Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more ....

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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.

Urshan School, David Bernard, UPCI National Youth Congress etc are all UPCI functions/ministers/organizations.

why the shock that DB actually believes in the stuff he has always believed in and continues to hold the same standards he as always held?

good grief Dan, I get you don't like any kind of traditional OP trappings. I get that completely. God in his heaven knows you have pointed that out plenty of times! We all get that you don't like long hair, long dresses and I suppose you think holes in ears are a form of worship to the great Lord above.

and good for you too....

but do you have to do this continual attack on the UPCI and the things it does? YOU LEFT DAN.

You left. You have your own deal now and good on ya. How about leaving the rest of us alone. Here is a news flash for you. The UPCI doesn't speak for you. The UPCI isn't in the business of strong arming any of the myriad or other organizations/pseudo-organizations/and various and sundry groups who either used to be UPCI or never were UPCI.

The UPCI is about itself. The UPCI wants to hold on to some things that are still important to the membership of the organization. Move on. The UPCI isn't "sanitizing" any thing. The UPCI isn't "censoring" anything.

The UPCI is simply saying this is who we are, what we have been, and what we intend to be in the future.

Your use of the words "Sanitizing" and "censoring" are attempts on your part to marginalize and demean a group you happily walked away from.

There is an old song. some of the lyrics are appropriate. Don't go away mad, just go away.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I dunno, bro...

But the wording of this might make one wonder if you decided to "begin studying the passage in greater depth" ... in order to find an interpretation that would be more convenient to you.

I don't know if that was the case or not...

But I do know people do that sometimes.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes something just doesn't make sense. Though I didn't believe that it was wrong for women to cut their hair I still wouldn't let my wife because of what others would say. I honestly thought only a few people cared about the hair issue until our church split. I just thought everyone did it because they were scared of the pastor.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Personally, I think the distinction of dress scripture is targetting cross dressing. lol

hmmm well let's see. Go to the mall and see how much the line are blurred now than years past. hmmm why? Femimism? Yes! The change in culture was not one of Christian perspective but of liberalism etc... Christianity was slow to react. Thus why I still won't go with the feminists as to go with them you basically agree with the whole movement. Since then look at society and how man and women are looked at. Instead of man doing his job it takes women and men to take care of the home. Why? The market place had to make a correction for added labor. Instead of one doing the bread winning you have two now to do the job of one. Thus now we have a breakdown at homewith the kids.... Everything happens for a reason and the gender blurring happened in all areas not just clothing.

[revrandy]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes something just doesn't make sense. Though I didn't believe that it was wrong for women to cut their hair I still wouldn't let my wife because of what others would say. I honestly thought only a few people cared about the hair issue until our church split. I just thought everyone did it because they were scared of the pastor.

Why did your church split?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I dunno, bro...

But the wording of this might make one wonder if you decided to "begin studying the passage in greater depth" ... in order to find an interpretation that would be more convenient to you.

I don't know if that was the case or not...

But I do know people do that sometimes.

I know what you're saying and I agree. When I began studying Oneness and Trinity I expected to refute Oneness easily… but the more I studied the more I realized that it was the Trinity that I couldn’t find in Scripture. I had a similar experience here. To be completely honest I wanted to know if there was a more flexible interpretation. However, I expected it to be easily refutable and to walk away thinking it was just liberal take on the text. But the more I studied the more overwhelmed I became with how much more sound the alternative interpretation was. There are a lot of references to the cultural context of the Corinthians tied to how slaves were shaved, harlots were shorn, and how the pagan priestesses would worship unveiled in their lascivious rights in the pagan temples. Paul was essentially stating that the Corinthian women were to wear their veils, if they didn’t it was immodest, like a woman shorn or shaven. The practice of sheering a harlot was widespread. They’d take a harlot’s hair and just sheer it off from the back of her head as a degrading punishment. It wasn’t a standard against trimming… most women in the early church had hair that was trimmed out of practicality sake, not much longer than mid back and it rested on their shoulders. Gnostic mystics often retreated into the wilderness and the women among them would not cut their hair for years on end (magic hair doctrine was popular then too among the Gnostic ascetics), but it was common for women to trim their hair.

Besides, my wife’s hair is still “long”. Nature speaks to this. Because if I were to wear my hair as long as hers is now you’d say I had long hair.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

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...

No the problem lies with an individual who cant figure out that if you don't like the upci, then go find something you do like..... or conversely decide that there is value here and plug in and become a part of something that has proven to be a wonderfully spiritually uplifting organization to many others.


Its your choice. Nobody is twisting your arm against your will.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Urshan School, David Bernard, UPCI National Youth Congress etc are all UPCI functions/ministers/organizations.

why the shock that DB actually believes in the stuff he has always believed in and continues to hold the same standards he as always held?

good grief Dan, I get you don't like any kind of traditional OP trappings. I get that completely. God in his heaven knows you have pointed that out plenty of times! We all get that you don't like long hair, long dresses and I suppose you think holes in ears are a form of worship to the great Lord above.

and good for you too....

but do you have to do this continual attack on the UPCI and the things it does? YOU LEFT DAN.

You left. You have your own deal now and good on ya. How about leaving the rest of us alone. Here is a news flash for you. The UPCI doesn't speak for you. The UPCI isn't in the business of strong arming any of the myriad or other organizations/pseudo-organizations/and various and sundry groups who either used to be UPCI or never were UPCI.

The UPCI is about itself. The UPCI wants to hold on to some things that are still important to the membership of the organization. Move on. The UPCI isn't "sanitizing" any thing. The UPCI isn't "censoring" anything.

The UPCI is simply saying this is who we are, what we have been, and what we intend to be in the future.

Your use of the words "Sanitizing" and "censoring" are attempts on your part to marginalize and demean a group you happily walked away from.

There is an old song. some of the lyrics are appropriate. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Amen! What I find funny is the UPCI is taking a very honorable position in the form of distinction which is for God's glory and not to the liberalism that has infiltrated much of Christianity. You would have found many of the same arguments years abo among the methodists and baptists.... why? Because it was true. Many Baptists still teach distinction of dress like the UPC. You even have the Jewish orthodox in many areas doing the same thing. Why? It's natural to know a distinction of honor is needed.

Love is not about how close we can get and nobody cry foul. Love is about true honor and saying God I don't want to be near the fence here I am and I am what you made me and I will honor you in all my ways.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

I pray that one day the slippery slope arguments will cease.... People have brains. They can use them to discern things on their own merit. If traditions can not be matched to scripture, there is no reason NOT to question them. Any "rule" that stands between newcomers and God that is not biblical is a hindrance. And if the only thing that separates us from the world is our dress, then we have bigger problems.

[pelathais]

Everybody's an "Apostolic"...

The Apostle Brigham Young

Modern day Mormon Apostle Oaks

Greek Orthodox Apostle to the Holy Land Theofilos III

But since many of the Apostolic Faith hold to the idea that men such as Irenaeus were "secretly" Oneness Pentecostals who preached the Acts 2:38 message in late antiquity - let us consider the words of this revered figure:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus (d. 201 AD) In Against Heretics, Book 3 Chapter 3.

Irenaeus' selection for "Apostolic Identity":



Of course, it could be worse. We could have people who look like this being called "Apostolics":

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by revrandy

So cutting hair builds self-esteem?

If you looked like Cousin It from the Adam's Family, maybe you'd understand. lol

No seriously, do you comb your hair or style it? Why?