Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| ConcernedMembers.com || 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 >>  
S
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: RE: So You Are Saying...(Vince Young)

January 7 2007, 4:20 PM 

Donnie or Bill:
I realize that since one of you preview my posts before hand, that you are going to have a hard time letting this one slide through. However, even if it doesn't make it to the board.......well here goes.

Bill was talking to Vinnie about how the command for a woman to have her head covered was heeded today. He quoted this..."Then after I explained to him why his complaints had no substance (women with long hair already have their covering according to the NT)."

Now this is a Bill Crunp, a man who considers himself wiser than most, a supposed physician, with an advanced degree saying this. This shows with out a shadow of a doubt that he thinks other people don't notice stupidity when it is shown to the world.

Bill, ummmmm.....perhaps , just maybe women had long hair in the first century church similiar to today? Did women cut their hair during the first century??? Oh no!
And.......maybe.....perhaps, those women with hair were to cover their heads with a second covering other than their hair? Yes!

Vince, if they do allow this post to go through, do you see what you are dealing with here?


 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.217.126.118

Is a Woman's Long Hair a Biblical Head Covering by Itself?

January 8 2007, 12:29 AM 

Perhaps "S," keeping his ridicule and sarcasm to a dull roar, can enlighten us why Paul said in 1 Cor. 11:15 of women's long hair "...for [her] hair is given her for a covering." It sounds like Paul is saying that if a woman has long hair, that's all she needs to cover her head. Why would Paul say that if he actually meant for women to cover their long hair with yet another covering like a hat, scarf, or a bonafide veil? Jewish women certainly covered their heads with veils and the like. But Paul was in the Christian era, so wasn't there a trend to phase out "Jewish" customs in the new faith? Was Christ through Paul setting a new precedent for Christian women about their head covering, such that a woman's natural head covering (her long hair) was sufficient?

That brings up the next verse in the chapter, verse 16. Perhaps "S" would further enlighten us about this verse, which states in the KJV: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." It sounds like Paul is saying that the Christian churches had no previous precedent about head coverings.

 
 Respond to this message   
S
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Is a Woman's Long Hair a Biblical Head Covering by Itself?

January 11 2007, 9:39 AM 

It is always convenient to leave out the verses that 'get in the way', even though applicable.

I Corinthians 11:6
6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.....

HENCE that SAME chapter that you quoted also describes in verse 6 that there are two SEPERATE coverings spoke of here.
I

"if a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off..."
MEANING......a covering to go OVER the long hair.

Shalle we digress from here BIll?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.70.77

Re: Is a Woman's Long Hair a Biblical Head Covering by Itself?

January 11 2007, 12:15 PM 

Previously I asked "S" to explain the meaning of 1 Cor. 11:15-16. S/he did not and launched into verse 6 instead. I am well aware that in verse 6, Paul admonished women to "cover" their heads. In verse 6, the "covered" is the Greek katakalupto, which is translated as "covered wholly, veil, cover, hide." In verse 15, Paul states that a woman's long hair is her glory and is given to her for a "covering." This "covering" is the Greek peribolaion, which is translated as "something thrown around one, mantle, veil, covering, vesture." Furthermore, the literal translation of verse 15 reads, "But a woman if she wears hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her instead of a covering [emphasis DBC]." In the Greek text, the word just prior to peribolaion is anti, which is translated as "instead of, used to denote substitution." And I'll even go further and give you the transliteration of verse 15, exactly in the word order that it appears in the Greek text: "a woman but if she wears long hair a glory to her it is because the long hair instead of a covering has been given to her." So it would seem here that Paul means for a woman's hair to be a natural covering, a substitute for a conventional covering.

But in verse 16, Paul enigmatically says that there is no such custom in the churches. So I want "S" to explain why, if Paul meant for women to have two head coverings, her hair and a veil, he implies otherwise in verses 15 and 16.

