Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more .... - Page 3

LUKE2447 · #21 02-02-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

If the first century church thought like us and existed in continuity until this day.... we'd all still be wearing robes with inner and outer garments.

My wife's hair was past her backside and she got it cut this past Saturday. It now hits her just about her shoulder blades. For those who think it's short I'd like to ask... would it be okay if I wore my hair that long? What's nature teachin' ya? lol

Sad.... Would not say it's short at all but not what my personal opinion on what letting the hair grow is. I don't make it a heaven or hell issue but of honor and love to God.

ManOfWord · #22 02-02-2009, 02:03 PM

Hmmmmmm....so I would gather that someone who believes in marital faithfulness, loves and lives the word, has a personal devotional time, doesn't lie or cheat on their taxes, doesn't engage in porn, doesn't cuss, is a faithful employee, is faithful to their church, etc, has been baptized in Jesus' name, speaks in tongues................but who doesn't hold to a 1950's dress style isn't holy?

We're not going around this merry-go-round again are we?

LUKE2447 · #23 02-02-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Modesty of appearance can be exhibited without looking like a woman comes out of a 1950 magazine.

come on most women in the UPCI don't look like the 50's. Also most pants "IMO" are not modest nor respectful in love to the men around them and most are manish. Also to me they do not present the honor and grace of the woman but excercise the woman as a item to be grasped. That is not love! Again my opinion!

KWSS1976 · #24 02-02-2009, 02:07 PM

around and around we go were we will stop no one knows

Ferd · #25 02-02-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Hmmmmmm....so I would gather that someone who believes in marital faithfulness, loves and lives the word, has a personal devotional time, doesn't lie or cheat on their taxes, doesn't engage in porn, doesn't cuss, is a faithful employee, is faithful to their church, etc, has been baptized in Jesus' name, speaks in tongues................but who doesn't hold to a 1950's dress style isn't holy?

We're not going around this merry-go-round again are we?

well, we wouldnt have to if someone didnt feel it necessary to take issue with the UPCI for declariing "This is who we are"....

What irritates me is that it is an issue. folk dont like the Apostolic Identity as reflected by the UPCI, then fine, do your own deal. But do we have to stop down and bash the UPCI every time some preacher in the organization decides to suggest that the UPCI still olds to some views others have let go of (or never held)?

Justin · #26 02-02-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Hmmmmmm....so I would gather that someone who believes in marital faithfulness, loves and lives the word, has a personal devotional time, doesn't lie or cheat on their taxes, doesn't engage in porn, doesn't cuss, is a faithful employee, is faithful to their church, etc, has been baptized in Jesus' name, speaks in tongues................but who doesn't hold to a 1950's dress style isn't holy?

We're not going around this merry-go-round again are we?

It seems that there is way too much emphasis on making oneself holy on the outside. (See Gal. 3)

Ferd · #27 02-02-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

come on most women in the UPCI don't look like the 50's. Also most pants "IMO" are not modest nor respectful in love to the men around them and most are manish. Also to me they do not present the honor and grace of the woman but excercise it as a item to be grasped. Again my opinion!

great googly moogly!

what a hair brained opinion that is! LOL! That is just wierd. Its like I have walked into an "Idea Walmart".

You see the oddest people in walmart.

SDG · #28 02-02-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

well, we wouldnt have to if someone didnt feel it necessary to take issue with the UPCI for declariing "This is who we are"....

What irritates me is that it is an issue. folk dont like the Apostolic Identity as reflected by the UPCI, then fine, do your own deal. But do we have to stop down and bash the UPCI every time some preacher in the organization decides to suggest that the UPCI still olds to some views others have let go of (or never held)?

Who we APs are now is the focus of Bernards' paper ... Ferd ... see link. Not the UPCI.

Is the story just the UPCI's ... or our diverse roots?

Who we are ??? ... does this mean ignoring and forgetting who we were ... ?

Identity and the truth.

Mrs. LPW · #29 02-02-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

well, we wouldnt have to if someone didnt feel it necessary to take issue with the UPCI for declariing "This is who we are"....

What irritates me is that it is an issue. folk dont like the Apostolic Identity as reflected by the UPCI, then fine, do your own deal. But do we have to stop down and bash the UPCI every time some preacher in the organization decides to suggest that the UPCI still olds to some views others have let go of (or never held)?

It makes you wonder.

KWSS1976 · #30 02-02-2009, 02:17 PM

The problem lies with the issue that if a lady in the upc wears skirts and then comes to the church in pants she is automaticlly made a sinner by the church...