More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

It's not two definitions. It's the same definition.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6361.htm

6361. petash ►
Strong's Concordance
petash: (a garment) perhaps leggings
Original Word: פַּטִּישֵׁי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: petash
Phonetic Spelling: (pat-teesh')
Short Definition: coats
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
(Aramaic) of uncertain derivation
Definition
(a garment) perhaps leggings
NASB Translation
coats (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[מְּטַשׁ] noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings SACJPhil. xxvi (1899), 309; (probably later insertion in text Id.ib. 311 ff.) (Talmud (rare); √פטשׁ spread out according to K§ 57 b) a)); — plural suffix פטישי הון Kt (probably ׳מְּטִי K§§ 54, 3 a)a); 57, b)a), Kmpon the passage M78* and others ׳מַּטִּי), מַּטְּשֵׁיהוֺן Qr, Daniel 3:21; conjectures on meaning see in Behrm Bev Dr M78*.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
hose
(Aramaic) from a root corresponding to that of pattiysh; a gown (as if hammered out wide) -- hose.

Nope, not pants.

The Aramaic is of an unknown origin, and means "hammer." Did you happen to notice that the Lexicographer didn't really know what they are? That's the interesting thing about Bible interpretation. We don't have Bible translations, all we read is interpretation of how people understood the word's usage at the time in which it was being used. Therefore when we deal with the Greek, Old Testament, or New Testament we refer to material which was either pagan, or secular written at the time of the writings in which we are studying. When researching the Hebrew, Aramaic, of the Bible, we must look at the Bible which was originally used by the New Testament writers. Which was the LXX. How was the verse interpreted by those who were reading it 400 years before the birth of Christ?

פַּטִּישׁ • (patísh) m (plural indefinite פַּטִּישִׁים, singular construct פַּטִּישׁ־, plural construct פַּטִּישֵׁי־)

A hammer.

Bro, the Lexicographer when you read his definition he really doesn't have an answer. Just his interpretation, and doesn't bring in the Vulgate, or the LXX.

Pants are male attire.

Love you

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. It never fails. We fail. For all who are His, the Law remains written on the heart. It means I've failed to surrender to and to obey that law. Love doesn't seek to cause harm or pain with malice. Seeking to cause pain and harm in anger or malice is a failure to love as He desires us to love. And so, ultimately it is sin.

Grace works to provide us the opportunity to repent and try again. Grace provides the encouragement and strength to arise from our knees and overcome through the Spirit, even if incrementally.

Love and Grace can never fail. However, we can fail love and grace. We fail love and grace if we refuse to confess and repent of our lack of love and carnality. We fail love and grace if we walk away poisoned by our own bitterness.

I believe that when we stand before Him, at the Judgment Seat of Christ, our every thought, word, deed, and intention will be judged in accordance to the Royal Law of Love. Was the thought, word, deed, or intention, truly loving? That will be the question. And we will be rewarded or suffer great loss accordingly.

You will be judged by your works. By the fruit on your tree. Royal Law of Love isn't a hood with a smiley face, which hides a scowl.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here's your full quote again. Looks pretty clear to me.

You explained that the UPCI and Apostolic Pentecostals put themselves in the position of Jesus Christ? Because anyone who is in opposition to their system or method (they believe) are opposed to Christ Himself.

Did I get that right so far?

I thought I made it clear in my original post, perhaps not. I'll attempt to clarify.

First one thing I didn't say was the UPC puts themselves in the position of Jesus Christ. So lets set that aside, I don't believe that.

What I said....

Originally Posted by Jason B

The difference is they go much further than scripture, one could easily argue further than Jesus himself, or Paul. They (upci/apostolics) are not content with faith in the person and work of the living Christ, but in a system/method that they so adhere to they can't distinguish between Christ and their system. Y'all misunderstand any opposition to your system/method to be opposition to Christ himself.

What I mean: Christians in general don't feel like they have a monopoly on Christ. They accept that people can come to Christ outside of their denominational traditions. They accept each other as brothers, despite doctrinal differences, because they understand Christ is above what someone believes about election, freewill, baptism, eschatology, etc. They see the body of Christ as bigger than their denominations.

