Jump to content





- - - - -

An axe to grind - Willful Blindness

By cbb1962, 09 September 2013 · 2,278 views

Whole Bible Old Testament New Testament Theology Denominations and Disciplines
Exegesis, letting the text determine our doctrine vs. Eisegesis, letting our doctrine determine what the text means.

APsit190, on 08 Sept 2013 - 9:21 PM, said:

"I have to admit that in all my years of studying hermeneutics, I've never come across a definition of Exegesis and Eisegesis as this. It certainly is an original take on it.
That said, usually when statements like this are made, the author tends to have an axe to grind, or is on some sort of crusade to prove himself to be right (correct) and everyone else is wrong, and therefore when differing thoughts come along, though not incorrect (or in error) still will not be listened to. They become paralyzed in their own particular world view or perspective."


Several years ago I was challenged by my then 18 year old son about some core doctrines of the Church, doctrines that transcend denominational boundaries. The things he was questioning were so foundational to the Church that I figured I could quickly put this young upstart in his place! I would use my new best friend e-sword version 7 to do the research! I assumed that these foundational doctrines would be so prevalent that it would only take a few minutes... It became painfully aware that MANY of these core doctrines were either not very clear, taken out of context, completely missing from scripture, or simply added by men. This was a discovery that I didn't expect or want to make.

Unlike the person you describe as "trying to prove myself to be right" I tried the opposite, I desperately wanted to be wrong! The more things I discovered, the greater my need to disprove them with a logical cohesive explanation. Believe me, nothing would have pleased me more than to have proved myself wrong... I could have gone back to sleep on the back row of our big beautiful mega-church. I soon realized that once something is "seen" it can't be "unseen."

My quest to prove myself wrong led me to two unmistakable conclusions:
  • There has been a centuries long epidemic of willful blindness at work... All the clues are there - hidden in plain sight; some subtle, most are blatant, all had been clouded in an attitude similar to "don't ask don't tell."
  • This willful blindness has been propagated via seminaries, bible colleges, missionaries and churches and codified as indisputable fact.
Those that are willfully blind or those that are brainwashed by them, pick and choose scripture, use soundbites of passages to support their doctrinal position. This is the source of the 38,000+ different Christian denominations - the willfully blind, who are striving to not upset their selective version of the status quo.

Every denominations will make a very similar argument to this these:

We are doctrinally sound because:
  • Hundreds of years of theological study can't be wrong.
  • Hundreds of Pastors and evangelists can't all be wrong.
  • "x" number of Seminaries and Bible colleges are all sharing God's Truth!
  • Church history validates our claims.
  • We are reaching the world through radio, TV, and the Internet.
  • "x" number of Churches are a powerful force for the "truth."
  • The LORD is validating our message! See how He has blessed us!
  • Our thousands of Missionaries are bringing light to a darkened world.
  • Pray for those other denominations that they will see the light.
  • The LORD wouldn't let US teach anything in error!
  • We pray for the heretics that don't see the light as we have it.
Insert your favorite denomination here... 38,000 different times.

The axes I have to grind are with those who are willfully blind and brainwash those that are seeking the truth. Here are some axes hidden in plain sight:

If Paul teaches us not to follow the Old Testament Law - then according to Jesus in Mat 5:17-19 Paul will be least in the Kingdom.


If Peter's vision of the sheet was about food, why did Peter say it was about men? Acts 10:28-29.


When a preacher teaches that Jesus taught against the law or nailed the Law to the Cross, don't they realize those are only subtle variations of lies that killed Stephen, (Acts 6:9-14) and imprisoned Paul? (Acts 18:12-13 and Acts 21:27-28.)


According to Jer 31:31 and Heb 8:8 the “New Covenant” will be with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not with “the Church.”


Why should the "anti-law" teachings of Paul take precedence over the "pro-law" teachings of Jesus, his Apostles, and Paul?


The new covenant is not in place yet! Everyone doesn't know the LORD yet, and sin still exists. Those are prerequisites of the New Covenant. (Jer 31:34)


Since Jesus didn't teach his own doctrine, he taught the Father's (John 5:30, John 7:16, John 14:10, John 12:49-50, John 10:37-38) and the Father doesn't change (Mal 3:6, Jas 1:17, Heb 1:12) and the Father only reveals things through his prophets (Amos 3:7) where and by whom is it prophesied that the law would be set aside? Or that Israel would be replaced with the Church? Or Sabbath should be ignored or changed. Or that abominable creatures should be eaten? Or, or, or …


In order for the pre-tribulation Rapture doctrine to be true; the “last trump” of 1Co 15:51-52 must sound before the trumpet of Mat 24:29-31, which occurs AFTER the Tribulation!


Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1Co 15:51-52)

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Mat 24:29-31)


The Bereans of Acts 17:10-12 became convinced that Paul and Silas' message of the Messiah was correct. How? They were in a Jewish Synagogue, they wouldn't have consulted anything other than the "Old Testament," the New Testament hadn't been written yet. They surely didn't consult Paul's letters, "If you will consult my latest letter you will see that I said I am right..." They studied the Scripture daily, and were convinced by the Old Testament only! If Paul and Silas were teaching against the Old Testament Law - in any way – the Bereans had a mandate from the LORD in Deu 13:1-5 and Deu 18:18-22 to kill them as a false prophets, and reject the teaching.


If the Law was not to be followed, then why did James and the Jerusalem Council tell Paul to pay for himself and four other men to complete their Nazarite vow in order to convince the crowds that Paul was following the Law? Oh and the completion of the vow included burnt offerings: a lamb for a burnt offering, a ewe lamb sin offering, a ram for peace offerings, and a basket of unleavened bread. (Num 6:13-20.)


Why is the New Testament definition of sin ignored? "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1Jn 3:4)


Paul Said: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." (1Co_11:1) Jesus never broke the law, and Paul also said: "While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended anything at all." (Act_25:8.) If we are to imitate Christ as Paul did - why are we taught NOT to keep the Law?


If the Sabbath was changed, why did Jesus worry that their flight might be on a Sabbath during the Tribulation? (Mat 24:20)


If the feasts aren't to be kept why will all nations come to Jerusalem for Tabernacles in the millennial kingdom? (Zec 14:16-18)


Why did the LORD punish Israel and Judah for breaking his laws specifically the Sabbath of the Land only to abolish them a few hundred years later?


I was once told "you are dangerously close to becoming a Heretical Judiazer!" ust for asking these types of questions. No substantive answers just accusations, and name calling...

APsit190, on 08 Sept 2013 - 9:21 PM, said:

"... So, when it comes to these kind of things, well, someone's gotta be wrong, and someone's gotta be right. Not everyone can be right, and not everyone can be wrong. So how do we make those determining factors? What is error, what is heresy, and what is the right doctrine that we are to believe in?"


I believe that the key is being like the Bereans and apply some simple yet powerful guidelines to our study:

o God Never Changes!

§ Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

§ Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

§ Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

o God’s Word is True!

§ Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

§ Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

§ Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

o God’s Word Cannot Contradict itself!

§ Amo 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

§ 1Co 14:32-33 Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, 33) for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace. As in all the churches of the saints,

§ Titus1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;


Because God never changes and his word is true - his word can never contradict itself. Simple and straightforward, any doctrine or system that causes one scripture to supersede another is false. If a scripture appears to contradict another passage then the problem is with the understanding of the context. Apparent contradictions are a clue that it's time to dig deeper into the context: be it cultural, religious, political, or linguistic.

Some will argue that this is too simplistic and naive, how can it be?

Is God's word true only part of the time? When? Is it a secret? Who would know? How would we know?

Is some of God's word only true for a season? Which season? Who would know? How would we know?

Does God remain the same - except when he doesn't? When? Who would know? How would we know?

Would God allow one part of his word to supersede another without telling anyone? Which ones? Who decides? How would we know?

APsit190, on 08 Sept 2013 - 9:21 PM, said:

... it looks like everything Scripture teaches is really important and relevant.

So, we have a huge task on our hands on determining what is truth against what is error, and what is orthodoxy against what is heterodoxy.


Yes we do...

Everyone that I have ever shared this simple, straightforward concept with has agreed with it wholeheartedly! Until they start the process of examining their own doctrines… most of the time the process stops abruptly, and to them - I become the heretic, not their doctrine. I just keep trying to get out of the way of the baggage cart(s).




I just keep trying to get out of the way of the baggage cart(s)

 

Yeah, well don't we all. The biggest problem is that we all have our baggage, including me. Denying that one has no baggage, irrespective of what church one comes from, well, that bloke has the most. Me, I have no problem by admitting to the fact that I have it in spades.

 

With me, I have the willingness to deal with it. To seek God and get the direction I need to deal with it.

 

About the pet thing about denominations, well they're around, and every new church which starts up as an independent or non-denominational or whatever, well is just another "denomination" by default.

 

Of where you quoted me saying, "... So, when it comes to these kind of things, well, someone's gotta be wrong, and someone's gotta be right. Not everyone can be right, and not everyone can be wrong. So how do we make those determining factors? What is error, what is heresy, and what is the right doctrine that we are to believe in," you haven't really dealt with the issues I raised, like Calvinism verses the non-Calvinist and etc. Because, here you have really entrenched opposing factions, including Pentecostals verses the non-Pentecostals as well. So when looking at major theological differences in beliefs such as these, there has to be a right and a wrong.

 

Now, just to fess up on this one, I'm Pentecostal. I believe that the Gifts of the Spirit as taught in 1Co 12, are still relevant for today. And this is where I stand. Yet there are factions who believe to the contrary. Who is right and who is wrong???

 

It's issues like this that we need to deal with, and if we just like to pretend that everything is hunky-dory then all we are doing is burying our heads in the proverbial sand, and being in a form of blissful ignorance.

 

Just a note on Exegesis and Eisegesis, your definition is not one out of the book, and so with that, it really is a new definition.

 

The actual definition of Exegesis and Eisegesis are as follows:

  • Exegesis, to interpret by extracting the meaning from the text
  • Eisegesis, to interpret by inserting the meaning into the text.

Exegesis and Eisegesis are methods of interpretation of the text. And when using the word, "interpretation," it is not used in the sense of "translating" the text from one language to another.

 

Blessings,

Stephen (Php 1:21).

you haven't really dealt with the issues I raised, like Calvinism verses the non-Calvinist and etc. Because, here you have really entrenched opposing factions, including Pentecostals verses the non-Pentecostals as well. So when looking at major theological differences in beliefs such as these, there has to be a right and a wrong.

 

My position is probably more radical than you expect. 

 

As far as addressing the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate: No I haven’t, and I won’t. I feel that it's a moot point.

 

Here’s why: It would be foolish to critique the Flat Earth proponent’s literature from the 1400’s on exactly when a ship would sail off the edge of the earth.  Just like the flat earth proponents based their world view on a flawed foundation, I believe that Calvinists, non-Calvinist, Pentecostal, non-Pentecostal, Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Greek Orthodox, etc, etc, etc…  have based their Biblical world view on a wrong foundation - a lie.  There, I said it!

 

Practically all of these different flavors of Christianity have their ultimate basis in the 4th Century Catholic Church.  Sunday worship, non-biblical and even anti-Biblical celebrations, abandonment of biblical celebrations and observances, eating unclean foods, abrogation of the Law and anything that could remotely be identified as “Jewish.” 

 

Early believers in the Messiah were only Jews.  Cornelius was the first “gentile” believer.  He was actually a “God-fearer” a proselyte, a Gentile in the process of converting to Judaism. This happened in approximately 38 AD.   The book of Acts tells us; belief in Jesus as the Messiah was a sect of Judaism called the "sect of the Nazarene" (Acts 24:5.)  If it wasn't a sect of Judaism the Sanhedrin couldn't have given power to Saul to persecute them. 

 

The modern Church has practically NOTHING in common with Judaism.  If the LORD doesn't change, how could a sect of Judaism transform into the Church(s) we have today?  Wrong foundation and willful blindness.

 

Eusebius tells us that the first 15 “Bishops” of the Church in Jerusalem were Jewish, all of them up until the Second Jewish revolt in 135 AD.  At that point all Jews were expelled from Jerusalem.  After 135 A D the Hellenistic Christians took control.

 

Would the Hebrew Messiah foretold by Moses as “a prophet like unto me” have acted like the Pagan Greco Romans that almost destroyed the Jews in the second century BC?

 

Let me explain:  in the intervening time between Malachi 4:6 and Matthew 1:1 a revolution happened in the world.  This was led by Alexander the Great.  His conquest was almost universal.  His conquests are what led to the LXX and the notion that Greek was the lingua franca of 1st century Israel.  But most biblical scholars simply ignore this intervening time period calling it the 400 years of silence.  The truth is, it is hardly silent.

 

 

This is excerpted from the Wikipedia article about Antiochus Epiphanies and the Sacking of Jerusalem

 

Sacking of Jerusalem and persecution of Jews

 

While Antiochus was busy in Egypt, a rumor spread that he had been killed. The deposed High Priest Jason gathered a force of 1,000 soldiers and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem. The High Priest appointed by Antiochus, Menelaus, was forced to flee Jerusalem during a riot. On the King's return from Egypt in 167 BC enraged by his defeat, he attacked Jerusalem and restored Menelaus, then executed many Jews.

“When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery.” — 2 Maccabees 5:11–14

 

To consolidate his empire and strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to side with the Hellenized Jews by outlawing Jewish religious rites and traditions kept by observant Jews and by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god (2 Maccabees 6:1–12). This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the resistance, the city was destroyed, many were slaughtered, and a military Greek citadel called the Acra was established.

 

“Not long after this the king sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God; also to profane the temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and that on Mount Gerizim to Zeus the Hospitable, as the inhabitants of the place requested...They also brought into the temple things that were forbidden, so that the altar was covered with abominable offerings prohibited by the laws. A man could not keep the Sabbath or celebrate the traditional feasts, nor even admit that he was a Jew. At the suggestion of the citizens of Ptolemais, a decree was issued ordering the neighboring Greek cities to act in the same way against the Jews: oblige them to partake of the sacrifices, and put to death those who would not consent to adopt the customs of the Greeks. It was obvious, therefore, that disaster impended. Thus, two women who were arrested for having circumcised their children were publicly paraded about the city with their babies hanging at their breasts and then thrown down from the top of the city wall. Others, who had assembled in nearby caves to observe the Sabbath in secret, were betrayed to Philip and all burned to death.” — 2 Maccabees 6:1–11

 

The First and Second Book of Maccabees painted the Maccabean Revolt as a national resistance to a foreign political and cultural oppression. Modern scholars argue that the king was intervening in a civil war between the traditionalist Jews in the country and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem, According to Joseph P. Schultz:

 

Modern scholarship on the other hand considers the Maccabean revolt less as an uprising against foreign oppression than as a civil war between the orthodox and reformist parties in the Jewish camp.

 

It seems that the traditionalists, with Hebrew/Aramaic names like Onias, contested with the Hellenizers with Greek names like Jason and Menelaus over who would be the High Priest. Other authors point to possible socio/economic motives in addition to the religious motives behind the civil war.

 

What began in many respects as a civil war escalated when the Hellenistic kingdom of Syria sided with the Hellenizing Jews in their conflict with the traditionalists. As the conflict escalated, Antiochus took the side of the Hellenizers by prohibiting the religious practices that the traditionalists had rallied around. This may explain why the king, in a total departure from Seleucid practice in all other places and times, banned the traditional religion of a whole people.

 

 

This was the prequel to the New Testament. Does it make sense that LORD would send the Hebrew Messiah, speaking Greek, acting Greek and espousing EXACTLY the same things that Antiochus Epiphanies had attempted by force 150 years before? That is utter nonsense. 

 

The LORD had a plan:

(Amo 3:7 KJV) Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

 

Antiochus Epiphanies wasn’t the LORD’s prophet!  Would The Messiah have carried out the same plan that Antiochus Epiphanies tried to implement? (To Convince the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God.) A Hellenistic Greco/Roman Messiah would. But not the Hebrew Messiah...

 

Why do virtually ALL denominations choose the Hellenistic Greco/Roman model for the Church?  Wrong foundation because of willful blindness and its propagation.

 

Wouldn't it be better to adopt a Church model like the book of Acts? 

 

What if Jewish believers that had actually met Jesus and the apostles were transported through time and came to your Church - would they recognize anything? Most definitely! But would it be associated with the early 1st century Church or with pagan worship practices of the same era?

 

Clint

Just a note on Exegesis and Eisegesis, your definition is not one out of the book, and so with that, it really is a new definition.

 

The actual definition of Exegesis and Eisegesis are as follows:

  • Exegesis, to interpret by extracting the meaning from the text
  • Eisegesis, to interpret by inserting the meaning into the text.

Exegesis and Eisegesis are methods of interpretation of the text. And when using the word, "interpretation," it is not used in the sense of "translating" the text from one language to another.

 

I think it's hardly new.  If “the meaning” is the belief that the statement is true and that meaning is taught to their church, then that is a doctrine.

  • “Doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.”

So simply substituting “doctrines” for “the meaning”

  • Exegesis, to interpret by extracting doctrines from the text 
  • Eisegesis, to interpret by inserting doctrines into the text

Is that really any different than the earlier definition?

  • Exegesis, letting the text determine our doctrine.
  • Eisegesis, letting our doctrine determine what the text means.

"My definition" is simply a practical application to a sterile academic concept.

 

Clint

Hi Clint,

Now I got who you are... Well I think I got it of who you are. Tell me if I got it right... I think you're the bloke that wrote that neat little conversion tool, "e-Sword 9 Converter," which is a tool for converting 8x resources to 9x.

 

If so, then its really great to see you still around, and marching on strongly. If not, then praise God anyway, and bless you tons stacks heaps and oodles.

 

Anyway, getting back on topic. . .

 

Here is where I begin to have issues with some of the things you're saying . . .

 


“Doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.”

 

 

Well, no, that is not what doctrine is. Doctrine is simply "a teaching," and that is all it is. You also make a mistake by stating that it's a set of beliefs that is held and taught by a church and etc and you leave out Jews, both traditional and Messianic, and give me the impression that you're without doctrine.

 

You too have a set of beliefs. In fact, like me, you've been even taught what to believe, and you, like me, still believe them, or believe some of them, irrespective of which side of the fence you may sit. Belief/Faith (which are interchangeably used), Paul tells us there is only one kind. In fact he went to the extent of telling us what we are suppose to believe (have faith) in. Put it as an equation, To Teach = To Indoctrinate. Both mean exactly the same.

 


Wouldn't it be better to adopt a Church model like the book of Acts?

 

Yeah, I reckon it would be. That said, no one (even including yourself) have any idea of what that actually looked like. I guess one could imagine what it looked like, but because we weren't there to see it, we really don't know. And also, from that early time up to Paul's death a lot of things changed in the early church, even in the way they met, i.e., in Rome they met in catacombs. In his letter to Timothy, Paul talked about how a bishop (overseer) should be. Yet you don't see that word anywhere in the book of Acts, or anywhere else in the NT. So, even in Paul's life time there were changes in the body.

 

 


Why do virtually ALL denominations choose the Hellenistic Greco/Roman model for the Church?

 

Well, I can't answer that question as I'm your typical Gentile (Goy) believer. Also, as to what the Greco/Roman model looks like, I have no idea as to what you're talking about as I wasn't around at that time.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png

Clint,

 

I am going to jump in here briefly just point out that you are guilty of serious Eisegesis, the very thing you are trying to correct.  You are reading your doctrines into texts you are using and not interpreting them in their proper context.

 

As far as the old testament law goes... if you were not willfully blind to it, you would see that this question was answered in the council of Acts 15.  

 

The gentile Christians were being taught:

 

Acts 15:24 "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" 

 

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

 

Paul answered the questions concerning the New Testament law repeatedly after this.  The ministry of the Spirit is more glorious than the ministry of condemnation (2 Cor 3).  

 

You seriously misuse Mat 5:17-19 above.  Jesus is not teaching there that they should follow the old testament law.  He is teaching them they are to go beyond the old testament law.

 

If you read the sermon on the mount as a unit, the "these commandments" He is talking about in Mat 5:19 is not the old testament law but the sermon on the mount.  The section in Mat 5:17 - Mat 7:12 forms an inclusio concerning the "law and the prophets".  His teachings go beyond the letter of the law.  Jesus then talks to them about entering through the narrow gate (Mat 7:14), "keeping these sayings of mine" (Mat 7:24; Mat 7:26).

 

We have died the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:4).  We are to follow Him and obey Him through the ministry of the Spirit.  He is our righteousness.  

 

Blessings,

Peter

Peter,

I responded to Acts 15 here.

Clint

Well, no, that is not what doctrine is. Doctrine is simply "a teaching," and that is all it is. You also make a mistake by stating that it's a set of beliefs that is held and taught by a church and etc and you leave out Jews, both traditional and Messianic, and give me the impression that you're without doctrine.

 

As far as the definition of doctrine:  Rather than supplying my own definition (which you and I are in 100% agreement) I decided to use a universally accepted definition I Googled it! "define doctrine" that definition includes "or other group"  that would include "you leave out Jews, both traditional and Messianic, and give me the impression that you're without doctrine."

 

"To Teach = To Indoctrinate. Both mean exactly the same."  

 

You and I are in 100% agreement

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be better to adopt a Church model like the book of Acts?

 

Yeah, I reckon it would be. That said, no one (even including yourself) have any idea of what that actually looked like. I guess one could imagine what it looked like, but because we weren't there to see it, we really don't know. 

 

No Idea?  Really?  This is willful blindness rearing its head! 

 

We know the following about the Church in the book of Acts:

  • It was a sect of Judaism called either "the way" of "the sect of the Nazarene."
  • It is plainly taught that Jesus, his disciples, the Apostles and even Paul kept Sabbath - Saturday. 
  • The Church primarily met in the synagogue. (Act_9:2; Act_9:20; Act_13:5; Act_13:14; Act_13:15; Act_13:42; Act_14:1; Act_15:21; Act_17:1; Act_17:10; Act_17:17; Act_18:4; Act_18:8; Act_18:17; Act_18:19; Act_18:26; Act_19:8; Act_22)
  • The Law was taught in the synagogue every Sabbath.  (Acts 15:21)
  • Saul targeted the Church by going only to the synagogues.  (Act_9:2; Act_22:19; Act_26:11)
  • The Church in the book of Acts taught that Law was to be followed. A No-Law doctrine is antithetical to scripture. Please see this blog post that addresses this issue.

Clint

June 2018

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920 21 2223
24252627282930