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  
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 19 2006, 5:22 PM 


I brought up the Saturday evening communion because
I figured you or someone else would pick up on the
first century timing of days. I wasn't really making
a point about the Lord's Supper as much as the criteria
of how to determine fellowship among believers. This is
one of the toughest issues facing most churches and believers.
I have been called a "liberal" because I consider Baptists,
Methodists, etc. as fellow believers. Now that doesn't mean
that I am total agreement with any of those groups. But if
a man or woman would lay down their physical lives for the
cause of Christ and even suffer martydom because of their
faith, then that person is a brother or sister in Christ.
Does it bother me when there are some believers who go
off the deep end in some of their beliefs ? Very much so.
I will share my perspective of the scriptures and appeal
to standing in the truth; but even then as long as they
have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ;
that person is a fellow believer with me.

Tell me PPB, I have been fully immersed in water baptism
for the remission of sins. Even though I worship at a
church different than yours; do you accept me as a fellow
believer ?


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 20 2006, 11:31 PM 


Well - that's not a yes or no question. As you know.

Just because one is baptized does not make one a Christian. Intent, understanding, realization play a key part in baptism. Anyone can be dunked in some water. Jesus reminded us that many would hear his message and act on it - only to never truly have understood it OR some may understand but become weak and fall away, becoming lost sheep.

Could we study together, sure! Could I attend weekly services with you on a PERMANENT basis, believing that what you CONTINUE to believe and teach is in direct opposition to what the scriptures state? Of course not, I would be failing God to do so. There would be a parting of the ways as we are bound by God's command to turn away from those that are unwilling to abide by ALL of his commands and to teach his True Word. How can I do anything else and obey God?

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 22 2006, 7:03 PM 


You mentioned that there would be a parting of the ways
because I do not abide in all of the commandments. The
Lord knows I am not perfect but, one thing that is
very important and precious to me is Bible study and
walking in the truth. Even though I am going through
some difficult financial times I have had no less than
three times where I could have profited from someones
error. One of those times was about $800. And believe
me its not wordkeepers inherent ability with not give
in to temptation but, its God's grace that helps me.
Since you are the one who mentioned my failings in
obeying God's commandments (even though we have never
met one another) I believe you are under obligation
to tell me what I am not obeying. I'd like to know
so that I can have a closer relationship with God.

Also, you said that there would be a parting of the ways.
I was wondering, was there ever a time that you were not
in a relationship with God and did God give up on you ?
Did he have a parting of the ways with you ?

And it is a yes or no answer. I don't know of any
middle ground on this issue. I am a born again
baptized believer. Do you consider me to be a
fellow christian and have full fellowship with me ?
There is not part of the way. It is all the way or

Thank you,


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

Re: Technically Sunset to Sunset

June 22 2006, 11:21 PM 

It's one thing to strive to follow Christ's commands as best as possible. No one is perfect, and not even Christ expects all to be sinless and "perfect," even if He did exhort all to be perfect: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48 KJV).

But it's another thing to know what Christ's commands are and still not follow them, because church tradition, or denominational creed, or a close circle of influential friends says to do something else. When there is deliberate deviation from Scripture without any attempt to follow the path designated in the New Testament, then there must be a parting between friends and acquaintances, even between relatives if necessary. Jesus demands everything from us in obedience, not just a token portion.

 Respond to this message   
(Login markfl)

You Hit it on the Head

June 26 2006, 7:00 PM 

Dr. Crump,

Kudos on the thoughts.

So, if a group truely thought that, based on the Jewish calendar, the accounts in Acts and early churh history, the Lord's Supper was to be taken after dark on Saturday by the Apostles and the early church there in Jerusalem. I mean, they have studied church history and Jewish history and have all come to the conclusion that Saturday night and Sunday morning are "The First Day of the Week." This group would be honestly striving to do God's will.

However, if they decided they wanted to meet on Saturday night because they didn't want to get up on Sunday morning and derived a reason, they would be at fault because thier hearts were not right. They would not be seeking God's will, but rather trying to mold God's will to meet their will.

So much goes back to Christ's teaching during the Sermon on the Mt. Excuse my paraphrase but, "It ain't just what you do, it's what's in your heart." It is a matter of heart!

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

Re: You Hit it on the Head

June 26 2006, 10:14 PM 

In another thread, I believe I discussed the business of time zones and when the first day of the week begins in the Middle East and when it begins in the West. Christians in the West follow the Gregorian calendar, not the Jewish calendar. Therefore, for Christians in the West, the first day of the week begins on Sunday at midnight, not on Saturday at sundown. Perhaps you wish to be a kind of alternative Judaizer by combining some elements of Judaism with Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.

