I refuse to remove the landmarks

[LadyChocolate]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If we want to call ourselves "Apostolic" shouldn't our landmarks be those that were set up by the original apostles?

You mean we have to move over to the middle east? aw man!













j/k

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

NO I am not. How ever It is clear that there should be clothing that is distinctly mens and distinctly womens.

If women have dress and skirts. Plus wear pants. Then men have nothing that is distinct to men. This is a problem.

In the garden, when God made clothes for Adam and Eve, he made them both coats. It doesn't mention that he made them different at all.

Throughout Bible times men and women both wore robes (dresses). There was supposed to be a fringe on one of them to differentiate, but that's all.

It just doesn't seem like a biblical concept that men and women's clothing must be drastically different.

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

I suspected this was not the forum for this topic. That is why I started it. .

Actually, this forum is full of threads discussing this very subject. A lot of interesting discussions.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

In the garden, when God made clothes for Adam and Eve, he made them both coats. It doesn't mention that he made them different at all.

Throughout Bible times men and women both wore robes (dresses). There was supposed to be a fringe on one of them to differentiate, but that's all.

It just doesn't seem like a biblical concept that men and women's clothing must be drastically different.




Actually, this forum is full of threads discussing this very subject. A lot of interesting discussions.

And, an English Bible which is older than the King James Version and considered "more Protestant" than the Anglican Catholic King James Version says, "Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches." That's verse 7 of chapter 3 of Genesis. Then verse 21 says, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them."

There is a marginal note for verse 7 for the word "breeches" which says, "Hebrew, things to gird about them and hide their privities."
There is also a marginal note for verse 21 which says "or gave them knowledge to make themselves coats."

This is from the 1599 Geneva Bible. It was translated by English Protestants in Geneva while they were banned from England by Bloody Queen Mary. Later when James was King he authorized what we know as the King James Bible for the Anglican or Episcopal or English Catholic Church. These godly reformers considered James a pervert. The Geneva Bible is the one the Pilgrims brought to America with them. The KJV to them represented the state Church.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If we want to call ourselves "Apostolic" shouldn't our landmarks be those that were set up by the original apostles?

The Apostles didn't all agree on everything.
The Jerusalem believers as led by James the Lord's brother were known for keeping the Old Testament Law with animal sacrifices. In Acts 21:20 (May AD 57) we are told that there were many thousands (Greek word muriades or ten thousands) of Jewish believers who are zealous for the law. Paul was requested to pay for the animals that 4 of the brethren were to sacrifice as they finished a Nazarite vow. Yet many other Christians did not observe sabbaths, new moons, feast days, circumcision, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

The Apostles didn't all agree on everything.
The Jerusalem believers as led by James the Lord's brother were known for keeping the Old Testament Law with animal sacrifices. In Acts 21:20 (May AD 57) we are told that there were many thousands (Greek word muriades or ten thousands) of Jewish believers who are zealous for the law. Paul was requested to pay for the animals that 4 of the brethren were to sacrifice as they finished a Nazarite vow. Yet many other Christians did not observe sabbaths, new moons, feast days, circumcision, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.

A landmark would be something ALL agreed to, Sam, and usually it is a matter of principle and not law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

A landmark would be something ALL agreed to, Sam, and usually it is a matter of principle and not law.

A landmark was a landmark. Please review the following post...it was biblically accurate.

Originally Posted by pelathais

The statement you cite in Proverbs involved respecting another man's fields and inheritance. Another verse just a bit further: Proverbs 23:10, clearly shows that the landmark was to keep people from stealing land and crops from those who were weaker than they. Job 24:2 echoes this same concern.

Here's the actual verse...

Proverbs 23:10
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:

What we see here is that we have drifted from what the Bible is actually talking about in context because preachers have tried to "sermonize" on a word. If we drift away from what the Bible is actually addressing we'll argue over it until Jesus comes back because it's up to subjective opinion. However, if we keep it strictly within it's biblical context we can actually know the Bible and know what it was actually addressing.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A landmark was a landmark. Please review the following post...it was biblically accurate.