Whereas, UPCI/UC apostolics feel that if someone won't come to Christ through their method (baptism in JN, tongues) that they are rejecting Christ. This simply isn't the case. In a way it seems as if they feel spurned someone can find Christ outside of their formula and declare it not to be so. They misunderstand opposition/disagreement to their method to be a rejection of Christ, when in reality it is only a rejection of their soteriological theories, especially the initial evidence doctrine, and second to that all the standards. Its a failure to identify the body of Christ and to mistake their movement as THE body of Christ, rather than a member.

It does not make them satanic or antichrist. I do not think that at all. I believe a lot of oneness pentecostals will be in heaven, but their doctrine on salvation is mistaken.

Maybe thats clear as mud, i dont know.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I totally understand why people leave. You had your run ins while you were in the Apostolic movement. You even posted your war story here.

Your sequence of events is mixed up. I had very few "run ins" while in the movement. After I left I was told God would kill me. By that time I'd been gone 2 years. I didn't leave over bad experience, bad treatment, abuse, etc. None of that. It was doctrine.

And the guy who was the nastiest toward me after leaving was an independent brother. He didn't even fellowship with the UPC because they were too liberal. So why would I have an axe to grind with the UPC when some stand alone pastor far right of the UPC was my "run in"?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let me make it plain for you. You read commentaries, and you read other books by other Christian groups. You were shopping for answers.

Let me make it clear for you brother, I already detailed what I read and didn't read while in the movement. You are struggling with sequence of events. Prior to 2010 I read one commentary. Acts by FF Bruce. Now if you criticize me for reading commentaries, consider that oneness commentaries are pretty scarce. Perhaps if they're were a few more literary accomplishments than "Power Before the Throne" they could equip people better.

Nevertheless the majority of what I read came from 1)the required reading list for ministerial license, local and general and 2)the pentecostal publishing house, which catalog I got every year and highlighted all the books I wanted and bought as many as I could afford and read. I didn't even like to read trinitarians as I believed they weren't even saved and had not the spirit.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Or you were in the Apostolic church for years? 10, 20, 30, 40? What's the number old salt?

10 years. January 2000-June 2010

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My question is this, which is the questions I ask all the other seekers? What on earth were you doing for all those long years in Pennycost.

For one God saved me there and I believed that was the truth.
I told you I enjoyed my time in the movement. I still have people in it I love.
I spent my time studying, witnessing, teaching Bible studies, sunday school, and much later preaching. I spent my time being highly involved in the church, building the churches website, doing sound work, recording sermons, distributing CDs, making every prayer meeting, youth rally, and work day. I was super involved with the church and the UPC. Maybe you missed it, but I loved it. To this day, THAT is what I miss. It wasn't a burden, because I loved the people too, they were who we fellowshipped with.

Remember on another thread when I mentioned I'd visited a UPC church last year for a few weeks and you asked why? These were some of the reasons. And that people we still love were there. I enjoy the music, the fellowship, the familiarity. I wanted to give it a chance. In some ways, a lot of ways I missed it. I'll tell you a secret, in some ways I still do. Is that bitterness? Is that bad experience? Is that holding a grudge? Having an axe to grind? Right now my closest pastoral friend in the world, who is a upc district official, who I love dearly, wants me to move to his area and help in the church. Brother, I'm telling you the God honest truth, I want to. I would love to. Its something we talked about for years, even day dreamed about. Now I can and there is nothing holding me back except....

.....I can't pretend to believe things that I don't believe the Bible teaches, in regard to soteriology, the initial evidence doctrine, standards, and tithing. And thats why I dont attend a UPC church. Its why I didnt go back to a UPC after I left the independent holiness church.

Over and over you've blasted me, said I hate apostolics, hate the UPC, and so on. That's not the case, I've just been brutally honest. I miss a lot of things from back then, but I dont believe the doctrine. That is the problem. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

John MacArthur? Sweet Jesus!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What I mean: Christians in general don't feel like they have a monopoly on Christ. They accept that people can come to Christ outside of their denominational traditions. They accept each other as brothers, despite doctrinal differences, because they understand Christ is above what someone believes about election, freewill, baptism, eschatology, etc. They see the body of Christ as bigger than their denominations.

You must not get out much.

About 2/3 of all professing Christians believe only the Roman Catholic Church is God's church.

Of the remainder, a large number are Eastern Orthodox, who believe there is no salvation outside of being in good standing with one of the Orthodox churches or perhaps the Roman church.