 Respond to this message   
(Login markfl)

Western Culture Dictates Things?

June 27 2006, 1:59 AM 

I thought we were supposed to model ourselves after the early church, after the patterns we see in Acts and the Epistles. I thought we weren't supposed to let our culture mold what we do and when we do it? Or, if our western culture can dictate when we partake of the Lord's Supper, can it alter other things?

What I am trying to get at is, if you look at the historic information and combine that with the accounts of the Lord's Supper as told in the early chapters in Acts, you have to conclude that these accounts occured in the evening of the first day of the week. If you translate that to our calendar, it was actually like having the Lord's Supper in the evening on Saturday.

I am not advocating that we meet on Saturday nights, I am fine with my Sunday Morning Service. I find the sundown to sunup argument a bit legalistic. But, a group could take this example and try to follow it by meeting after sundown on Saturday night and still be within the parameters of the example given in Acts.

But let's face it, that is not what the Lord's Supper is about. It is not about Sunday at 10:15 or Sunday night at 6:30, it is about celbrating the Lord's death and resurection. It is about sharing with fellow christians the memory of the sacrifice that God made for us. It is about keeping focus on the cross and letting God's will work in our lives.

There is no doubt that the church at Jerusalem "broke bread" daily at first and always "broke bread" on the first day of the week.

In Christ,

Mark F

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

Time Is Relative

June 27 2006, 10:41 AM 

[From "The Body of Christ" Thread]:

There seems to be a move on to "move" worship from Sunday AM to Saturday PM, or at least to emphasize Saturday PM worship over Sunday PM worship. Could this be a Seventh-Day Adventist overtone? The concept derives from the fact that each "day" in first-century Palestine spanned from sunset to sunset, with the further claim that since Sunday PM worship falls outside this time frame, it is therefore unscriptural. So if Christian worship should follow the Saturday PM time frame of the first century, it follows that it should match the time frame in ancient Palestine (now present-day Israel), for the "hour of worship" in that part of the world is the gold standard for worship. At least that's what some are really implying when they would change worship to Saturday PM, based on the first-century standard. Given that, then Christians in each time zone of the world would have to calculate when their time zone corresponded to Saturday PM in Israel. In doing so, Christians all over the world would then be worshiping at the same relative time, be that at midday or 3 AM, but it all would be based on the first-century standard of Saturday PM.

But I gather that by now, many are rolling their eyes and saying, "How ridiculous!" And it is.

The "day" in the Middle East may have been from sunset to sunset, but in the Western world, it spans from midnight to midnight. "Sunday" in the Middle East may have been from sunset on Saturday to sunset on Sunday, but in the West, "Sunday" runs from 12 midnight Sunday to 11:59.99 PM on Sunday. Time zones and when the days change determine when "Sunday" arrives. That is, all time is relative. Regarding Saturday PM as "Sunday" and worshiping thereon may be fine for the Middle East, but in the West, Saturday PM is still regarded as "Saturday PM," which is not yet Sunday.

In the West, Saturday PM worship does not correspond to worship on the first day of the week (Sunday). On the other hand, Sunday AM and PM worship still fall on the first day of the week.

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

Re: Western Culture Dictates Things?

June 27 2006, 5:21 PM 

Mark F.: "I am not advocating that we meet on Saturday nights, I am fine with my Sunday Morning Service."

Good. Then there's nothing to argue about.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Time Is Relative

June 27 2006, 5:25 PM 

I'd like to make three points:

1) A long time ago through extensive
Bible study I had a very strong desire
to cut through all of the vast information
that is in the various religions and find
out what God really wants. One passage hit
me like a ton of bricks. Galations 5:1.
"So Christ has really set us free. Now
make sure you stay free and don't get tied
up again in slavery to the law." NLT
I finally felt liberated to express myself
in Christ in total freedom with endless
possibilities of ways in which to worship

2) After that discovery one of the most
important principles I learned is to not
limit the good that can be done in worship.
Observing the Lord's Supper is good and I
have no problem with anyone who wants to
celebrate it 7 days a week. Can anyone find
just one logical reason why something good
should have limits ? I have observed the Lord's
Supper on a Tuesday afternnon with fellow believers.
Anytime is a good time for genuine acts of worship.

3) Back to the criticism of Saturday evening
worship services I have two things to say. One
is that I have a good friend who is Jewish and
he attends synagogue on Friday evening at sundown
local (Kentucky) time not 3.A.M Palistine time.
In marking days the criteria is based on your own
local time regardless of the time in Palestine.
Second, I agree with Mark F. That if the reason
why people meet on Saturday evenings is to sleep
in on Sundays, then I don't buy into it. But if
the reason to worship Satuday evenings is to use
Sunday to go to the unchurch and evangelize or
do community work then, that is a good reason to
move worship service on Saturdays.

Thank you,


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

Re: Time Is Relative

June 28 2006, 9:35 AM 

Here's a better suggestion: If one must sleep in, then do so on Saturday AM and then later go to the unchurched and evangelize on Saturday afternoon or PM. However, because the unchurched will likely be out on the town on Saturday PM, the night's agenda will even more likely precipitate a desperately needed Sunday AM sleep-in, in which case the unchurched would hardly be in any kind of receptive mood to talk with you at that time. Therefore, keep Sunday as the Lord's Day and worship thereon as per the New Testament.

 Respond to this message   
Mark F.
(Login markfl)

Nothing to Debate

June 29 2006, 1:16 AM 

Dr. Crump,

I would rebut and say there is a principle to be argued here. We, in the Church of Christ, have a proud heritage of trying to follow biblical patterns instead of following culture or traditions of men. I have no issue with that, in fact, the willingness to search the scriptures is the heritage that I hold to in the Church of Christ as it is know in the U.S.

My issue is that, with many in the Church of Christ, when an idea is challenged (such as Sat v. Sun communion) and backed with scripture and historical information to give context, we fall back on our culture and traditions instead of being open to the concept.

Maybe the concept does extend from a denomination, but does that in and of itself make a practice null and void? Absolutely not, what voids a practice is it's lack of biblical backing. Would you totally disregard C.S. Lewis? There are wonderful points to be taken from books like "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters" that are scriptural. There are also points, mainly focused on salvation, that are completely off base. But does the fact that there is error in those books make all of the points in those books null and void? No, the points that are scriptural have value and the points that lack biblical support are null. We should desire to grow through those things of value and disregard those that have no biblical support.

Again, we hold so strongly to our traditions that we often do not see or understand where those traditions come from. Take dual service on Sundays. No where in the N.T. do we see the example of a Sunday Morning and Sunday Evening service. In fact, as I stated earlier, the meetings were most likely held in the evening to accomidate the workday. This is supported by the meals that occompanied the Lord's Supper in the early church. This is also supported by historians who noted that it was centuries after the death of Christ before christians began to meet in the morning for a public worship. Yet, try to deviate from Sunday night service for even 1 Sunday night and see the outcry from many of the members. Try to suggest that groups focus on visiting the sick, feeding the homeless, or some other service related thing on Sunday nights instead of having a formal worship service and you will see people cling to tradition. We have turned something that was EXPEDIANT to serve the needs of a few into something that is a NECESSITY and must be in III John somewhere.

I am here to learn and take in the various points of view on the topics discussed here. I hope that this discussion is between a group of people that are open enough and honest enough to listen with an open heart and open mind, neither quickly accepting the other perspective nor quickly disregarding the other perspective. I will always approach things saying, "This is my understanding of scriptures, but God tells me not to lean on my own understanding. I could be wrong."

That is why we need each other in the Body of Christ. We all bring our perspectives, experience and knowledge to the table. We all have different levels of maturity and we all vary in our maturity in different aspects of our life.

In Christ,

Mark F.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: Time Is Relative

June 29 2006, 4:56 PM 

Dr. Crump,

Where is it that you find that I advocate sleeping
in on any day. That was Mark f.'s concern and I
merely agreed with him that sleeping in on Sunday
is a lame excuse for having Saturday evening service.
Now back to my point. You mentioned that Saturday is
a good time to reach the unchurched; but, really Sunday
is a better time. I have worshiped at a Messianic
Synagogue on Saturday at sundown (the beginning of
the Lord's Day) and on Sunday it is easy to spot the
unchurched in my neighborhood. I, along with other
believers, would go around various neighborhoods and
do various chores with people at their homes; like
washing their cars or during the Fall season rake their
leaves. They would ask why we are doing such a thing and
we would reply that we are Christians and are doers of
the word and not hearers only. Most people appreciate that.

Just out of curiosity why are the unchurhed more likely
to spend weekends out of town compared to believers.
That one really has me puzzled ??

Thank you,


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: You Hit it on the Head

July 4 2006, 1:51 AM 

Mark F,

I don't know if you read my response several postings above this one, but your comments regarding assembly/LS on Saturday evening is very erroneous.

I don't mean to be rude, but your statements need to be corrected so that others will not be misled by them. Your "theory" could cause confusion (stumbling block) for those who do not have the ability or means to study this issue in more detail.

As to the early Church - again, there are plenty of documents that verify that the early Christians did NOT meet on Saturday night. These writings explain how the "old ways" had been put away - including the Sabbath, which was designed for Jews under the old law. Christ had clearly taught that ALL Christians were no longer bound by the old law nor had to keep the Sabbath. Furthermore, the Gentiles were NEVER bound by this law and they were just as important to Christ as the Jewish Christians. The Gentiles had to put away their old ways also (which many had met on Saturday for their pagan rites/assemblies).

A thorough study of the NT provides a startling clear picture (or pattern) regarding major events, especially those surrounding Jesus' resurrection/Beginning of the Church, occurring on Sunday. We know that the first century Christians considered the Sabbath or any part of that day as belonging to the old law and something to which they were NOT to be chained. They could still rest on that day (since everyone else was, anway), but it was NOT the day set aside to meet with their fellow Christians and partake of the LS.

We need to remember that the sabbath was still viewed as "God's day of rest" from his labors. Instead, with Christ's resurrection and the beginning of the Church occurring on Sunday, a new day had begun - the "Lord's Day". The parallels here are very eye opening, but would take up quite a bit of this posting...

It's also important to remember that scripturally, we know the Apostles met regulary on Sunday. An investigation into that verse and a study of the original Greek meaning leaves no doubt that it was a REGULAR type of meeting held on what we call Sunday. This is further verified in the early Christian writings.

Historical documents leave little room for doubt that the Lord's Day was Sunday. More importantly, a thorough study of the entire NT provides a clear picture of the changes that Christ brought to both the Jews and Gentiles.

Hoping to help clarify this issue - as the truth seems to have been lost somewhere in all the postings.

 Respond to this message   
Mark F
(Login markfl)

A response

July 5 2006, 10:10 AM 


I am not disagreeing that the early church met on the first day of the week. There is little doubt of that fact. I am focusing specifically on the church at Jerusalem in the first years after the church was started and what hours defined what they called the first day of the week. Can you let me know where I am wrong here.

Historical Assumption 1:

The church that met in Jerusalem immediately following pentacost would have followed the calendar and definition of a day that was excepted by the culture around it. In Jerusalem, that would have defined a day as sundown to sundown.

Historical Assumption 2:

The first day of the week (Sunday) would have been a normal workday for people in Jerusalem.

Historical Assumption 3:

The most probable time for the christians in Jerusalem to meet would have either been early in the morning (before work) or late in the evening (after work).

Based on that, the christians in Jerusalem would have met the first day of the week in the evening (what we know as Saturday night) or the first day of the week in the morning.

Let me know where I am wrong.

In Christ,

Mark F.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: A response

July 6 2006, 4:57 PM 

I agree with you Mark F. From what I
read of the responses by Dr. Bill Crump
and PPB they cannot get over the hump of
thinking in terms of the days set in N.T.
times from sunset to sunset. They still
are in a Western culture frame of thinking
of midnight to midnight. I also agree with
you that not only in churches of Christ but
mostly all denominations would be in an
uproar to cancel Sunday evening services.
For all of the talk of being different by
abiding to the New Testament example they
still cling tightly to Western influences.

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

Re: A response

July 7 2006, 12:57 PM 

The New Testament implies that we are now to worship on the first day of the week. The New Testament makes no command or authorization to use a specific calendar for worship. But if some Christians ASSUME (which can get them into a peck of trouble) that they must worship according to the Jewish calendar of first-century Palestine, then they must completely abandon the Gregorian calendar, because that would be worshiping according to "Western" fashion. That is, they absolutely cannot take the Gregorian calendar and say that the first day of the week begins Saturday at sundown, because there would still be the Western influence. Of course, the Julian calendar was in vogue in first-century Palestine, imposed by Julius Caesar around 45 B.C. and used by the Romans who ruled Palestine in the first century A.D., but I suppose that wouldn't do, either. And no doubt the Jewish calendar used today has been modified over the centuries as well, just like the modern Jewish worship today is nothing like it was in first-century Palestine (for example, no animal sacrifices today, at least not in the USA that I can recall). What to do?

So if people are hung up over the Jewish calendar for worship, why stop there? If they are set on mixing a specific culture with worship, then by all means, don't just pick and choose; do everything first-century-Jewish-Palestinian-style: adopt first-century Jewish dress (nothing Western), eat first-century Jewish food (nothing Western), live in first-century Jewish abodes, work at first-century Jewish jobs, use no electricity, heat with fire, cool off with a dip in the river, use no running water, no plumbing, no modern conveniences, use only carts drawn by donkeys or oxen, use no cars, trains, buses, trucks, aircraft, Internet, computers--in short, nothing remotely associated with the 21st century, only the FIRST CENTURY!


We can realize that since the New Testament does not command the use of a specific calendar in worship but does imply that we are to worship on the first day of the week, then that first day of the week is determined by the specific calendar in use by each society. In short, only time is relative. But also notice that specifically how to worship God has not changed in the New Testament.

 Respond to this message   
(Login wordkeeper)

Re: A response

July 8 2006, 11:35 AM 

Dr. Bill Crump,

I think we are both beating a dead horse
and I'll let you decide which end I've
been hitting.

My point I make about the discussion of
when to take the Lord's Supper brought
out the legalistic interpretation of
scripture. My own position is take it
any day you want to. Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, etc. It is alright with me
if a believer feels led to take communion
every day of his/her life. For one, in
I Corinthians 11 Paul states "AS often
as you do this(Lord's Supper)... Do this
in rememberence of me (Jesus)."

Also, when I read the text reference for the
weekly Lord's Supper in Acts 20 " On the first
day of the week..." I have to ask myself as to
whether the writer was intending to give a
command from the Lord or just making an observable
fact that on that particular day they wanted to
share the Lord's supper just like one would say
"On Tuesday we met at church for Bible study."
Is Acts 20 an observable fact to inform readers
of an event that took place on a particular day
or was the intention of the writer to set a pattern
for all future generation of believers ??

Thank you,


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: A response

July 21 2006, 1:47 AM 

Mark F.

Well, here it goes...Just some interesting facts on the Lord's Day (Eighth Day).

Historical Assumption 1:

"The church that met in Jerusalem immediately following pentacost would have followed the calendar and definition of a day that was excepted by the culture around it. In Jerusalem,that would have defined a day as sundown to sundown." --

Mark, you are combining two distinct issues. The first meeting is NOT the same as those that followed. Don't forget that that eventful meeting started on Saturday evening, but it ended on Sunday - BEFORE the church was begun. Jesus was still alive and the Jewish Law still abided.

There is so much signigicance in this meeting. The true Passover feast sacrificed a Paschal lamb, but Jesus explained that he would become the sacrificial lamb - hence the LS in remembrance. There was a changing from the Old Law to the New. An end and a beginning. The setting of the sun and the dawning of a new day... A new future and deliverance by Jesus of Christian's from their bondage on earth. All these play into first century culture and understanding.

After Christ's death and resurrection, Sunday takes on a new element here - a beginning that is separate and distinct from the Jewish Law. A day to celebrate the beginning of the church and to remember Christ's sacrifice. Saturday no longer held any significance in their religious life.

Historians agree that the early churches met on Sunday. It was well known to even the Romans that Sunday was the Christian's day of meeting. Church historian, Eusubius, tells us that the early church met on our "Sunday".

Here are just three of many such documents:

Didache clearly states that the first Christians met on the Lord's Day. (Around 100 AD)
Ignatius states "No longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day". (105 AD)
Justin Martyr states "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place..." (195 AD)
The Book of Barnabas also clearly states that the early church met on the eighth day (Sunday).

Historical Assumption 2:

"The first day of the week (Sunday) would have been a normal workday for people in Jerusalem." - -

Are you saying they couldn't meet on a workday? Do you go to Church during the work week? I do. Their work days ended earlier, so there were plenty of opportunities to meet on Sunday. Again, this is historical records, not my assumption.

Historical Assumption 3:

"The most probable time for the christians in Jerusalem to meet would have either been early in the morning (before work) or late in the evening (after work)." - -

Exactly. So why does Saturday keep coming up? The scriptures state that the Apostles met on the Lord's Day. Historical records clearly show that the Lord's Day is our Sunday.

 Respond to this message   
Darryl Scott
(Login Darryl.Scott)


June 12 2006, 6:11 PM 

Allow me to propose a scenario as you did. There is a congregation that has formed at a rented building. They meet every Sunday morning and they too disdain titles and denomination affiliations. They also go by the name Christian and have a leader that tends to their needs. They also use instrumental music during their song service and participate in communion every Sunday.

Now, will you fellowship them?

After you decide I will tell you who they are.

 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