Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more ....

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Well, wouldn't they be more holy looking? I sure can't tell if they are Apostolic when they are wearing just a shirt and pants like other worldly men!!

Women are easily identified by their clothing. I think men should follow suit.

Robes??
I think I'll pass on that, thank you.

Cuz when it's 20 degrees outside, I cant tolerate no cold breeze blowin' up my legs.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Robes??
I think I'll pass on that, thank you.

Cuz when it's 20 degrees outside, I cant tolerate no cold breeze blowin' up my legs.

But it's okay for us women folk?

Just saying....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by edjen01

are you meaning like Luther and the Reformation?

Do you actually think the UPCI has made a big enough impact to make an historical difference?

YES. You'd be amazed at how much influence the UPCI has had on Christian praise and worship styles. In addition some of the greatest Christian artists were or had deep UPCI connections. Also if you think about it, the charismatic world is tremendously in debt to the UPCI for many of the ministries that have come out of her into the more mainstream Christian circles, for example, Bro. Suber and the Tenny's. Regardless of all this, the UPCI is the largest truth bearing organization.... that means if she becomes frozen in time... she needs a reformation.

If a new generation of Apostolics who are "less Pentecostal" is being called of God to shed the outdated traditions and misinterpretations... of course they will preach against an unchanging institution. Much like Luther had to preach against the Catholics.

In a way...you're seeing a number of Apostolic men nail their 95 Thesis on the walls of the UPCI. That's my opinion of what could be happening. We need a radical and powerful wave of evangelism that isn't hung up on the past to reach this world.

But don't get me wrong... even if God is calling a new generation of Apostolics to come out from the old wineskin (UPCI)... in a couple generations they too may find themselves frozen in time and a new generation rising up to take the torch forward.

You see... the more things change... the more they stay the same. It's a constant flux.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by edjen01

you really believe that the UPCI's "candle" was lit by God??

and if He's into "snuffing" out organizations....why would He not start with some others?

I think he has. To me "snuffing" out a church's candle would be snuffing out their light, their influence in the world. If the UPCI gets frozen in time....God won't have to snuff her candle out...she'll do it herself.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Robes??
I think I'll pass on that, thank you.

Cuz when it's 20 degrees outside, I cant tolerate no cold breeze blowin' up my legs.

But you expect the women to tolerate it, don't you?

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

But it's okay for us women folk?

Just saying....

Oops, looks like I'm not the only one....LOL!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Nope. We simply prayed and studied the passage and a number of commentaries and linguistic sources. It was fascinating really. For example I realized that it gives an awesome perspective of true holiness standards. For example, if this interpretation is correct, Paul was setting a standard based on cultural norms of the Mediterranean world for the Corinthian church; he wasn't commanding uncut hair or even head coverings.... he was commanding modesty. This would translate broadly in principle. For example, in today's culture fishnet stockings are a bit provocative...Paul's standard about veils would be like a pastor setting a standard for modest natural pantyhose. Or setting a facial hair standard, etc. It perfectly illustrates how a man of God can look at cultural norms and set a standard in the church to maintain modesty and decency.

Now it becomes a powerful tool to move more conservatively if necessary....it's not about making women wear mop-like hair down to their ankles or little bonnets. It's REAL practical.

To bad your argument fails at the "based" on culture of the time aspect.
I love picking on you!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

But subjective and can be different in different cultures.

That gives it the adaptable flexibility to meet the demands of any culture or century.

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

To bad your argument fails at the "based" on culture of the time aspect.
I love picking on you!

I can take it. lol

Here's a commentary to consider that sums the issue up... Paul was addressing a specific issue that church was facing:

David Prior's commentary:
In first century Greece, dress for men and women was apparently very similar, except for the women's 'head-covering' (here called kalumma or 'veil'). This, incidentally, was not the equivalent of the Arab veil, but a covering for her hair alone. The normal, everyday dress of all Greek women included this kalumma. The only women who did not wear them were the hetairai, who were the 'high-class' mistresses of influential Corinthians. Also, slaves had their heads shaved, and the same practice was enacted as punishment for convicted adultresses. It has been further suggested that the sacred prostitutes from the local temple of Aphrodite did not wear veils.
Evidently, some of the Corinthian women believers, in an expression of their new-found freedom, were unbinding their hair in church. Such action was so likely to be misinterpreted that the apostle directs them to stop the practice, lest their "head" be dishonored.

We can glean from Paul's leadership and can apply these principles in many other situations in our day. But if you lock it into a hair standard, you have to provide where Paul got the idea biblically... and you leave the wisdom of Paul's words from applying in a number of other situations. Paul was setting a first century modesty standard regarding the veil. Actually, this would be a great passage to explain why a Pastor has the right to set a standard against pants. If he feels they are immodest, he has the authority to say that a woman should wear a skirt today, especially on the platform (praying or prophesying).... just as Paul admonished that they wear the veil in his day. It becomes a powerful text on pastoral authority when setting standards of modesty. Just as Paul said it would be shame for a man to pray with his head veiled, so too could a pastor look at the cultural landscape today and say, it's a shame for a man to lead prayer or prophesy with a beard. This is a VERY powerful and dynamic scripture if unleashed.

Consider all of this in light of this text:

Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

An issue of modesty was taken to Paul in a letter by Chloe, he bound the veil standard to address an abuse of Christian liberty leading to immodesty in the church. Today, veils are not necessary, let us loose the veil standard... be we do well to bind a dress standard if we conclude that dresses and skirts are more modest than pants.

Essentially Paul is setting standards of modesty while being culturally relevant.

[stmatthew]

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?

Just reading this thread, but had to stop right here and respond.



After looking at those legs, and remembering the Speedo pic, I can say with assurance that there is nothing holy about those legs of yours!!!