Of the ones that are left:

Most Calvinists believe you are probably not saved unless you're a Calvinist.

Baptists for the most part believe salvation and church are different things, but LOTS AND LOTS believe God's church is a BAPTIST church.

Church of Christ, and many of their cousins in the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and "Community Churches" believe THEY are the church, and nobody gets saved outside of their way.

Many Church of God denominations each believe THEY ALONE are God's church. Many go as far as to believe NOBODY ELSE is saved.

All you have left, compared to "Christianity at large", is a smidgeon of evangelical and charismatic and pentecostal churches who generally have no doctrine beyond "believe you're a Christian and you are one". Oh, and the Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and some others who don't even believe in being saved anyway.

So, who's claiming a monopoly on truth?

Pretty much everybody is.

You included.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Since we have had this hullabaloo in front of God and everyone I want to show you something. Remember when I said you were the same guy who wore a starched long sleeve shirt? Who would march his wife back into the house to change her headcovering? You posted the same reason you post now. You said you were a jerk to her and now a jerk to me. I accept peoples' apologies, I apologize when I feel that I've crossed a line and someone was hurt.

But sorry can be a sorry word if we are continually apologizing to each other. What I mean, is that I don't want an apology, I look for changed behavior. If I tell you I'm sorry, I make well sure that I don't ever commit the crime again. That's what I love about the Apostolic movement because it was not about apologizing and then committing the crime again. Seriously, when you guys tell your horror stories I shake my head. Because every religion has its people who either don't believe, are flying under the radar, who are change agents, are full blown snakes and devils. Every religion has its bad examples. But every religion should be judged by its best.

Listen, nothing personal, please don't take this the wrong way. because I really don't want you to understand this. This thread died the death of a 1,000 cuts a long time ago. No one ever even came close to dealing with my original thoughts or what I posted concerning the language in the LXX which is the Bible Jesus used. I have the greatest respect for Essais because unlike me he knows when to leave the thread alone. I have way too much fun, and probably would of stayed on the Titanic as it sunk. There is a German gentleman that my wife and I know. Who actually uses the Bible with Mien Kampf. He believes Adolf Hitler is coming back in the future with Jesus Christ. But this time Adolf will be a woman. My wife and I were at the grocery store and my wife was talking to this gentleman. I asked her, "what do you think about him?" She looked at me and said "Dominic, the man is totally insane."

Now, this was part of an awaking I had. That religions attract for the most part insane people. I mean criminally insane. No, they won't actually murder you (well they might, but that's another subject) but they kill you softly. They wear you don't with all the constant Christianisms which they say they have the sweet love of Jesus in their pretty blue eyes. When actually they just have to say that because the teachings of Christ require that. That's legalism.

I asked you "do you do that?"

Then you apologize, and say you shouldn't of ever done that to me. You got in the flesh, you got angry, you called me names, and now say your sorry and all things are new again?

2 Corinthians 6:6 in the KJV it says love unfeigned. Which means no faking the love. My father was an atheist, my mother was a Catholic. Both saw right through Churchanity. They didn't know what a Pentecostal was, they called Baptist, Pentecostals, SDA, Mormons, all Born Agains. Well, that's what my mother called them. My father called them other things which I can't post here.

Aquila you are no different than any legalist with a haircut and a shoe shine.

You said you got carnal, so is any legalist. They are carnal. They put the cart before the horse.

You apologize to me once before, but it didn't hold. Because you were looking for a mutual trade of apologies. Which would of sealed the deal. Yet, the way it works is that when you apologize you don't take it back. No matter what you think the other side is doing or doing to you.

So, I said my piece. Nothing personal, these are just my words. I remember when you were married to your first time. We have posted on this forum for a long time. That's why you have more posts than me.

But you believe some far out stuff, I don't mean just religious, but what you been posting over at the political section. If you owe anyone an apology it is analogorgan. That poster has never (to my knowledge) ever warranted someone to rock his cavities.

Man, this being human stuff can suck. And you are so right about the criminally insane. Lol

You gave me some food for thought. I want to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

As far as the discussion goes, I think there's room for disagreements within families. What I hope is that we can all walk away understanding one another's position better, and why we hold it. And maybe, in some strange way the diversity of interpretations can serve the greater good within the body of Christ.

