagogued in Acts 20:7 paul DID NOT preach but DIALOGED. The proper synagogue involved READING the word "as it has been taught" says Paul to the elders--not to the preachers. People prayed their own prayers except the formal READING of a prayer hymn.

The meaning of RESTORATION has T. Campbell defining CHURCH as a school of Christ and WORSHIP as reading and dialoging the WORD. Singing was PSALMS until A. Campbell and others published SONG BOOKS which was about like publishing a self-composed bible.

The word for synagogue in Psalm 74 would NOT be alone if all of the Old Testament was in GREEK.

Mowed (h4150) mo-ade'; ormoed, mo-ade'; or (fem.) mowadah (2 Chron. 8:13), mo-aw-daw'; from 3259; prop. an appointment, i. e. a fixed time or season; spec. a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed)

The silver trumpets were to CALL ASSEMBLY but not for MUSIC or ALARM.

Num 10:3 And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

To assembly is:

Edah (h5712) ay-daw'; fem. of 5707 in the orig. sense of fixture; a stated assemblage (spec. a concourse, or gen. a family or crowd: - assembly, company, congregation, multitude, people, swarm.

The assembly is:

Mowed (h4150) which is translated SYNAGOGUE in Psalm 74.

Deut 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

Solemnity is:

Mowed (h4150)

Deut 31:11 When ALL Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

And throughout the land forever:

Deut 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within THY gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

GATHER IS: Qahal (h6950) kaw-hal'; a prim. root; to convoke: - assemble (selves) (together), gather (selves) together).

This was the GATHERING in the wilderness where the ALARM or playing the trumpets and making a joyful noise was OUTLAWED because the assembly or synagogue was always for INSTRUCTION.

Deut 31:13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

This DEFINES the meaning of worship and BURNING ANIMALS was never defined as the SUNDAY SERVICE worship while the synagogue was like WEDNESDAY night. The SYNAGOGUE was always in UTTER OPPOSITION to the temple rituals which were LIKE THE NATIONS and not spiritual worship.

When "scholars" claim that the synagogue was invented in Babylon they have reference to the GREAT SYNAGOGUE convened in Babylon as well as to the more organized INSTITUTIONALIZED system of building houses for reading the Word, public prayer, higher education where the scholars could be found at the "building," the function of a bank and as a LAW COURT. By the time of Christ this included compulsory education beginning at about aged 5.

Paul never used the word CHURCH: he used the word ekklesia. When people GATHER or ASSEMBLY it was for GIVING HEED TO THE WORD and individual prayers. Singing UTTERLY FAILED if it did not mean to TEACH the inspired Biblical text. Even the Lord's Supper was to show forth or TEACH the death of Christ.

ANYTHING you add to that diminishes the role of the gathering (synagogue or ekklesia and NEVER church).

Isaiah 58 explains modern CHURCH and why it rarely works. To those DAILY SEEKING to know God's Ways, here was part of the DIRECT COMMAND:

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking THINE OWN words:


 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(Login Donnie.Cruz)

Re: Re: “Generic and Specific Authority” tested (David Hardin)

February 12 2005, 10:22 PM 


I think we pretty much agree on what occurred in the “synagogue” assembly: reading and teaching of God’s Word (from the OT scrolls prior to New Testament writings); praying; very uncomplicated singing (without musical instruments; without “the worship leader” leading the entire congregation into God’s holy presence; and without “Praise Team” mediation, intervention and co-leading); giving to help the poor and needy. Church history reveals that the early New Testament Christians patterned their “gathering of the saints” or assembly after the “synagogue” assembly, with the exception of the observance of the Lord’s Supper—and understandably so! And so should we, 21st century Christians.

I’m not able to add anymore to Ken’s very detailed explanation of what occurred during that period in biblical history known as the intertestament period. My understanding is that this period covers about 400 years—a period between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament. Whether or not we are to categorize all the biblical events and occurrences prior to the establishment of the church on Pentecost as belonging to this period, it is undeniable that events such as the baptism of Christ and John the Baptist’s ministry, etc., had occurred prior to the founding of the NT church, including all other events and happenings in Jesus’ life on earth which point to the fulfillment of the establishment of his kingdom or the church (Matt. 16:16-19; Acts 2).

Mention of or reference to the word “synagogue” in the Old Testament is practically nil, with the exception of Ps. 74:8. The KJV renders, “They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.” The NIV renders: “They said in their hearts, "We will crush them completely!" They burned every place where God was worshiped in the land.” But the implication from both versions has significance only in terms of the building or gathering place—not what occurred in the gathering.