Here's the actual verse...

Proverbs 23:10
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:

What we see here is that we have drifted from what the Bible is actually talking about in context because preachers have tried to "sermonize" on a word. If we drift away from what the Bible is actually addressing we'll argue over it until Jesus comes back because it's up to subjective opinion. However, if we keep it strictly within it's biblical context we can actually know the Bible and know what it was actually addressing.

Let's look at Paul's hermeneutics.

2 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Wow!! Who would have had the insight that Paul did to figure out that God gave this to Moses to also be instructive to us when it comes to those who minister of the gospel?

Let's look at the dictionary.

land⋅mark   /ˈlændˌmɑrk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [land-mahrk] Show IPA
–noun 1. a prominent or conspicuous object on land that serves as a guide, esp. to ships at sea or to travelers on a road; a distinguishing landscape feature marking a site or location: The post office served as a landmark for locating the street to turn down.
2. something used to mark the boundary of land.
3. a building or other place that is of outstanding historical, aesthetic, or cultural importance, often declared as such and given a special status (landmark designation), ordaining its preservation, by some authorizing organization.
4. a significant or historic event, juncture, achievement, etc.: The court decision stands as a landmark in constitutional law.

–verb (used with object) 5. to declare (a building, site, etc.) a landmark: a movement to landmark New York's older theaters.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
bef. 1000; ME; OE landmearc. See land, mark 1


Synonyms:
4. milestone, watershed, benchmark. From Dictionary.com

I take it you don't find it appropriate to use figures of speech like metaphors and the like to find principles and instructions from the OT that can be applied to us today? Would you consider this adding to the word of God?

[Billy Boy]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

Prov 22:28
28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

I find it interesting that many after being blessed by finding the Truth, begin to seek ways to change what they have received.

Men and women before us understood the strength in Holiness, both inside and out. They were wise enough to know that the NEW BIRTH experience was just the beginning. Men were to dress like men and women like women. Because this was right in the eyes to the LORD. And still is. Men and women were to dress modestly and still should. Uncut hair on a women was her covering and showed her submission to her head and long hair on a man was a shame and still is.

Just because culture changes it's view does not mean the church should or that GOD has.

I am progressive in the sense that I believe we should change our methods for reaching the world in need. I am an old time preacher in the sense that I do not believe we should ever change our MESSAGE, any of it.

You would fit in well with the Amish!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

Prov 22:28
28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

I find it interesting that many after being blessed by finding the Truth, begin to seek ways to change what they have received.

Men and women before us understood the strength in Holiness, both inside and out. They were wise enough to know that the NEW BIRTH experience was just the beginning. Men were to dress like men and women like women. Because this was right in the eyes to the LORD. And still is. Men and women were to dress modestly and still should. Uncut hair on a women was her covering and showed her submission to her head and long hair on a man was a shame and still is.

Just because culture changes it's view does not mean the church should or that GOD has.

I am progressive in the sense that I believe we should change our methods for reaching the world in need. I am an old time preacher in the sense that I do not believe we should ever change our MESSAGE, any of it.

The landmark being referred to was a real landmark that marked property borders, but even in a spiritual sense, you have to assume every "border" was set right the first time and that seems to be what you are saying.

This is a cirular argument that assumes something that was not yet proven...the very "landmarks" you hope to prove.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The landmark being referred to was a real landmark that marked property borders, but even in a spiritual sense, you have to assume every "border" was set right the first time and that seems to be what you are saying.

This is a cirular argument that assumes something that was not yet proven...the very "landmarks" you hope to prove.

BTW go read "The Winds of God" and "United We Stand" and you will find that the earlier Pentecostals that we got our beginning from did not all believe in the same standards. You will also find they were not all three steppers...