God bless you EB.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You will be judged by your works. By the fruit on your tree. Royal Law of Love isn't a hood with a smiley face, which hides a scowl.

I believe in two different judgements, or at least two different states of the judged at a single judgment. Those in Christ are judged by their works under the Law of Christ, but this is more of a Bema style judgment determining reward - no one is lost, even if they are saved by the skin of their teeth. Those who are not in Christ are judged for their sins according to the Law of God, and ultimately they are eternally lost.

I know there are other perspectives. But that's the perspective come to believe in.

[Aquila]

It's my opinion that someone can come to faith and experience Justification in their repentance. However repentance is turning from sin, error, and Godlessness to a life of loving obedience to God. And water baptism is part of the Great Commission, it is a command, not a tradition of man. If this person refuses to be baptized, have they truly repented? I ask this because it is the first thing commanded of them. Are they not in immediate rebellion? And baptism in Jesus name identifies us with Christ. The threefold formula identifies us with a doctrine, namely the Trinity doctrine. And if one doesn't wish to receive the baptism of the Spirit, are they not rejecting Regeneration? And if they are unregenerated and have not partaken in the divine nature, how can they experience Adoption? Will they remain Justified in such a state indefinitely, or will they fail the Grace of God in their rebellion and, while starting well, ultimately be lost?

I believe that Justification is received to qualify us for Regeneration, which we receive through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It isn't an end in itself.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Your sequence of events is mixed up. I had very few "run ins" while in the movement. After I left I was told God would kill me. By that time I'd been gone 2 years. I didn't leave over bad experience, bad treatment, abuse, etc. None of that. It was doctrine.

And the guy who was the nastiest toward me after leaving was an independent brother. He didn't even fellowship with the UPC because they were too liberal. So why would I have an axe to grind with the UPC when some stand alone pastor far right of the UPC was my "run in"?


Let me make it clear for you brother, I already detailed what I read and didn't read while in the movement. You are struggling with sequence of events. Prior to 2010 I read one commentary. Acts by FF Bruce. Now if you criticize me for reading commentaries, consider that oneness commentaries are pretty scarce. Perhaps if they're were a few more literary accomplishments than "Power Before the Throne" they could equip people better.

Nevertheless the majority of what I read came from 1)the required reading list for ministerial license, local and general and 2)the pentecostal publishing house, which catalog I got every year and highlighted all the books I wanted and bought as many as I could afford and read. I didn't even like to read trinitarians as I believed they weren't even saved and had not the spirit.

10 years. January 2000-June 2010

For one God saved me there and I believed that was the truth.
I told you I enjoyed my time in the movement. I still have people in it I love.
I spent my time studying, witnessing, teaching Bible studies, sunday school, and much later preaching. I spent my time being highly involved in the church, building the churches website, doing sound work, recording sermons, distributing CDs, making every prayer meeting, youth rally, and work day. I was super involved with the church and the UPC. Maybe you missed it, but I loved it. To this day, THAT is what I miss. It wasn't a burden, because I loved the people too, they were who we fellowshipped with.

Remember on another thread when I mentioned I'd visited a UPC church last year for a few weeks and you asked why? These were some of the reasons. And that people we still love were there. I enjoy the music, the fellowship, the familiarity. I wanted to give it a chance. In some ways, a lot of ways I missed it. I'll tell you a secret, in some ways I still do. Is that bitterness? Is that bad experience? Is that holding a grudge? Having an axe to grind? Right now my closest pastoral friend in the world, who is a upc district official, who I love dearly, wants me to move to his area and help in the church. Brother, I'm telling you the God honest truth, I want to. I would love to. Its something we talked about for years, even day dreamed about. Now I can and there is nothing holding me back except....

.....I can't pretend to believe things that I don't believe the Bible teaches, in regard to soteriology, the initial evidence doctrine, standards, and tithing. And thats why I dont attend a UPC church. Its why I didnt go back to a UPC after I left the independent holiness church.

Over and over you've blasted me, said I hate apostolics, hate the UPC, and so on. That's not the case, I've just been brutally honest. I miss a lot of things from back then, but I dont believe the doctrine. That is the problem. Nothing else.

I've just been brutally honest with you. I will continue to be brutally honest with you as long as you disparage the UPCI, and Apostolic movement on an APOSTOLIC FORUM. You do hate the Apostolic movement. I will clarify why I believe you do. You see Jason you just posted to me you love people who happen to be sitting in a church building. You love music being played in a church building, maybe even how these people pray. I'll pause.

Is that correct?

OK

This is what you hate

All the rest.

Which is the Apostolic theology.

Remember when you brought up Brother Epley in a thread?

I saw that as you being a hater, because bringing him up was to point out some issue you had with the movement.

You visit a building, you listen to music, hold hands in the air for about 15 minutes? Hug some necks, maybe say I love you, and then go home.

As far as your commentary reading, even Lexicons. Is a study in itself. I was stopped dead in my tracks when I made the innocent error in bringing out a Strongs Concordance to a few Rabbi friends of mine. One Rabbi read a few pages of the Hebrew dictionary which is in the back of the Strongs and plopped the book down and said some of these definitions are very wrong. Well, I said that is because it was compiled by a Christian. The Rabbi said, "no, that's not an excuse" he went on to say "that doesn't even explain some of these mistakes"

We went back and forth in another way since I couldn't employ the SC. My wife and I have a huge theological, sociological, library. With some of the oldest commentaries of varying religions. Bro, I teach our church family that before they should ever delve into commentaries, they must first now thoroughly the scripture. Now soteriology correctly as the Old Testament wielding apostles understood it. Which understood it in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and gasp, Latin. Now, nobody has to be a scholar in any of these things. Yet, before you go to sit down with John MacArthur and 4 Rabbis. You better have your good stuff together. Because if you don't you will just end up on a forum saying stupid stuff to Apostolics about the movement their in.

They won't appreciate it, and will end up charging head first into you.

They won't sit at you confused feet and eat your worm filled manna. That was taken from varying different commentaries and sifted through "Apostolic Movement is Wrong and I will save the people." mindset.

It doesn't fly.

Jason, you are still young and one day (in Jesus name) I hope you have an epiphany and realize the Apostolic movement was correct.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What I mean: Christians in general don't feel like they have a monopoly on Christ. They accept that people can come to Christ outside of their denominational traditions. They accept each other as brothers, despite doctrinal differences, because they understand Christ is above what someone believes about election, freewill, baptism, eschatology, etc. They see the body of Christ as bigger than their denominations.

I'll add to the above which Esaias pointed out. This isn't even reality, it sure isn't New Testament. Because the Apostle Paul was ACID on anyone teaching anything else. Maybe you should ponder Paul's wording on "anathema"

Sometimes you all make me feel like you don't even read any of Paul's epistles.

To be accursed was to be anathema, which the Spanish interpretations of the Greek New Testament use the word anathema. Yet, Paul wasn't accepting other sects, or groups as brothers. He condemned them in the strongest means possible. One would either to have never read his letters, or even worse, not understand his letters. Which by the way, the Apostle Peter warned that anyone who didn't understand them, and misinterpreted them were going to hell. Bro, you want something which isn't reality, isn't Biblical, and is nothing short of an AMERICAN phenomenon. Boy, I bet that's a surprise to you? Especially since you love to drag Apostolic Pentecostals like bad puppies to the place of their supposed turn of the century origins and stick their nose in it. Ironically you are the one who has the American "let's agree to disagree Churchanity" going. Oh, yeah, you believe in a narrow way, just like any religion. You have your shopping list of all those who are going to bust hell wide open. Yet, it ultimately bumps into a wall called "I'll call you brother as long as you are nice to me" wonderful, simply twisted metal.

You my man, must of never run into hardcore Baptists, or hardcore anyting. I have Presbyterians in this town who ill tell you just how the cow at the cabbage. Staunch Roman Catholics who are busy duking it out with Sedevacantists, who both would roast you until you were crisp. Sorry, but they all believe they have a monopoly. Hence the creation of the joke with the guy goes to heaven and they are passing rooms of denominations, until they get to one room (haters fill in the blank here) and the guide says "shhh, be quite the (haters fill in the blank here) believe they are the only ones here. Jason, I read your posts bro, I read them as much as I can. For me to believe you mean me no harm. You sure have a funny way of showing that.

RELIGION is exclusive, and whatever the religion maybe they believe they have a monopoly.