“Synagogue” assembly, from historical perspectives and as our point of reference here, is the kind of assembly in the Jewish community during the intertestament period—from/after which, again, we can infer that the NT assembly of the first century Christians was patterned. And during this period, we need to consider important events, such as the dispersion of the Jews in the Persian era—one reason for the frequent references to the “synagogue” in the New Testament, either as a gathering place or what occurred in the gathering.

Within the New Testament, practically all references to the “synagogue” occur in the four gospels—again, pre-NT church events—and in the book of Acts, a history of Christ’s church of the first century—a period reflecting apparent “synagogue” influences among the early Christians of Jewish background. The passages point to the fact that Jesus’ ministry involved teaching in their synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; etc.); preaching in their synagogues (Mark 1:39; etc.); healing in the synagogues (Luke 6:6; etc.) even on the sabbath day (Luke 13:10; etc.)—a clear violation of the OT sabbath law, yet Jesus did so. My main point in bringing all the above events is to bring to our attention that we should not bring Jesus Christ down to our level. He is our Savior and lived a sinless life; and although we are followers of Christ, and with/because of all our human limitations, we simply cannot do some of the things he did or had, such as possession of the miraculous healing power. Therefore, to associate what Jesus did, specifically teaching, preaching and healing in the synagogue (a gathering place) or to use Jesus’ participation in synagogue “worship” as an example to unjustify the principle of “where there is a specific command, the unspecified or assumed command is ruled out”—such association is irrelevant and incongruent to the stated principle.

David, we agree with you in stating that John Waddey’s statement regarding “specific commands” is not found in the Scriptures. But neither are other statements or mottos expressed by men of the Restoration Movement and others:
    "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things charity."

    “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.”

    “Touch not, taste not, handle not … intoxicating drinks.” (he-he-he)

    “As there is, in our day, an abundance of material and diversity of opinion to choose from, insofar as the question of whose insights should be used, let the Scriptures be our guide.”

    “We establish the authority of Christ by direct command, by apostolic or approved example, or by necessary inference.”

    “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”

These are not exactly or directly stated in the Bible. However, these are excellent principles to live by and to keep us from perverting biblical truths. By the way, in the last stated principle above, the KEY word is “specifically”—NOT “generically.” The specific command to “love God” (even without the word “only”) excludes the command to “love other gods.”


 Respond to this message   
David Hardin
(no login)

Re: Re: “Generic and Specific Authority” tested (David Hardin)

February 14 2005, 12:11 PM 


Thanks for the response. “Specifically” was Synagogue worship wrong because it was not specifically commanded?

It would not seem to mater if this happened time wise between the old and new laws. The old had not yet been nailed to the tree and would still be in effect. We live after the last book of the new law has been written and it still applies to us.

You know I am not so interested in the Synagogue as I am in the principle of interpretation. Is it a consistent principle?

The principle at question goes to the heart of the law of the silence of the scripture. “When God specifically tells us what he wants us to do, all other alternatives are thereby prohibited.”

Does it test true?
Temple worship was specifically commanded.
Synagogue worship was not commanded but was practiced even by Jesus.
We know Jesus did not sin.
Therefore Synagogue worship was not wrong even though it was other than what was specifically commanded. Likewise, Silence of the scripture here is not a law/ authoritative.

David Hardin

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: Generic and Specific Authority Tested (David Hardin, Feb. 14)

February 15 2005, 10:47 AM 


I applaud your honesty in your ultimately confessing that the whole bit about synagogues was just an attempt to discredit the law of exclusion or silence. Your words: "Likewise, Silence of the scripture here is not a law/authoritative." I was wondering why someone would be so concerned about synagogues, which are not a part of Christian worship. Were you also being completely honest in your statement from Feb. 11, "I am truly trying to learn here"?

You fail to realize that the law of exclusion is a built-in safeguard against our adding anything to Scripture that otherwise does not appear in Scripture, or taking anything away from Scripture that is already a part of Scripture, for purposes of justifying our own personal preferences and prejudices. By attempting to discredit the law of exclusion in claiming that Temple worship automatically excluded synagogues, you take away and deny the biblical inference which clearly shows that synagogues were also authorized by God and accepted by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, as we have previously shown. Thus you violate the very command that God made in both Deut. 4:2 and in Rev. 22:18-19: do not add to or diminish from His Word.

Now I do not expect you to accept this, for you have already made up your mind, and I would imagine that further arguments about this would be completely futile. But to any others who read this, please take care not to tamper in any way whatsoever with the Word of God.

