Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   The D.A.'s Office (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity, (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=28450)

missourimary 01-19-2010 12:25 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867350)
I dont think theres anything wrong with "open toed" shoes. Its not biblical. But the Bible does give authority to the minstry to use their own judgement. That is Biblical. Dont like it....go to another church. If it can be backed up with a Biblical "precept or principal" thats different.

But not everyone has that option. If you don't like it and try to go to another church, they may say that you have a bad spirit or are rebellious. They may not even accept you as a member, even if they do let you sit on a pew (and not all will). And almost certainly wherever you go there will be something else unlikeable that pops up eventually.

Of course, if they won't let you come, you're considered reprobate if you go to the Trinity church down the road, too...

I wish pastors would stop fighting over people and let them live for God. I've seen too many people walk out because they felt it was the only option left.

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:27 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867350)
I dont think theres anything wrong with "open toed" shoes. Its not biblical. But the Bible does give authority to the minstry to use their own judgement. That is Biblical. Dont like it....go to another church. If it can be backed up with a Biblical "precept or principal" thats different.

If it can't be backed up you just play the "authority" card.......so why bother discussing with you?

John Atkinson 01-19-2010 12:29 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867350)
I dont think theres anything wrong with "open toed" shoes. Its not biblical. But the Bible does give authority to the minstry to use their own judgement. That is Biblical. Dont like it....go to another church. If it can be backed up with a Biblical "precept or principal" thats different.

Yes, but it does not give the ministry the right to make heaven or hell issues out of what boils down to a minister's or group of minister's preferences.

The whole "Apostolic Identity" thing is just another wall that allows them to define who is "apostolic" and who is not. And of course to judge as lost anyone who ain't just like us.

That kinda thing is precisely why I would never join the UPCI or even attend a UPCI church outside of an occasional visit.

But like I said previously, it is their org they can do what they want with it. But I do feel for the folks who have close ties through family. I don't have any close ties in it except for a few friends.

DAII 01-19-2010 12:30 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Deut's posting is a prime example of the spawn of the spirit of disfellowip.

They feed on differences, badge wearing and minutiae

DAII 01-19-2010 12:35 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson (Post 867357)
Yes, but it does not give the ministry the right to make heaven or hell issues out of what boils down to a minister's or group of minister's preferences.

The whole "Apostolic Identity thing is just another wall that allows them to define who is "apostolic" and who is not. And of course to judge as lost anyone who ain't just like us.

John you got it ... it's the inverse of Charismatic and Emergent.

It's a tool for disfellowship founded in inaccuracy and deception.

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 12:39 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 867348)
I wouldn't kind seeing DuetCh8 give us scripture that teaches a new testament women that she can not wear a bifurcated garment.

People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament verses. They want the twenty-third Psalm, the hundredth Psalm, and all the OT verses that wonít affect their lifestyle, but then they try to explain away any OT verse that would have any effect on how they live.

2 Timothy 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But I GUESS 1 Corinthians 11 want do it for you either ...will it?

Is not Deuteronomy 22:5 scripture? If so, then it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Preachers, will you be like so many of the mockers of today and cut these verses out of your Bible as Jehoiakim did? Or will you stand like Paul and be able to say,

"And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house," - Acts 20:20

Letís look at I Corinthians 10:1-11.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today.

I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by the mockers. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us.

DAII 01-19-2010 12:40 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867363)
People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament verses. They want the twenty-third Psalm, the hundredth Psalm, and all the OT verses that wonít affect their lifestyle, but then they try to explain away any OT verse that would have any effect on how they live.

2 Timothy 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But I GUESS 1 Corinthians 11 want do it for you either ...will it?

Is not Deuteronomy 22:5 scripture? If so, then it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Preachers, will you be like so many of the mockers of today and cut these verses out of your Bible as Jehoiakim did? Or will you stand like Paul and be able to say,

"And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house," - Acts 20:20

Letís look at I Corinthians 10:1-11.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today.

I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by the mockers. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us.

There you have it ... you can't wear undies or gloves.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:40 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867344)
I would say YES, emphatically. They are shared with the 1st century church. Considering the fact that...well....they (the apostles) wrote the scripture in the 1st century of the church.

And yes....STANDARD is in the BIBLE.

Standard = An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion.

Jeffrey, I dont have a problem with our doctrine or standards....so you pick the subject and we will continue.

I certainly have a "problem" with standards, which in our vernacular or minimums we set on one's relationship with Jesus. Especially when they lack scripture. Would it then surprise you if I were to take the time and cite the links and resources of Jewish Christian women in the first century with trimmed hair, jewelry and cosmetics on their face? What is your claim that the 1st Century church has the same standards? That's eisegesis on the highest level.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:43 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867350)
I dont think theres anything wrong with "open toed" shoes. Its not biblical. But the Bible does give authority to the minstry to use their own judgement. That is Biblical. Dont like it....go to another church. If it can be backed up with a Biblical "precept or principal" thats different.

