***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[mfblume]

Is this guy presently UPCI?

Originally Posted by tv1a

I didn't see a contradiction. Morality and modesty are Biblical princples.

I agree... but to imply they in no way connote or have an effect on outward appearance is in contradiction because DT's assertion would conversely say that you can dress or appear any way you want and still be modest or moral. You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Is this guy presently UPCI?

Yes.

Can be verified two ways ...

http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Je rsey%20City%20(Newark)

https://wec.upci.org/ministers

Originally Posted by mfblume

Is this guy presently UPCI?

According to the UPCI.org website, yes.

http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

[tv1a]

Did the author capture the spirit of legalism or what?

The article is too lengthy, but Fausset's Bible Dictionary give a wonderful synopsis of the Pharisees. Substitue the word upci, and you would think you are reading current events.

I hope the author stays around to finish the job. Even if he has to use legal means to do it.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by philjones

According to the UPCI.org website, yes.

http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

I can't imagine he will be in the near future ... after his district superiors read this thesis and resolution 3 passes ... he will be in hot water.

[mfblume]

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I can't imagine he will be in the near future ... after his district superiors read this thesis and resolution 3 passes ... he will be in hot water.

I agree. They are probably already steeping the pot!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

I concur ... the heritage argument is flawed unless they want to associate themselves w/ the groups the author mentioned.

[tv1a]

Maybe I'm not looking under the right pebble. I don't see how you made that assumption. I got out of DT's post the dress code has taken the place of Biblical holiness and righteousness.

DT can jump in and defend the comments in question.

Originally Posted by philjones

I agree... but to imply they in no way connote or have an effect on outward appearance is in contradiction because DT's assertion would conversely say that you can dress or appear any way you want and still be modest or moral. You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other!