 Respond to this message   
chuck sonn
(no login)

what a spirit!!!

February 15 2005, 8:25 PM 

Dr. Crump,

I am repulsed at your questioning of David's honesty. I've known him for 15 years personally, and you can take what he says to the bank as truth.

I also find one other amazing thing here. I thought the moderators put personal attacks in the viper spot.

Your fruit of the spirit is also showing Dr. Crump...lack of humility and encouragment.

blessings for grace and mercy from our Savior Jesus...


 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: What a Spirit

February 16 2005, 10:35 AM 


No one likes to be "marked" for presenting false doctrine, and those who are called to task for it always claim to be under "personal attack." No, this is in obedience to biblical command (Romans 16:17). David abused the law of exclusion in an attempt to justify his own personal prejudice against the law of exclusion. How can someone expect to debunk a law or principle by using that very law or principle against itself? Nothing divided against itself can ever stand. Find that principle in Matt. 12:25. Using synagogues was a decidedly bad choice, for biblical inference shows that they were authorized. We can hardly be expected to "encourage" an example like this.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: RE: What a Spirit

February 16 2005, 12:55 PM 

law of exclusion???????
Please to point to chaper and verse that uses this exact language.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Law of Exclusion

February 16 2005, 2:46 PM 

The LAW OF MOSES had no redeeming power: all who are justified before, during and after the Law of Moses are justified by FAITH. Galatians 3 connects FAITH with BAPTISM as that which was promised to the children of Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith. Justified means to gain God's approval: if we believe the words of Jesus we are justified on that point. However, that does not remit sins.
    Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
The same Paul said that we are not justified by a LAW OF FAITH and not a LAW OF WORKS (such as singing, clapping, preaching, tithing).

BOASTING (singing, clapping, ranting) is gone by the LAW OF EXCLUSION based on Paul's CONCLUSION that we are justified by FAITH or what we BELIEVE and hold in our hearts:
    Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is EXCLUDED. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.

    Romans 3:28 Therefore we CONCLUDE that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The word is EKKLEIO and means SHUT OUT. If believers are JUSTIFIED by faith then there is a LAW OF EXCLUSION which SHUTS OUT everything I read about your WORSHIP with the works of your hands in a house built by human hands.


The Levitical Warrior "musicians" or noise makers were part of the LAW of animal sacrifices or the LAW of war. Therefore, we can CONCLUDE that they are EXCLUDED as the Jews CONCLUDED when animal sacrifices ceased.

Jesus commanded and PATTERNED praying in private: while we have noted that PRAYING was added to the SYNAGOGUE in Babylon, it was NOT part of the commands of God. Therefore, Jesus has just told YOU that prayer is private and you cannot PRAY for me with silly, erotic praise songs any more than you can make love for me. It is just silly, legalistic patternism. The danger of praying in public is that it is ARTIFICIAL and tempts to performance and hypocrisy.
    Mt.6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Yes, yes, yes! I know that if YOU pray out loud then YOU should not gibberish but PRAY DISTINCTLY.

Jesus said that the doctors of the LAW "take away the key to knowledge." Will He be offended if I CONCLUDE that a doctor of the law who claims superiority to the ELDERS is a scam artist? Do I have permission for my ACTIONS to use the LAW OF EXCLUSION and quit feeding them?

If performance singers and MUSICIANS claimed the role of SORCERY and were recognized by those AWAKE with their clothes with them as PARASITES, may I CONCLUDE and use the LAW OF EXCLUSION to toss them out of the "Holy Place" where they claim to lead you into the presence of God?

EVERONE gives themselves the right to precise language so that when they INCLUDE and SPECIFY a certain thing then the LAW OF EXCLUSION does not give you the right to be terminally stupid and say: "But, yall didn say 'don't buy me a rattle snake instead of a loaf of bread.'"

I believe that it is terminal madness to PRETEND that when Christ prescribed the unleavened bread from the Passover and SPECIFIED the "fruit of the vine" He DIDN'T say "don't bring us menstrual fluids from the pagan Agape."

When Jesus PATTERNED and Paul commanded "that which is written, the spirit or the Word of Christ" in the inspired Biblical text he DID NOT say '"don't sing the Dionysus triumph song and dance" they EXCLUDED self-"Inspired" ditties the ENCOMIAST is rubbing on. If not then the church scholars for 2,000 years found no exception by EXCLUDING junk. AND, in keeping with Rubel Shelly's use of the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE all truth has been shot away by evolved eyes.