Where do the elders have the right to go beyond scripture? Please cite your scripture.

Also, I can make a principle of anything in scripture. You don't agree with open-toed shoes, but they reference "principle" when laying down the law on that. Where do you draw the line to where it's no matter of that church's preference, but to the point that it is wrong? When they demand women wear burkhas? When they tell the people not to talk to other Christians? When they demand women to stay home (scriptural principle)? You see, that's dangerous ground when you decide to float away from the Text. Everything except drinking the Kool-Aid, and even JJ had some good principle for that.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:44 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by missourimary (Post 867351)
Problem is, what ship to jump to? UPC isn't the only one that is "sinking"... Many denominations are struggling with issues of worship, music, acceptance... just in an entirely different way that OP.

True, but the struggles are a lot different and the conversation a lot more friendly.

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:45 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Pick and choose -- surely, you really don't want to go there now do you?

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:45 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by missourimary (Post 867354)
But not everyone has that option. If you don't like it and try to go to another church, they may say that you have a bad spirit or are rebellious. They may not even accept you as a member, even if they do let you sit on a pew (and not all will). And almost certainly wherever you go there will be something else unlikeable that pops up eventually.

Of course, if they won't let you come, you're considered reprobate if you go to the Trinity church down the road, too...

I wish pastors would stop fighting over people and let them live for God. I've seen too many people walk out because they felt it was the only option left.

Pastors that tell people "don't like it you need to leave" should remember that scripture they love to hoist over people about "giving account," for they will surely have to account for their own sloppy pride.

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:46 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 867364)
There you have it ... you can't wear undies or gloves.

Or how about?

Deut 22:8 - - how many railings do we see around roofs these days?

John Atkinson 01-19-2010 12:48 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867363)
People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament verses.

That is exactly right. Some folks pich and choose verse 5 and ignore the rest of the chapter. For consistency we need to also have standards against wearing cotton and polyester at the same time. (Garment of divers sort) and we need fringes.... gotta have the fringes in order to line up to verse 17.

Picking and choosing can work both ways....

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:48 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson (Post 867357)
Yes, but it does not give the ministry the right to make heaven or hell issues out of what boils down to a minister's or group of minister's preferences.

The whole "Apostolic Identity" thing is just another wall that allows them to define who is "apostolic" and who is not. And of course to judge as lost anyone who ain't just like us.

That kinda thing is precisely why I would never join the UPCI or even attend a UPCI church outside of an occasional visit.

But like I said previously, it is their org they can do what they want with it. But I do feel for the folks who have close ties through family. I don't have any close ties in it except for a few friends.

John, I'm convinced that attitude is why so many OP's don't get involved in Charity and Community Service. Many of the other false doctrine churches and even secular people are doing it. They don't get the solo credit for it. It's not a distinction for them among other so-called Christians. They weren't the first on the scene. So they minimize it with grossly distorted interpretations of scripture like "the poor you will have with you always" (while ignoring the enormity of scripture concerning the poor, and the context of Jesus's words in the process).

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 12:48 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 867355)
If it can't be backed up you just play the "authority" card.......so why bother discussing with you?

Well I guess we would have to look at Moses for this answer. Or Paul.....or Peter. Your argument is only Valid to a certain extent. Why bother going to church if the pastor doesnt carry any discretion.

They murmured against Moses as well. So now what. Hey you have ALL the ANSWERS.....You dont need a preacher! You know the BIBLE. YOU know what you believe. Theres no need for church or the ministry....Correct???

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:51 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867363)
People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament verses. They want the twenty-third Psalm, the hundredth Psalm, and all the OT verses that wonít affect their lifestyle, but then they try to explain away any OT verse that would have any effect on how they live.

2 Timothy 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But I GUESS 1 Corinthians 11 want do it for you either ...will it?

Is not Deuteronomy 22:5 scripture? If so, then it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Preachers, will you be like so many of the mockers of today and cut these verses out of your Bible as Jehoiakim did? Or will you stand like Paul and be able to say,

"And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house," - Acts 20:20

Letís look at I Corinthians 10:1-11.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today.

I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by the mockers. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us.

Who is "picking and choosing" here? :ursofunny

Read the preceding versus of your favorite Deuteronomy passage. Read the proceeding verses. Read the levitical laws. Let's obey it all! No picking and choosing.

Okay, so then we use hermeneutics. First, we determine what the Text meant to Israel. Second, what was the authorial intent? Third, what was the timeless principle. Finally, what does that mean to us today?

The fact that both men and women wore robes in Deuteronomy 22 should be a "DUH" bell for us. Some choose to read in it their own interpretations. Just be honest!

