Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more ....

[Innocuous]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

So head in the sand is basically accepting the drastic culltural changes that have been brought about by materialism, humanism, feminism and liberalism.... Yeah, I want that! Sorry but such a drastic change happened for a reason and the social pressures do to science and technological advances which hit everyone and mass appeal to the population has drowned out cultural virtues that where the norm of the American population due Christianity being conservative.

With such a influx of socialism and other underlying philosophies you have a social shift that for the most part is not compatible with basic Christianity. What you have now is a bunch of feel good junk with little power with appeal to the masses to scratch the ears.

Um...ok...I'm not sure where all that came from. Hope you weren't reading that into my comments.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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. hehehe

Sorry but again it's a bad argument to limit it to culture as the text doesn't support it and the commentary least to say is questionable at best. As they all have there own opinion and many contradict each other. Also they are all speculation and not directly based on the text. Just as your argument cannot be constructed to make a tempory use of the veil simply due to culture when Paul does not appeal to them. Nor does he talk abot how they should heed the local custom but teaches didactic reasoning the need for a covering. As why would pagan culture teach the application of headship, which would be odd at best and it lineup with a covering and men not. Even so it wouldn't matter as the teaching is not based on there culture but that of headship. Thus due to headship the need of a covering. The context demands a covering when approaching God. He does not talk about submissiveness directly but indirectly through creation and veiling would be a sign due ot the need of the church being the body of Christ which is a new realization. Again the the primary is a sign of it. You make the prime didactic application subject to the secondary aspects. That doesn't work. Hey but that is me!

Also because you create additional teaching because of your interpretation does not demand it's right. The text is what's right not well we need it to say this so these other meanings have merit. Those meaning have merit with or without this text.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

So head in the sand is basically accepting the drastic culltural changes that have been brought about by materialism, humanism, feminism and liberalism.... Yeah, I want that! Sorry but such a drastic change happened for a reason and the social pressures do to science and technological advances which hit everyone and mass appeal to the population has drowned out cultural virtues that where the norm of the American population due Christianity being conservative.

With such a influx of socialism and other underlying philosophies you have a social shift that for the most part is not compatible with basic Christianity. What you have now is a bunch of feel good junk with little power with appeal to the masses to scratch the ears.

Bro. Luke, if you're a conservative, you should love this interpretation of Paul's standard about veils in the first century church. We see a man of God establishing a modesty standard based on the cultural norm. For example, beards. If Paul were alive in the 70's, instead of saying that it's a shame for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, he'd be saying it's a shame for a man to be praying with a beard covering his face. It's a very powerful text establishing Apostolic authority regarding modesty. But it doesn't demand uncut hair or bonnets.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sorry but again it's a bad argument to limit it to culture as the text doesn't support it and the commentary least to say is questionable at best. As they all have there own opinion and many contradict each other. Also they are all speculation and not directly based on the text. Just as your argument cannot be constructed to make a tempory use of the veil simply due to due to culture when Paul does not appeal to them. As why would pagan culture teach the application of heaship, which would be odd at best. The context demands a covering when approaching God. He does not talk about submissivness directly though it veiling would be a sign. Again the the primary is a sign of it. You make the prime didactic application subject to the secondary aspects. That doesn't work. Hey but that is me!

If it was a cultural issue, wouldn't we apply the principle of the teaching for instruction today? On that note, I don't see the Holy Kiss as an instruction, but a cultural and regional thing. It's not applied in the same way as I Cor anyway.

[mizpeh]

Dan, Forget about DB and defining an Apostolic Identity...when are you going to post your wedding pics?

[CAD/JPY]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Bernard's position paper:

http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposium/2008/Papers/HolinessAndCulture_Bernard.pdf

Wow, thanks for the link. That is quite the article. I have to say I find it very, very interesting. For example... uncut hair is not mentioned, when it could have been... pants on women is not mentioned, when it could have been... beards on men are mentioned. Then he sums up the article with this, and I quote....

We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as
follows: (1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed. (2) If
they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty
according to the teachings of Romans 14. (3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications
of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of
scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern
culture, philosophy, and theology. (4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical
teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.

That is quite the final statement. I agree 100%!!! Go Bernard!!

[Innocuous]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Actually the Bible says so and that settles it.

(I dont know if you're apostolic or not. I cant always assume around here.)

But...

1/ I have little tolerance for blatant false doctrines. I consider Trinitarianism to one such false doctrine, and Trinitarian churches to be purveyors of false doctrine.

I make no apologies for that.

2/ Its not MY theology. It's what's in the bible. If you're Oneness (again, I cant assume), then you should know that already. And there's not need to use this marginalizing technique of referring to it as MY theology. It's the theology thats in your own bible.

You might want to speak well of Trinitarianism if you want to , but I dont have to.

My issue is not so much with the rank-and-file Trinitarian sitting in the pews. Most of them are naive sheep. It's the deceitful or deluded SHEPHERDS I have more of an issue with, for peddling their falsehood for all these centuries among the unsuspecting.

That's my view, sir. If that bothers you, so be it.

Paul and other NT writers spoke strongly in opposition to those who brought corrupt doctrine into the church. It's kinda sad that there are some on AFF who think that taking that kind of stand against the Trinity falsehood is "inappropriate".

You crack me up when you get hot and bothered.

It's one thing to oppose a Trinitarianism, it's another thing altogether to oppose Trinitarians. If you hope to have any influence at all in changing a person's point of view it doesn't help you to denigrate them and their position. Unfortunately, your attitude is the dominant one amongst OP's over the years and it's caused a real rift between OP's and Trinitarians overall. It's a rift that's been there from the beginning and is part and parcel of the culture, and that's too bad, imho.

As for deceitful and deluded shepherds that mislead poor, little naive sheep...that sword cuts both ways my friend. There's plenty of that medicine to go around.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If it was a cultural issue, wouldn't we apply the principle of the teaching for instruction today? On that note, I don't see the Holy Kiss as an instruction, but a cultural and regional thing. It's not applied in the same way as I Cor anyway.

Paul's arguments are clear concerning the need of a covering due to creation, that is not an appeal to culture. Sure veiling was the norm in ancient times but Paul is teaching how and why the church veils the way it does. He give purpose not cultural limitation to veiling and a need for the covering.

A Holy Kiss has no application to 1 cor 11 and is nowhere near a parallel.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro. Luke, if you're a conservative, you should love this interpretation of Paul's standard about veils in the first century church. We see a man of God establishing a modesty standard based on the cultural norm. For example, beards. If Paul were alive in the 70's, instead of saying that it's a shame for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, he'd be saying it's a shame for a man to be praying with a beard covering his face. It's a very powerful text establishing Apostolic authority regarding modesty. But it doesn't demand uncut hair or bonnets.

I am conservative by biblical defintion and liberal in the same right. If the scripture teaches xyz then that is what I want to teach. I don't determine if I like a scripture based on theological leanings. I have not said anything about uncut hair but long hair and allowing the hair to grow. Which is two different things. Veils are clear in Pauls teaching due to the need for a covering because of angels due to creation. Not angels because of culture.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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!!!

Guilty as charged!!!!