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 >>Return to Index  
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: Just ANOTHER god?

August 23 2017, 1:37 AM 

Yes, the original title and message of the thread should be "preserved." The reason is simple: subsequent discussion, arguments and responses from those who post are based on statements and premises initially presented and expressed by the original author.

In the expression "Just ANOTHER god" used by Dave, he thinks that Donnie's translation is this: "... and the Word was a god" (as in "a Roman god" or "a Greek god"). Not my translation, Dave. But, yes, there are translations that render "and the Word was a god" or "and the Word was godlike."

There are, however, reasons for either a proper or an improper translation, aside from the involvement of biased and prejudiced translators.

The originality of the text or manuscript must be taken into consideration.

Misapplication of English grammatical rules can be a major issue. For example, there are no capitalization rules in New Testament Greek.

Having mentioned originality of the manuscript and the no-capitalization rules, here's the original NT Greek text without capitalization of John 1:1 --

in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god.

Have you noticed the definite article "the" in "the word" and in "the god" in all clauses until the 3rd clause?

BIG QUESTION: Why is "the word" NOT "the god" in the third clause?

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

Quoting Scripture and You Get A Label

August 23 2017, 5:24 PM 

The immaturity of Donnie when he makes the following accusation.

"Admit it: you support the pagan-based Trinity creed that the bishops of Rome approved in the Nicean Council."

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
24.151.202.16

Re: Quoting Scripture and You Get A Label

August 23 2017, 7:21 PM 

We have noted many times that those OF the WORLD are Aborigines and were never BREATHED from God to become A LIVING SOUL. For instance Paul commanded that we

SPEAK the TEXT, the Will of the Lord or the Spirit.

THEY including everyone I have known or do know SEE that as:

SING everything BUT that which is written.

Scripture makes it clear that NONE of His disciples will BE OF THE WORLD marking those from beneith or Tartarus. Disciples will SPEAK (to avoid the gender mark) the WORD of God.

One website says, after listing 18 translations that John 1:1 reads "the WORD WAS GOD" and 8 others such as the New English Bible and Todays English Bible:

"Out of all the existing translations of the Holy Bible, taken from the original languages, ONLY those published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that JESUS IS GOD.

A TRIITARIAN SAYS:

The TEXT READS: The WORD WAS GOD
TRINITARIANS SEE: JESUS WAS/IS GOD


Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
.....for the witness of JESUS,
AND
.....for the WORD OF God,
AND which had not worshipped the BEAST, neither his image,
.....neither had received his mark upon their foreheads,
.....or in their hands;
AND they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

The BEAST is Theiron meaning A NEW STYLE OF MUSIC OR SATYRIC (Panic, Cappella) DRAMA. They are FORCED to fabricate (fabulacate) their own songs and sermons because God will never let them SELL His WORDS which He SPEAKS and says are SPIRIT AND LIFE.




    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 24.151.202.16 on Aug 23, 2017 7:25 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Why is 'the word' not 'the god' in John 1:1c?

August 24 2017, 3:32 AM 

Dave,

Questions are piling up on you, and either you're afraid to answer or you have no answer.

in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god.

Have you noticed the definite article "the" in "the word" and in "the god" in all clauses until the 3rd clause?

BIG QUESTION: Why is "the word" NOT "the god" in the third clause?

When "the God" is referenced, there is definiteness because of the definite article "the"; and the NT Greek expression is either "ton theon" or "tou theou"; we know about "the God" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "The Word" was with "the God" is in the second clause. (Dave, when "A" is with "B" then "A" is not "B" or "B" is not "A" at all!!!)

When "theos" is referenced but not preceded by the definite article "the" ... it is simply "god" but not "the God" as in "and the Word was god" in the third clause.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

A Child Acts Better Than You

August 24 2017, 8:36 AM 

Donnie said "Questions are piling up on you, and either you're afraid to answer or you have no answer."

"Admit it: you support the pagan-based Trinity creed that the bishops of Rome approved in the Nicean Council."

According to YOU, these are my only two options, so then you have your answer. Why consume your time and energy and immaturity dwelling on it? You can be immature with something else in life. I will have no part of it.

Admit it indeed!

Just answer the question Dave!!!


 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Nope: The Questions Are Deep and for Mature Bible Students

August 24 2017, 11:07 PM 

Dave,

I know that you are much more intelligent than your childish excuses and attempts to deviate from a "technical" discussion of a controversial dogma.

I can add a third option: you're relying completely on one pro-Trinity "professor" (Greek, hmmm). That's not good.

You continue to sound like an angry liberal, progressive Democrat in a religious discussion forum environment. (Those left-wing liberals continue to attack the President and accuse him of being deranged, insane, etc. Sad!!!)

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

The Truth is What Donnie Makes it in His Own Mind

August 24 2017, 3:22 PM 

Prime example of you totally disregarding the Truth. I refuted EVERYTHING that you mentioned in this post and you still will not accept it. It isn't opinion, it is facts from a greek professor.
Post it again Donnie, for your perusal, even if for no one else.

and again....
and again...

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: Your Professor's Interpretation Is Not the Truth

August 24 2017, 11:18 PM 

Dave,

For you to say that your "greek professor" has the "truth" and, therefore, cannot be refuted, is extremely laughable.

Here's the literal translation of John 1:1 from its original text:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god.

Your professor did not even examine the original text that clearly indicates that "the god" is in the second clause, but that "god" (without the definite article "the") is in the third clause.

The difference between "the god" and "god" in the passage is huge!!!!! Tell your Greek professor the difference. Remind your professor also that it was not "God" who became flesh. Rather, it was the LOGOS (WORD) of God which became flesh.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

This Tastes GOOD

August 25 2017, 9:31 AM 

Before you talk about MY professor, chew on this for a while

Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is translated: ". . the Word was a god," a translation which is grammatically impossible. . . . It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."

Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead.

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with "God" in the phrase "And the Word was God." Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".
(Barclay and Bruce are generaIIy regarded as Great Britain's Ieading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!)

Donnie, are you that "arian amateur" that Dr. Bruce was speaking of?

So Dr. Cruz, which ONE of these SIX professors is mine?



 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

Whatever Donnie Wants

August 24 2017, 11:20 PM 

...and I bet you still want answers to your questions???

You will get your answers in due time. Guaranteed.

Donnie, your anger is evident, but you reap what you sow.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
24.151.202.16

Re: Whatever Donnie Wants

August 26 2017, 1:01 AM 

Trinity The divine powers at the head of every theogony. In the Christian Trinity, the original idea of a triune divinity is preserved but has become confused and adapted to theological speculation.

If the Holy Ghost is regarded as feminine, as it was in primitive Christianity, we have the trinity of Father-Mother-Son.

The present manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost in the Occident is due to the early theological quarrels which was one of the main causes of the final rupture between the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches — the filioque (“and from the son”) controversy. The Orthodox held with the original procession of Father, Holy Ghost, and Son, while in the West the Holy Ghost or Spirit has become a kind of emanation from the Father or Son, or both of them, and is scarcely distinguishable in its attributes from the Son;

while the place of Mother has been filled in the Roman Catholic Church by Mary who, though the mother of Jesus, nevertheless is not a member of the Trinity.


ALL pagan triads are father, mother and little infantile son. When Jesus says that all power had been given to HIM and name is singular,

It if Father, Son and Spirit. That proves that the Son does not emanate from the spirit but the spirit flows FROM the Son. That is because the Father breathes (Spirit is not a people) without METRON or "meter" and the Son ARTICULATES the WORD.

There CANNOT be another god person to ENABLE the Father to speak too the Son. That would define the Father Person as helpless without a mother and son.

Mary is the MEDIATRIX in place of the Son in order to promote the ALWAYS-PAGAN fanily of gods.

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

Get Em Donnie....don't let them talk ugly to Ken

August 26 2017, 11:37 AM 

Ken said "...,It if Father, Son and Spirit."

Is that French, or Spanish?

I like MEDIATRIX too. Sounds important. Do you use Mary as your go-between?



 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
24.151.202.16

Re: Get Em Donnie....don't let them talk ugly to Ken

August 26 2017, 12:39 PM 

That was a hypnotic device: watch carefully in the morning to see whether the preacher or "sanger" repeats any words or gestures. He is making certain that you are watching the swinging watch so he can slip in pig wallow into your mind in KOMA.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

The Man is Armed and Ready

August 27 2017, 2:11 AM 

KOMA is good too. Woooosh! Slick as frog's hair.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: This Tastes GOOD

August 26 2017, 12:34 PM 

Dave,

It tastes Trinitarian!!!

It smells Trinitarian!!!

However, thanks for your willingness to engage in a more technical discussion concerning: (a) God the Father and (b) the Son of God. (Trinitarians refer to the "Son of God" [which is scriptural] as "God the Son" [which is man-concocted].)

On "questions piling up on you," I really appreciate your effort to answer the 5th question: "Why is "the word" NOT "the god" in the third clause?" That's OK for now. I'm relying on your promise when you said: "...and I bet you still want answers to your questions??? You will get your answers in due time. Guaranteed."

In response to "MY [Dave's] professor": Dr. John Bechtle is the one author you quoted sometime ago. A great mind reader [Wow!!!]: Bechtle was able to read the author's (John's) mind and explained why John in the 1st century chose not to put "the" on the word "god" in the third clause. Yeah, right!!! The writer John must have predicted that the upcoming Trinitarians and Trinity-based translators might get confused otherwise and that John knew about the role of the English grammatical rules in translations.

But "no" to Dr. John Bechtle. The book writer John wrote John 1:1-14 as it should be in the ORIGINAL New Testament Greek: "... the word was with the god and the word was god" [2nd clause has "the god", 3rd clause has "god"]

So, Dave, you now can add the 6 professors to your list besides Dr. John Bechtle.

All these professors are trying to explain John 1:1 with their views on Trinitarianism.

The ORIGINAL text in New Testament Greek states:

"in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was god."

The definite article "the" or the indefinite article "a" preceding "god" is simply not in the 3rd clause: "the word was god

"God" is a generic word; but "the God" of Jesus, "the God" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a generic God. The name of "the God" of all is Jehovah.


[I shall return ... more later.]

 
 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
24.151.202.16

Adam Good Stand By the Old Paths

August 26 2017, 1:02 PM 

THAT'S WHAT THE PASSAGE SAYS. People seemed PREDESTINED to call God and His Spirit an IDIOT without the benefit of a phd from Anti Christ University. Even Simple Simon, aged 5 at the popular Synagogue School would never blaspheme and REWRITE Scripture.

John 1:1 In the beginning was Jesus, and the Jesus was with God, and the Jesus WAS was [the] God.

http://www.piney.com/Adam.Good.is.Trinity.Blasphemy.html

Adam Good:
Christianity is built upon the deity of Jesus the Christ. That Jesus is both the “Son of God” and “God incarnate” is set forth clearly in Scripture.

http://www.piney.com/Glenn.Colley.Trinity.Three.Gods.html

Father is God
Jesus is God
Holy Spirit is God
LATINE

in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

dĕus , a god, deity 1. In poets sometimes a goddess; cf. Gr. θεός: “ducente deo (sc. Venere),” Verg. A. 2, 632: “audentes deus ipse juvat (sc. Fortuna),” Ov. M. 10, 586; Macr. Sat. 3, 8; cf. of Aurora, Cat. ap. Cic. N. D. 1, 28 fin.; “of Alecto,” Verg. A. 7, 498 (but in all these passages, some regard deus as absol., = τὸ θεῖον, the divinity, Heyne ad Verg. A. 2, 632).— of highly distinguished or fortunate persons:
D. n eccl. Lat., esp. the God of the Hebrews and Christians, God: “Deus summus,” Lact. 1, 1: “omnipotens,” Vulg. Gen. 17, 1 et passim.

And Trinitarians: Also of the Son of God, God the Son, Christ: “Deus pater et Deus filius,” Lact. 4, 29, 1; Vulg. Johan. 1, 1 al. of highly distinguished or fortunate persons: “te in dicendo semper putavi deum,

Lact. 4, 29, First of all, divine operations
.....cannot be known or declared 46 by any one;
.....but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us,
.....in which it is laid down 47
.....that this Son of God is the SPEECH, or even the REASON 48 of God,
.....and also that the other angels are spirits 49 of God.
For speech is BREATH sent forth with a voice signifying something. But, however, since breath and speech are sent forth from different parts, inasmuch as breath proceeds from the nostrils, speech from the mouth, the difference between the Son of God and the other angels is great.


Genesisi 1:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty. Walk before me, and be blameless.]

Ex. 4:5 That they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.


Jesus was in the bosom and promise as the SEED OF ABRAHAM and not the LORD GOD of Abraham

Was John UNABLE to say that Jesus WAS-IS The Lord God of Abrahame command and example is to SPEAK the Word, Logos or Regulative Principle which OUTLAWS rhetoric, singing, playing instruments, acting or ANY "ministry" hatched out of your OWN IMAGINATION which God says is always EVIL, it is PREDESTINEDD to be a machine-gun-like stream of Blasphemy as the mark of ANTICHRIST whom everyone with a VISION-CAST plan to STOP HIS MOUTH in the morning.



    
This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 24.151.202.16 on Aug 26, 2017 3:16 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

Quit Digging

August 27 2017, 1:30 AM 

Just in case you didn't love it enough the first, or second, or third time...

YOU have been proven WRONG....hard pill to swallow, but when you see Dr. Martin talking about the correct translation being GOD instead of god you have to believe when he says that "a god" is unsupported by ANY good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary. He says that YOUR translation is rejected by ALL recognized scholars (is Donnie Cruz a recognized scholar???). To prove the point even MORE...even those scholars that are non-Christian recognize the text as being GOD. Donnie, you would be deliberately lying if you called a non-Christian a trinitarian. Donnie doesn't lie. So you were just taken out of context, right?

Dr. Walter Martin (late): "The translation "a god" instead of "GOD' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language many of whom are not even Christ-ians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow , Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations John 1:1 is translated: ". . the Word was a god," a translation which is grammatically impossible. . . . It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article "a'" means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase "the Word was a god."

Dr. B. F. Westcott (whose Greek text not the English part is used in the Kingdom InterIinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article. . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. . . . in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "GOD." and so included in the unity of the Godhead.

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with "God" in the phrase "And the Word was God." Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction. . . . "a god" would be totally indefensible".
(Barclay and Bruce are generaIIy regarded as Great Britain's Ieading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!)

Donnie, you don't have the credentials of these men, but you certainly can slander them with your 'smells like trinitarians' diatribe. That should work.

 
 Respond to this message   
Kenneth Sublett
(Login Ken.Sublett)
ConcernedMembersMadison
24.151.202.16

Re: Quit Digging

August 27 2017, 9:11 AM 

Dr . Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago; "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. "My Lord and my God." - John 20; 28.".

I wonder where he got a copy of the Grammar that Paul used. Until recently scholars spoke of New Testament Greek and didn't know that it was the language of the deckhand or fisherman.

What ever the meaning of IT IS, it was the WORD which He SPEAKS which was with HIM.

Even at my age, I always have my spirit (breath) and WORD with me.

God IS LIGHT. Light cannot be seen. The LIGHT became "flesh" when it was REFLECTED in the face of Jesus.

God is the FATHER of the MAN Jesus
Jesus is the SON of the God Who must be defined as "I Am the God of Abraham" because the world is filled with "gods."

WORD: a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
synonyms: term, name, expression, designation, locution, vocable;
formal appellation

Gen. 44:18 Then Judah came near unto him, and said, Oh my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant: for thou art even as Pharaoh.
Ex. 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Ex. 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Ex. 19:9 ¶ And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.





 
 Respond to this message   
Dave
(no login)
66.112.162.15

Silliness Has It's Place in Comedy, Not Describing the WORD

August 27 2017, 10:17 AM 

Ken said "Even at my age, I always have my spirit (breath) and WORD with me."

Be silly if you like, keep it to yourself when you belittle the Scriptures. God spoke many words, but there was only ONE WORD, later to become Jesus in the flesh. There is a difference between God's words, and God's WORD.

 
 Respond to this message   
Donnie
(Login Donnie.Cruz)
ConcernedMembersMadison
23.127.32.146

Re: Silliness Has It's Place in Comedy, Not Describing the WORD

August 27 2017, 12:13 PM 

My word!!! "What's the matter with you!"

"It's my word against yours!"

Dave, did you say just one word? Did I say just one word?

No one is saying "God's words." You made that up.

The LOGOS (the WORD) of God is God's saying or His way of expressing His thoughts.

If "God's WORD" is God, since "the Word is God" by the Trinity's interpretation, then the logic of "God's GOD" that follows is erroneous.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 16 7 8 9 10 Next >
  << 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; 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