So I ask you, what commandment in the OT was concerning bifurcated clothing?

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:51 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867376)
Well I guess we would have to look at Moses for this answer. Or Paul.....or Peter. Your argument is only Valid to a certain extent. Why bother going to church if the pastor doesnt carry any discretion.

They murmured against Moses as well. So now what. Hey you have ALL the ANSWERS.....You dont need a preacher! You know the BIBLE. YOU know what you believe. Theres no need for church or the ministry....Correct???

I don't go to church for answers.

Timmy 01-19-2010 12:52 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 867381)
I don't go to church for answers.

ROFL!!!

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 12:52 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson (Post 867374)
That is exactly right. Some folks pich and choose verse 5 and ignore the rest of the chapter. For consistency we need to also have standards against wearing cotton and polyester at the same time. (Garment of divers sort) and we need fringes.... gotta have the fringes in order to line up to verse 17.

Picking and choosing can work both ways....

Your mockery of the scriptures is not amusing. Tell me your complaint. (?) Other than you have an axe to grind with any preacher that steps on your TV or anything YOU dont want to give up or comply with.

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 12:53 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 867381)
I don't go to church for answers.

Why do you go?

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:53 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867376)
Well I guess we would have to look at Moses for this answer. Or Paul.....or Peter. Your argument is only Valid to a certain extent. Why bother going to church if the pastor doesnt carry any discretion.

They murmured against Moses as well. So now what. Hey you have ALL the ANSWERS.....You dont need a preacher! You know the BIBLE. YOU know what you believe. Theres no need for church or the ministry....Correct???

Duet, who in the NT is compared to Moses? The "pastor" (a term referenced only once in the NT) or Jesus Christ himself? So careful when you give comparison to a mediator and person who stood before the congregation and God like Moses and a guy flying solo at the local church called the pastor.

She makes a great point, actually. Discretion and law are quite the contrary. Even SP could give you a schooling on that. You seem to think the only way to lead people in Christ is to create laws.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 12:55 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867383)
Your mockery of the scriptures is not amusing. Tell me your complaint. (?) Other than you have an axe to grind with any preacher that steps on your TV or anything YOU dont want to give up or comply with.

You challenged people to go to the Scriptures, and then you get personal. Typical. If they don't agree, question their motives. They MUST be bitter.

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:56 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867384)
Why do you go?

Corporate worship
Hear the word
Social interaction
Be with like-minded people

...just a few reasons.

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 12:57 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 867380)
Who is "picking and choosing" here? :ursofunny

Read the preceding versus of your favorite Deuteronomy passage. Read the proceeding verses. Read the levitical laws. Let's obey it all! No picking and choosing.

Okay, so then we use hermeneutics. First, we determine what the Text meant to Israel. Second, what was the authorial intent? Third, what was the timeless principle. Finally, what does that mean to us today?

The fact that both men and women wore robes in Deuteronomy 22 should be a "DUH" bell for us. Some choose to read in it their own interpretations. Just be honest!

So I ask you, what commandment in the OT was concerning bifurcated clothing?

The ONLY "bifurcated" garment in the old testament was worn by the priest!
My question to you is this


IS IT WRONG FOR A MAN TO WEAR A SKIRT or DRESS ????????

rgcraig 01-19-2010 12:59 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867392)
The ONLY "bifurcated" garment in the old testament was worn by the priest!
My question to you is this


IS IT WRONG FOR A MAN TO WEAR A SKIRT or DRESS ????????

Will it send them to hell? No.

Is it unacceptable in our society? Yes.

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 01:00 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 867391)
Corporate worship
Hear the word
Social interaction
Be with like-minded people

...just a few reasons.

But NOT for answers? Interesting. So they should just READ the word and you take it for what you want??

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 01:00 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 867393)
Will it send them to hell? No.

Is it unacceptable in our society? Yes.

So men cross dressing is NOT a sin?????

freeatlast 01-19-2010 01:02 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson (Post 867374)
That is exactly right. Some folks pich and choose verse 5 and ignore the rest of the chapter. For consistency we need to also have standards against wearing cotton and polyester at the same time. (Garment of divers sort) and we need fringes.... gotta have the fringes in order to line up to verse 17.

Picking and choosing can work both ways....

Let's look at vs 5 of Dt 22 as DueteronmyCh8 has brought it uo concerning women and the wearing of dresses verese pants.

A woman shall not wear a MANS garment.

Please Br. Dt.8 tell us all the hebrew word translated "man" in this verse nd it's meaning to those it was written to.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 01:03 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867392)
The ONLY "bifurcated" garment in the old testament was worn by the priest!
My question to you is this


IS IT WRONG FOR A MAN TO WEAR A SKIRT or DRESS ????????

What does it mean symbolically to our culture today? Just like there were no pants in Jesus' day or Moses', we appeal to culture to make the right application. The correct application of Deut 22 has to do with cross-dressers. A secondary application would be God's value in gender distinction. Be feminine.

In our culture today, a man wearing a dress or skirt is certainly strange, immature, immodest and unacceptable. How many people have you had to kick out of your church for that reason?

My question back to you: Would you wear a pair of women's pants?

rgcraig 01-19-2010 01:04 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867394)
But NOT for answers? Interesting. So they should just READ the word and you take it for what you want??

No.

What's really sad is the church should be about saving the lost not keeping the saved.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 01:04 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867396)
So men cross dressing is NOT a sin?????

God knows the heart, and if the heart condemn the man, then he is condemned (and you are happy). But I know a very heterosexual man who dressed up like a woman as a gag for a skit. We laughed. Never questioned his heart or taste in clothing.

Jeffrey 01-19-2010 01:06 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Bump for Deut.

Will you try and post a photo of yourself in a pair of women's pants?

rgcraig 01-19-2010 01:08 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867396)
So men cross dressing is NOT a sin?????

The dress doesn't cause the sin -- the spirit of wanting to be a woman is the sin.

John Atkinson 01-19-2010 01:08 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867383)
Your mockery of the scriptures is not amusing. Tell me your complaint. (?) Other than you have an axe to grind with any preacher that steps on your TV or anything YOU dont want to give up or comply with.

LOL, that's just plain funny. I wasn't mocking the scriptures.

However some folks interpretation of them are highly mockable...

And using one verse in the Old Testament to put pantalooned women in hell is just downright mockable.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

These are scriptures too that state if you count on one part of the law you need to do it all.

The underlying principle of Deuteronomy 22 is about equal balance.



Besides, if you study into the origin of pants you might find they were originally a female garment.

rgcraig 01-19-2010 01:09 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 867403)
Bump for Deut.

Will you try and post a photo of yourself in a pair of women's pants?

LOL!!!:situps::statbike::treadmill:

John Atkinson 01-19-2010 01:11 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuteronomyCh8 (Post 867392)
The ONLY "bifurcated" garment in the old testament was worn by the priest!
My question to you is this


IS IT WRONG FOR A MAN TO WEAR A SKIRT or DRESS ????????

ask him.....


http://www.scotland.org.uk/images/games710.jpg

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 01:11 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 867397)
Let's look at vs 5 of Dt 22 as DueteronmyCh8 has brought it uo concerning women and the wearing of dresses verese pants.

A woman shall not wear a MANS garment.

Please Br. Dt.8 tell us all the hebrew word translated "man" in this verse nd it's meaning to those it was written to.

I believe the scripture is rather "plain" in its meaning. It needs no interpretation.

freeatlast 01-19-2010 01:14 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
DuetCh8: take a minute and read the words penned by a few ver scholarly men concerning Dt 22:5

there is no way this verse means what you propose it mean...and it IS the hallmark verse of the entire apostolic identy crowd.

It is the ONLY verse that, misinterpreted, is found in the entire old and New testament to stand upon when you command a women not wear a split legged article of clothing-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. What do the words actually say in the Hebrew language according to the scholars? The first phrase - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.


A. The first phrase, that which pertaineth - the phrase that which pertaineth is represented in the Hebrew by one word, the word keli, and it most generally means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.


1. Scholarly references for the word keli: Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.


2. Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references used by the author deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing,* ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.


3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...


4. Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, *not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.

Conclusion: The word keli most often means a manufactured item, quite often a weapon, or armor. *It is never, except in Deuteronomy 22:5, translated “that which pertaineth,” “clothing,” or “garment.”


B. The phrase translated unto a man is also represented in the Hebrew language by a single word - gibbor.


1. Scholarly references for the word gibbor -- Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.


2. Gesenius 1368 author’s references and Hebrew words omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunter, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.


3. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 (condensed) (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.


4. Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.


Conclusion: the word gibbor does not refer to every ordinary man. It refers to a distinct type of man, amighty man, most likely a military man or soldier which matches nicely with the word keli which most often means armour. By this interpretation the scripture speaks against the idolatrous practice of either enticing or frightening demons, something which would, indeed, be an abomination unto the LORD!

DeuteronomyCh8 01-19-2010 01:14 PM

Re: DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Atkinson (Post 867405)
LOL, that's just plain funny. I wasn't mocking the scriptures.

However some folks interpretation of them are highly mockable...

And using one verse in the Old Testament to put pantalooned women in hell is just downright mockable.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

These are scriptures too that state if you count on one part of the law you need to do it all.

The underlying principle of Deuteronomy 22 is about equal balance.



Besides, if you study into the origin of pants you might find they were originally a female garment.

YES.....show me this! Lets see it! Please. Pants origin...lets have it. By the way are you circumcised?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.