So I give "S" the opportunity to try again. Shall "S" further digress and avoid the verses in question? If s/he can't explain them, there's no shame. Just say so.

 
 Respond to this message   
S
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Is a Woman's Long Hair a Biblical Head Covering by Itself?

January 11 2007, 4:51 PM 

Now Bill this is REAL good.

So if a woman has hair, but not LONG hair, she should cover it, right?

This is AWESOME???

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
66.82.9.54

Modern: Long-Short Hair marks.

January 11 2007, 11:44 AM 

Doctor, there are probably other modern counterpart to the veil: Paul was warning about the MAD WOMEN in Corinth which identified the "uncovered prophesiers" in 1 Cor. 11:5. That was AFTER he marked DEMON WORSHIP in chapter 10 (and Rom 10) by pointing to the musical idolatry (PLAY) at Mount Sinai which always markedd evil people and was te CAUSE of sexual misconduct. The universal message is that MUSICAL IDOLATRY invites god to turn them loose and stepen said that God TURNED THEM OVER TO WORSHIP THE STARS which speaks of PERFORMERS as the "wandering stars" for whom Hell has been prepared.

That was before he connected the sounding bronze and tinkling cymbals and other LIFELESS INSTRUMENTS to the women who functioned as "musical worship sisters" all around Corinth. Just up the coast was Delphi where John got his model for the Mother of Harlots whose singers, musicians and other religious operatives were identified in Revelation 18 as SORCERERS who deceived the whole world. Any woman who PERFORMS before males in a religios sense are identified as adulteresses as males who corrupt the word meaning "sell learning at retail" are also called adulterers. There is NOTHING needing PERFORMING in the school of Christ and we WILL mark them as lost and beyond redemption.

This was directed primarily at women because any male who would sing and play instruments (the meaning of bad prophesying) is RECORDED as either DRUNK or PERVERTED or "just having fun." Males with long hair were MARKED as such performers. Getting drunk on wine BEFORE beginning to sing was the mark of the perverted male meetings. It is often expressed as "getting FLUTED DOWN with wine."

PENTHEUS
I had left my kingdom for awhile, when tidings of strange mischief in this city reached me;
I hear that our women-folk have left their homes on pretence of Bacchic rites, and on the wooded hills rush wildly to and fro, honouring in the dance this new god Dionysus, whoe'er he is; and in the midst of each revel-rout the brimming wine-bowl stands, and one by one they steal away to lonely spots to gratify their lust,
    pretending forsooth that they are Maenads bent on sacrifice,
    though it is Aphrodite [Zoe] they are placing before the Bacchic god.
As many as I caught, my gaolers are keeping safe in the public prison fast bound; and all who are gone forth, will I chase from the hills, Ino and Agave too who bore me to Echion, and Actaeon's mother Autonoe. In fetters of iron will I bind them and soon put an end to these outrageous Bacchic rites.

They say there came a stranger hither, a trickster and a sorcerer, from Lydia's land, with golden hair and perfumed locks, the flush of wine upon his face, and in his eyes each grace that Aphrodite gives; by day and night he lingers in our maidens' company on the plea of teaching Bacchic mysteries.

    Here is something on Echion: THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1
    And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2

Once let me catch him within these walls, and I will put an end to his thyrsus-beating [shaken reed] and his waving of his tresses, for I will cut his head from his body. This is the fellow who says that Dionysus is a god, [the new WINESKIN god] says that he was once stitched up in the thigh of Zeus-that child who with his mother was blasted by the lightning flash, because the woman falsely said her marriage was with Zeus. Is not this enough to deserve the awful penalty of hanging, this stranger's wanton insolence, whoe'er he be? But lo! another marvel. I see Teiresias, our diviner, dressed in dappled fawn-skins, and my mother's father too, wildly waving the Bacchic wand; droll sight enough! Father, it grieves me to see you two old men so void of sense.
    Luke 7:24 And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

    Luke 7:25 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings courts.