If YOU need a DIRECT COMMAND then I have given you one. If that is not good enough then REQUIRING a law makes YOU a LEGALIST. Normal people don't NEED laws to NOT deliberately HURT and discord people so they can ACT UP and ACT OUT.


 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: What a Spirit (Eddie)

February 16 2005, 3:05 PM 

If you must have "exact language," that is, the exact words "law of exclusion" or "law of silence" (for they are one and the same) from the Bible before you will accept this principle, then you will be delighted to know that those exact words do not exist! At this point, you may choose to close your eyes and ears, and say, "Ah ha, the law of exclusion is pure fiction" and go your way. But if you are truly willing to open your eyes and ears and learn that this principle is not man-contrived, that it is genuine, scriptural, and that it can be easily applied to examples throught the Bible, then I bid you to see the thread "Is the Law of Exclusion Scriptural?" at Sunday School in Exile on this site.

 Respond to this message   
chuck sonn
(no login)

liar liar pants on fire!

February 16 2005, 6:34 PM called him a liar! That's what i was refering to. Your discussions of preferences do not impress me as you attempt to make them principles.


 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

law of exclusion

February 16 2005, 8:47 PM 

I wrote:

The same Paul said that we are not justified by a LAW OF FAITH and not a LAW OF WORKS (such as singing, clapping, preaching, tithing).

I should have written:

The same Paul said that we are NOW justified by a LAW OF FAITH and not a LAW OF WORKS (such as singing, clapping, preaching, tithing).


 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: Liar, Liar, etc.

February 16 2005, 8:56 PM 

Tell you what, Chuck, why don't you let David defend himself about the question I raised? He stated that he was "truly trying to learn." From his discussion, I didn't get that impression. It is my opinion that he already had his mind made up and was not about to change it, regardless of what we presented to him about the law of exclusion. And in a message to Donnie Cruz, he did later confess in so many words that he was not really interested in synagogues after all, but only used them (and Jesus) as examples in an attempt to discredit the law of exclusion. To me, this did not sound like someone who ever had any intentions of "truly trying to learn." Now I'm not about to call someone a liar outright if there is some question in the air, and that's why I raised the question. So let David defend himself. I doubt that he needs you for a mouthpiece.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: Liar, Liar, etc., cont.

February 16 2005, 10:28 PM 


I wouldn't want to pass over your observation, "Your discussions of preferences do not impress me as you attempt to make them principles."

I can easily make a monstrous argument about lying over this. In other discussions, I have proved through biblical example that the law of exclusion is not man-made, so it could not be based on personal preferences. I say that we do not make principles of our own to satisfy any preferences about Scripture. But you stand there with your eyes and ears closed and smugly say that we do, without any proof to the contrary. Therefore, you are calling me an outright LIAR! I AM GRIEVOUSLY INSULTED! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME, A PERFECTLY HONEST, UPSTANDING CHRISTIAN, A LIAR!

I'll be generous and let you call me a liar. I'll let you call me a big, fat liar. I'll even let you call me a big, fat, liar with expletives if that would REALLY make your day. Even the Pharisees branded Jesus as possessed of a devil; that is, they completely rejected His message, as you have rejected a most scriptural law of exclusion. What did Jesus do? He forgave those who railed at and verbally persecuted Him, because their eyes and ears, like yours, were closed (Matt. 12:24-32).

Therefore, Chuck, I will forgive your accusation that I am a liar. I also earnestly hope that you will not only grow in maturity (are you not beyond puerile expressions like "liar, liar, pants on fire"?), but that you will also grow in biblical knowledge, which at this point appears to be frighteningly abysmal.

 Respond to this message   
Speak where the Bible is Silent
(no login)

Re: RE: What a Spirit (Eddie)

October 29 2008, 3:43 PM 

How can Bill Crump say in one breath....
"If you must have "exact language," that is, the exact words "law of exclusion" or "law of silence" (for they are one and the same) from the Bible before you will accept this principle, then you will be delighted to know that those exact words do not exist!"

.....then say with the next breath.....

"But if you are truly willing to open your eyes and ears and learn that this principle is not man-contrived, that it is genuine, scriptural, and that it can be easily applied to examples throught the Bible, then I bid you to see the thread "Is the Law of Exclusion Scriptural?" at Sunday School in Exile on this site."

The law of exclusion or silence is not within the confines of the Word, but yet....genuuine and Scriptural???

This, indeed, from a regular member here at

Luke 6
43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

 Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?

There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site;

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter