AFF apostolic or not? - Page 34

Praxeas · #**331** 07-12-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

I quoted you post prax. I put in bold the statement of yours I was referring too. You got yourself in a little deeper than what you thought and now you are attempting to make it look like I dug myself a hole. Not true, in fact it it the opposite. You are the one that is trying to dig out of this mess. Nice try.

I maintain the same point I made originally. I am not trying to get out of it. You are the one that has a silly contradiction. "That which pertaineth to a woman" refers to LENGTH? How absurd! You didn't think that through.

If it refers to length and that means men can't wear lengths that women do then what do you do with women wearing dresses to their ankles? How do you wear your pants now? Not to the ankles? "that which pertaineth to a woman"...

hometown guy · #**332** 07-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I maintain the same point I made originally. I am not trying to get out of it. You are the one that has a silly contradiction. "That which pertaineth to a woman" refers to LENGTH? How absurd! You didn't think that through.

If it refers to length and that means men can't wear lengths that women do then what do you do with women wearing dresses to their ankles? How do you wear your pants now? Not to the ankles? "that which pertaineth to a woman"...

Narrows pants go past his ankle, so he is still in the biblical guidlines for that which pertainth to a man

Rico · #**333** 07-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Who appointed you AFF spokesperson?

They need to be fired.

Why don't you actively engage in some sort of ministry, and then come back and lecture the Elder.

Until then, I'd say the best thing you could do is log off for more than two hours a day.

Or is that too much to ask?

PP, I am well within my rights to post on as many threads and for as many hours as I'd like. If you don't like it TOO BAD. I do this for fun and to keep from getting bored. Since I started working from home my time on this board has increased a lot. That means my post count is higher than most. I can not help it that you can't stand the fact that I've stood up to your judgmental attitude on another thread and you know see me as an enemy. Brother Epley and I have a longer history of posting with and to each other than you and I do. Even though in this particular instance, I wasn't directing my post towards him, it has struck a nerve with him. So be it. I don't worship the ground he walks on any more than the ground you walk on.

Praxeas · #**334** 07-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Narrows pants go past his ankle, so he is still in the biblical guidlines for that which pertainth to a man

so if a woman wears a dress past her ankles it's wrong?

Rico · #**335** 07-12-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Yeah, but it's 50 year old corn!

Dat's what I was thinking?

Rico · #**336** 07-12-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzyde

*clears throat*

If I may interject, I think he was actually complimenting Bro. Epley, not lecturing him...

backing out cautiously....

PP is on a "I'm gonna get Rico" hunt the last couple of days. He's mad cause I had the nerve to stand up to his condemning attitude on the smoking thread. He can't stand it when anyone gets in his face, and I ain't afraid to get anyone's face when I think they're wrong.

Narrow Is The Way · #**337** 07-12-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

so if a woman wears a dress past her ankles it's wrong?

The following words are from you prax. Mark, why can't a man wear a pair of pants that are as long as the ladies' skirts? Did you mention length here? Yes you did. Sorry pal, you can't fool all of AFF. You we're justifying your shorts based upon a womans skirt length. You can't wiggle your way out of it.

hometown guy · #**338** 07-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

so if a woman wears a dress past her ankles it's wrong?

oh please prax,

Narrow Is The Way · #**339** 07-12-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hometown guy

oh please prax,

These guys will go to great lengths (no pun intended) to keep from having to live holy. They mind the flesh. If the flesh says: I want to watch Hollywood, well they watch Hollywood. It goes on an on. I don't think you can't promote any standard that they will agree with. They usually get mad because inside they know they are wrong but cannot put away the flesh. It is very sad. If my pastor said no more AFF, guess what? It would be no more AFF for me. If their pastor said no more AFF, they would either find another church or just stay in rebellion to their pastor.

TRFrance · #**340** 07-12-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRFrance

There are some here who believe that if although baptism into the Name is preferred, if you're baptized into the titles it's not that big a deal.

No way did the Apostles believe or teach that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barb

I don't believe that, and don't know who does...even those with whom I differ on other things baptize in the Name of Jesus.

Maybe you don't believe that, but you certainly know some here who do.

I can think of a couple of people on AFF who have expressed that sentiment on AFF. I just don't feel like naming names. That might just open up a can of worms that I don't feel like opening right now.