    "Did you expect John to be a homosexual prostitute just like most of the public speakers:"Malakos , d. = pathêtikos e. of music, soft, effeminate, m. harmoniai.
Oh! shake that ivy from thee! Let fall the thyrsus from thy hand, my mother's sire! Was it thou, Teiresias, urged him on to this? Art bent on introducing this fellow as another new deity amongst men, that thou mayst then observe the fowls of the air and make a gain from fiery divination?
    and constant friction (minemployment) between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. 1 Timothy 6:5
Were it not that thy grey hairs protected thee, thou shouldst sit in chains amid the Bacchanals,
for introducing knavish mysteries;
for where the gladsome grape is found at women's feasts, I deny that their rites have any longer good results.

"I have often seen a man (actor)-- and have been amazed to see, and the amazement has ended in contempt, to think how he is one thing internally, but outwardly counterfeits what he is not--

giving himself excessive airs of daintiness and indulging in all sorts of effeminacy;
somethines darting his eyes about;
sometimes throwing his hands hither and thither,

and raving with his face smeared with mud (sweat, spit and dust); sometimes personating Aphrodite (female), sometimes Apollo (male); a solitary accuser of all the gods, an epitome of superstition, a vituperator of heroic deeds, an actor of murders, a chronicler of adultery,

a storehouse of madness, a teacher of cynaedi [dogs], an instigator of capital sentences;-- and yet such a man is praised by all. But I have rejected all his falsehoods, his impiety, his practices,--in short, the man althogether.

But you are led captive by such men,
while you revile those who do not take a part in your pursuits.


I have no mind to stand agape at a number of singers, nor do I desire to be affected in sympathy with
a man when he is winking and gesticulating in an unnatural manner."


"Why should I admire the mythic piper... We leave you to these worthless things; and do you believe our doctrines, or, like us, give up yours." (Tatian to the Greeks, Ante-Nicene, Vol. II, p. 75).


Paul always POINTS to some pagan practice and if we see either male or female doing PUBLIC PERFORMANCE as religionism we know that they are UNCOVERED in the eyes of God. Isaiah also warned that the WOMEN and CHILDREN (effeminate) would rule over us: I think I know what he meant.

The FACTS and PRINCIPLES are timeless but we should be able to MARK public performers somewhat by their hair styles.

 
 Respond to this message   
TMP
(no login)
66.199.28.132

Re: Modern: Long-Short Hair marks.

January 12 2007, 12:47 PM 

Forgive the disrespect, Ken, but your latest response reminded me of one of my favorite “Far Side” cartoons: The one about what a dog hears: “blah, blah, blah, Ginger. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Ginger…” After being around on this website for a couple of months, I feel like Ginger the dog when reading your posts: “blah, blah, blah, PERVERT, blah, blah, blah, HOMOSEXUAL PROSTITUTE, blah, blah, blah…” Why do you insist to write the way you do? Who are you writing this for? If you are trying to convince someone the error of their ways, writing treatises that go on and on isn’t the way to do it. If you could stay on topic and keep the response down to a couple of paragraphs people might be tempted to read them, and would be much more convincing. Your messages nearly always set off our internet filter at home. Does “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Eph. 4:29 not apply to you?

Not even Dr. Bill or Donnie read all your posts. My guess is that they read very few of them. When I questioned them about it a few months ago, DBC ignored it and Donnie gave a general response that didn’t address how often he actually reads them (which I necessarily inferred to mean that neither read them that often). It’s a new year, why not turn over a new leaf?

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
69.19.14.36

Not to worry:

January 12 2007, 2:25 PM 

Since I am not on the dole, I can be a DISCIPLE. So, most of my research is done for my own web site where people keep returning at numbers more than all of the attendees in probably all of Tennessee. Jesus said that the clergy couldn't understand His words because they couldn't HEAR them.

Then, I post stuff which connects to the hair thingy which preachers are not PERMITTED to know: remember that Peter warned of the extreme danger of USING paul's writings to your own destruction. When I was baptized about 64 years ago I didn't pick up A holy spirit. After I couldn't tolerate the obscenity of the new style SANGING God finally gave me A holy spirit. Now, I can read black text on white paper: for instance, now after spending all of that time and money I can read the word SPEAK and understand that it does not mean MAKE MUSIC. Then, I search through all of the Greek and Latin literature and sure enough, there in plain sight is something that probably only ONE person understands right now: that the various words for SPEAK are careful to EXCLUDE the music word. Now, that gives me more joy than your approval--which I would probably have to purchase.

I take it as a supernatural sign that you feel like a dog: I am just sifting Iamblichus (huh!) to see how all of the world defined SORCERERS just exactly like John in Revelation 18 does; performance speakers, singers, musicians, techne or craftsmen (theater builders and stage managers) and the GRINDERS. Now, Revelation 17 defining the PRESENT Mother of Harlots (Zoe) has several parallels in the old testament: the first one is when Lucifer the singing and harp playing prostitute or the SERPENT which means Musical Enchanter charmed the PANTS off both Adam and Eve meaning that they became MORE naked.

All of the words speak exactly like those with summer baskets, Jesus being attacked as prophesied in Psalm (41 in the olden bible), the attacks on Jesus, the warning about the ekklesia where SELF-pleasing is outlawed meaning music of any kind and Paul's declaration that the DISCIPLES now worship IN THE PLACE of the Spirit because OUTSIDE there be DOGS. Now, I won't define the dogs but if you enthused over male musical performers Sunday you have fallen off the mountain and you can never get back up--if you believe The Book of Enoch and all of the biblical notices about music..

So, using CM as an excuse I know what NO preacher in the brotherhood or sisterhood knows--especially since 'doctors of the Law take away the key to knowledge" as Jesus says. Now, I will post some Iamblichus soon along with some Malachi 3 where taking tithes from wages makes you a robber and where he prophesied the END of the long-haird sorcerers. I have also done some update on my First and Second Maccabees (in the bound Volume Jesus had and in the originak 1611 kjv) so you can know why Paul was so outraged when they wanted to do a sacrifice to Zeus (you know, the new foundling preachers have been taught to say Je Zeus).

Besides, my mandate is not to convert but to witness because mind-changing time has passed when Jesus visited where they have performance preachers, singers and musicians acting as SORCERERS to PICK UP HIS CANDLESSTICK (the seven Spirits of KNOWLEDGE).

I put the Bible and stuff in BLUE so you can ignore it: try it, you will not chalenge your prozac.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
66.82.9.81

Forgot link

January 12 2007, 3:32 PM 

P.S. I forgot the link: I din't write the blue stuff which is over 2,00 years old. Here is the whole Play by Euripides:

http://www.piney.com/DocEuripBacc.html

This defines the MUSICAL attack prophesied that Judas would try and fail on Jesus. However,
from documents hundreds of years old (original) before Jesus was born we know that the
Levitical Warrior Musicians would MOCK Jesus after demonizing him as Beliar or
Beelzebul.

Counters say that there have been about 13,000 looks and I know that others have lifted it and posted it on their own page.
Too bad you missed the Classics which when found brough light to the religionists DARK AGES. Those plays would have
been understood by any school kid who watched the plays or heard the RECITING. John understood about
being ALERT and AWAKE to the world and therefore used the Classics to identify the end time religon
of the Mother of Harlots who used speakers, singers and musicians as SORCERERS to put out the candles
so we are ignorant of the ONLY document which reveals the SIGNS and the MARKS.

Bacchus or Dionysus is the New Wineskin god and the sorcerers intend to make the Holy Spirit
into the Song Writer and Dance Master and Holy Bartender for YOUR church probably.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.70.37

Biblical Head Coverings

January 12 2007, 12:26 PM 

Well, no one can say that we didn’t give “S” the opportunity to expound upon 1 Cor. 11:15-16. Once again s/he did not, preferring instead to address us with a few sarcastic remarks. It is unfortunate that people do not have the courage to admit that they are unable to do what has been asked of them. As I said before, there would have been no shame had “S” said that s/he could not explain the verses in question.

So here’s what’s going on with Paul and head coverings: Paul states that it is a shame for men to wear long hair, but it is a glory for women to wear long hair. Men are to have short hair and women long hair. Men are to pray only with their heads uncovered. The implication is that men are to pray wearing only short hair; wearing long hair, hats, or anything that even symbolically covers the head is forbidden to men when they pray. Conversely, women are to pray only with covered heads. The implication is that women are to pray wearing only long hair; if their hair is short, they are to cover their heads by any means, for short hair, either in a man or a woman, is symbolic of having the head uncovered, while long hair, either in a man or a woman, is symbolic of having the head covered. In the man, the uncovered head is proper; in the woman, the uncovered head is improper. Paul implies that those women who have short hair but who refuse to cover their heads otherwise should have their heads shaved as a mark of shame. Verse 15 further clarifies that a woman’s long hair is given to her for her glory instead of a covering (which is the literal translation). Therefore, a woman’s long hair IS her head covering. Otherwise, she must wear a conventional veil, hat, scarf, or something else if her hair is short.

Paul discussed head coverings, because there must have been some trend for Corinthian women, who were Greeks, to wear their hair up or in some other manner that did not flow down to simulate a veil. Those women Paul admonished to cover their heads.

Now if someone else can shed further light on the head coverings mentioned in 1 Cor. 11 and leave behind the insults and sarcasm, I would appreciate their insight. Any thoughts from Donnie and Jimmy?

 
 Respond to this message   
S
(no login)
69.59.78.95

Re: Biblical Head Coverings

January 13 2007, 12:36 PM 

Bill:
It tends to be sarcastic when all you do is try to "push" or "bend" a topic, subject, towards your way of liking.
Head coverings for a woman, IM in the worship, etc.

I realized that this will not matter with you because you are dogmatic to the point that you don't listen to anyone else but your own notions, but, and however....look at these verses once more. King James for you Bill.

I Cor 11:5, 6, 11
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

A covering is needed, and in verse 11 it plainly refers to a woman's long hair as a covering, however we find in verses 5 and 6 that it CANNOT be the long hair referred to in verse 11.
Why?
Because....in verse 6 it says that 'IF a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.'
AND Bill, it even backs that up with the end of that same verse with 'but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.'

SO THEREFORE we know that the covering CANNOT be the long hair.
The rudiments of the English language here Bill cancel that out.
Then you might even get into length of hair here Bill. Is she never to trim her hair from birth?
I ask this because why would it say in verse 6 it says that if a woman is not covered then she should be shorn? A woman doesn't have long hair (the covering that you speak of) so she should be cut AGAIN? So if that be the case, how long is long?


You're fighting a losing battle here Bill.



 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.67.35

Re: Biblical Head Coverings

January 14 2007, 8:54 AM 

I'm afraid that it is "S" who is fighting the losing battle here, because s/he ignores the literal Greek translation of verse 15, which states that a woman is given long hair instead of a covering. As I said earlier, Paul uses the earlier verses in 1 Cor. 11 to describe hair as a medium for covering the the head: short hair = uncovered head for the man, which is proper; long hair = covered head for the woman, which is also proper; long hair is improper for men, because the head is "covered"; short hair is improper for women, because the head is "uncovered." Again, why would Paul have women use TWO coverings for her head (long hair AND a veil), when in verse 15, he says that long hair is given to women instead of a covering (literal translation)? I believe that we've covered the subject quite exhaustively.

And why "S" thinks that we "push" anything on anyone ("S" even throws in IM) is beyond me. Have I said that anyone who doesn't believe as we do is going to hell? Sounds like "S" is a bit flustered. All we do is provide the biblical interpretation, and people are free to accept it or reject it. If they reject it, we will tell them why we believe they are incorrect, and again they are free to accept the correction or reject it.

Go in peace.

 
 Respond to this message   
S
(no login)
130.127.130.96

Re: Biblical Head Coverings

January 16 2007, 7:59 PM 

Bill:
I might just sing Hallelujah here!
You don't know how good this day has been after seeing you write....
"All we do is provide the biblical INTERPRETATION, and people are free to accept it or reject it."

AMEN and AMEN!!!

INTERPRETATION...

AMEN and AMEN!!!

Interpretation indeed.

And to you Bill....I say the same thing. All I do is provide the same thing.

AMEN and AMEN!!!
PRAISE GOD!!!

Since we have done the same, that is, provide an interpretation, who is right? Who is wrong?

Don't answer that one Bill. Allow God to do that!!!
That is His place, not yours! Not mine!

AMEN!

 
 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)
66.19.65.221

Only One Correct Interpretation of Scripture

August 19 2007, 10:31 AM 

"S" prematurely rejoices, believing that any and all interpretations of Scripture are correct. Common sense says that such cannot be so. If two people give two completely different and opposite interpretations to a passage of Scripture, can both be correct? If one interpretation parallels Scripture exactly, whereas the other interpretation is somewhere out in left field, can both be correct? Jesus says that if we believe and are baptized, we will be saved (Mark 16:16). A person who teaches this has given the correct interpretation, because that's exactly what Jesus says. But if someone else says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, he also has given his "interpretation," but it is completley false, because that's not what Jesus says.

Perhaps "S" thinks that, as long as each person believes something in his heart (whether or not it jives with Scripture), then it's acceptable to God. That indeed is highly fallacious philosophy. Although interpretations to Scripture abound, there can be only ONE CORRECT interpretation, and that is Christ's interpretation as written in the New Testament and conveyed through the apostolic epistles.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)
66.82.9.61

The Bacchae or Bacchantes

January 13 2007, 2:47 PM 

I have updated the link to Euripides who defines ALL forms of religionism which moves from SPEAK or SAY to MUSIC--in any form. I have noted that the MANIA or Madness Paul warned about for the Corinthians was always induced by loud singing and instruments: that why in 1 Cor 13 his gongs and clangs point DIRECTLY to eiither WARFARE or WITCHCRAFT. This is confirmed by John in Revelation 18 where he--being Greek Literate--identified them as SORCERERS. The only ROLE for them had them had been as agents of the Mother of Harlots (Zoe, Inanna etc) in Revelation 17.

We have added the ALWAYS facts that SPEAK is opposite to MUSIC as EPIC is opposite of LYRIC and to guard us the Bible is not metrical in a musical form.

http://www.piney.com/DocEuripBacc.html

This article has had about 87 "looks" whether read or not. I have updated it and will continue to correct content and formatting. If you wish to 3-mail me questions or observations I assure you that I don't reveal e-mail addresses and I will erase them as soon as I have answered.

If you are a PERPRETRATOR of end time Babylonianism you can lie without remorse because of some cult control over key people (never confess to the brethren) and you have conspired to ignore anyone who OUTS you as a very bad person. If you have procured you a new preacher or selected elders who tippy toes around "musical worship teams" which is ALWAY a step toward instruments, you will be seen by God as a co-conspirator and the blind will go down with the blind leaders.

No one with any number of Greek or Bible decrees WILL or CAN defend the evil agreement to RESTRUCTURE churches of Christ and because POSTMODERN it is no proper to LIE about every Biblical or literary mention of music. It is all in the books and I don't think they have any control over that being DELUDED and beyond redemption.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>  
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; http://www.concernedmembers.com/madison

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

...ConcernedMembers.com ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others


FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015
2,101,394

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter