More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

They mean well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

Talk about gnashing teeth, you can't stand being on stuck in your religious revolving door. Heretic! What a laugh! You called me a heretic just a couple of pages back. Jason, you probably have a full size picture of Hillary Clinton in a pant suit and think that's godly attire.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They mean well.

Don't just mean well, I'm just reading a Bible was written to people in the Bronze and Iron age. They didn't have similar attire, they didn't wear Hotel bathrobes. Hillary in a pant suit is a Hell Spewing Abomination.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I'm aware. There has always been this tendency to divide, even the apostles sought to forbid someone doing God's work because they weren't part of their group.

A tendency to divide? Listen that's like saying the Quran and Hadiths has a tendency to cut heads off of Christians and Jews. That the Book of Mormon, and D&C has a tendency to lead its devotees towards polygamy and blood libel. People in Christendom separate themselves because that is what their book teaches. It doesn't teach some huge bless me club. That's what the Brave New World called the United Empire of America wants you to believe. A user friendly, be kind to animals, help little old ladies, good citizen stuff. But Jesus Christianity teaches to come out of her My people and be separated.
Hence the reason you have more denomination than you could shake a stick at.

Originally Posted by Jason B

The problem was bigger by the writing of Corinthians and different factions that were developing, and as history tells us, has always been a blight on Christianity.

History no matter what you are studying is subjective. It is up to you to be able to do the detective work. To dig out what was logically, and Biblically correct. If you are just trying to disprove a group or defend a personal agenda you will never find Truth. Man in his agenda for power over the people is the blight. The people wanting power over Jesus Christ is the blight. Nothing less nothing more.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Yet many Christians, especially since the beginnings of the refirmation, back into the 1100s-1200s had fellowship with other believers despite differences of opinion. There were exceptions, such as Luther being a jerk to the Zwinglians despite their being united against the errors of the RCC. The persecution of early anabaptists, and other instances.

Sorry, but there was never a Bless Me Club mentality in Churchdom. Bro, it is a religion, and religions divide, believers from non believers, Democrats from Republicans, Harley Davidson from Rice Burners, PETA Vegans from People who Eat Tasty Animals.

Persecution of Anabaptists, Persecution of Roman Catholics who first came to the colonies? A round of Monopolies for everybody! The Kool-Aids on me. What people tend to do is believe in some Utopian Church of believers where everyone adheres to what they think is Church. Hence the Apostolics get dragged behind the Liberals truck until the meat falls off their bones.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Just because some condemn all except their own doesn't mean that Christ diesn't have sheep amongst their various fellowships.

Had a brother preach last service that in most churches you are required to leave your brains at the door. Logic flies out the window.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Do you really believe all baptists are lost? All Methodist? All Church of Christ? Etc.

Jason, they believe YOU are lost. As lost as potato salad and a dry roll.
Church of Christ would drag you to a debate to PROVE you were lost. We have some Ruckmanite churches in our area. Those jokers don't even believe they are saved. They will spend hours trying to convince you that you aren't saved because you don't fly a KJV. They will call you a water dog because you believe in Jesus name baptism instead of the god squad baptism.
the better question tonight is how many of the different groups would accept you or me.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Do you really not know any other true believer, save those who are of your own stripe?

Wait? You gave me a grocery list with people you believed were lost? You were answering a question I had about the narrow way. You said you believed in a narrow way. Steven Furtick, Spider Man on stage, AC DC worship music?

Originally Posted by Jason B

Sad. You must not get out much.

That's what I love about the internet. The minute you guys log on your neck grows to a size 30.

Originally Posted by Jason B

I enjoy fellowship with pentecostals, Reformed, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodist. Its a great thing to get outside the bubble.

Actually, it is called Ecclesiastically Bipolar.

Narrow way?

No.

Your way?

Most certainly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I'm aware. There has always been this tendency to divide, even the apostles sought to forbid someone doing God's work because they weren't part of their group. The problem was bigger by the writing of Corinthians and different factions that were developing, and as history tells us, has always been a blight on Christianity.

Yet many Christians, especially since the beginnings of the refirmation, back into the 1100s-1200s had fellowship with other believers despite differences of opinion. There were exceptions, such as Luther being a jerk to the Zwinglians despite their being united against the errors of the RCC. The persecution of early anabaptists, and other instances.

Just because some condemn all except their own doesn't mean that Christ diesn't have sheep amongst their various fellowships.

Do you really believe all baptists are lost? All Methodist? All Church of Christ? Etc.

Do you really not know any other true believer, save those who are of your own stripe?

Sad. You must not get out much.

I enjoy fellowship with pentecostals, Reformed, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodist. Its a great thing to get outside the bubble.

You misrepresent the demographic facts. It isn't "some" who are exclusive, it is the overwhelming vast majority.

Even you are exclusive, those who don't believe as you do on certain issues aren't saved, according to you.

TBN big tent theology is incompatible with any concept of objective truth, by its very nature.

I get out plenty. Exclusivity is a function of reality, whether its religion, sports, politics, cooking, you name it.

Only liberal prog commies promote the yellow submarine view of life, and they have ulterior motives (their teachers know its all bovine bologna, but its useful in tearing down an existing society to make way for a new order of things).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Only liberal prog commies promote the yellow submarine view of life, and they have ulterior motives (their teachers know its all bovine bologna, but its useful in tearing down an existing society to make way for a new order of things).

Cultural Marxism is never considered Cultural Marxism by those who are entrenched in it. It is behaves like any other deception. It appears as an angel of light. Yet, Cultural Marxism has been introduced in the 60s. A lot of individuals haven't seen the evolution of American Churchanity in this culture.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Jason B

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

I don't know about that,the Apostolic faith is much bigger than a single issue, I am quite sure they will eventually quietly drop this pant issue. We no longer hear much about women wearing the red color are harlots or some other petty pet peeves of some old time preachers.

people change with time and old misconceptions fall by the wayside, especially with the new generation of preachers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I don't know about that,the Apostolic faith is much bigger than a single issue, I am quite sure they will eventually quietly drop this pant issue. We no longer hear much about women wearing the red color are harlots or some other petty pet peeves of some old time preachers.

people change with time and old misconceptions fall by the wayside, especially with the new generation of preachers.

Here we go with misrepresentation of the discussion. I had originally discussed the language of the verse. I used the Greek Old Testament the 3rd century B.C. (the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles), the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D., and the Masoretic text 1524 A.D.. I also repeatedly offered Revelation 19:16 to show that on Jesus' vesture and thigh meaning pants were written. Not that Jesus was tattooed. I pointed out that the Lexicographers where undecided on the Aramaic concerning the word for trousers in Daniel. Yet, did I or Pliny, or Esaias say anything about the color red? No. FZ, don't do that. Especially since you believe, teach, and have a book which attempts to prove that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of an original Hebrew copy. While you yourself bring up a plethora of circumstantial evidence to present your case. Shame, my friend and brother. To excuse me of believing in such stupid garbage as teaching against shade of color. Still love you and respect you. No wide grin green emoji here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Red? She best not do that in front of a bull.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here we go with misrepresentation of the discussion. I had originally discussed the language of the verse. I used the Greek Old Testament the 3rd century B.C. (the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles), the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D., and the Masoretic text 1524 A.D.. I also repeatedly offered Revelation 19:16 to show that on Jesus' vesture and thigh meaning pants were written. Not that Jesus was tattooed. I pointed out that the Lexicographers where undecided on the Aramaic concerning the word for trousers in Daniel. Yet, did I or Pliny, or Esaias say anything about the color red? No. FZ, don't do that. Especially since you believe, teach, and have a book which attempts to prove that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of an original Hebrew copy. While you yourself bring up a plethora of circumstantial evidence to present your case. Shame, my friend and brother. To excuse me of believing in such stupid garbage as teaching against shade of color. Still love you and respect you. No wide grin green emoji here.

Come on Benincasa,

You are part of a small minority of anti-pants preachers, which is shrinking every year. Many preachers have stopped preaching the anti-pants on women doctrine, they may still officially adhered to it, but in practice they have already quietly acquiescence to the changing times.

I have hope that eventually you too will one day realize the error of your wrong interpretation of Deut 22:5 and will silently without much of a ruckus will drop the anti-pants on woman rants.