DKB Shares His Vision: Apostolic Identity,

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is what I do respect and honor, Lisa, when you said that you backed off and gave her room. We cannot make someone be who they cannot be. We must allow the Lord to do the work. We must allow the Lord to lead.

one of the hardest things I have ever had to do was back off, from all three actually. I just trust God as he loves them more than I do even.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

one of the hardest things I have ever had to do was back off, from all three actually. I just trust God as he loves them more than I do even.

I am remembering when I gave my life to God, I gave my best friend some of my jewelry that she really liked. She asked me if I was going to wear it again or put my makeup back on and I told her, "No, I know who I am for the first time in my life."

She said, "Well, now that you know who you are, put it back on."

I said, "You don't understand. It doesn't work for me anymore." She died about 10 years ago of a cocaine overdose.

Anyway, two different people taking two different paths. That is why I say to allow God to lead us. Do I believe these things are heaven or hell? No, but following His will or not following can get you to either place.

I'm glad you let her work it out for herself. That's the main and most important thing.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Because if we go off of what the "standard" is today, the men of 300-400 years ago would have been considered, for lack of a better word, "girly." But in their society, they were definitely not!

Ruffled shirts, knee pants, curly wigs, high heeled shoes....

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Ruffled shirts, knee pants, curly wigs, high heeled shoes....

Exactly! They would be headed STRAIGHT to the dark place!!!

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Will McLeod

You know Freeatlast, I guess the concept of applying the scripture across diverse cultures has eluded you. We apply scripture according to the "spirit" of the scripture in some cases. Through out ALL the existence of the world, believe it or not, things have always be for either a MAN or a WOMEN. Women garments and Men garments. Mens bathrooms and Womens bathrooms. That which pertaineth! It's a CORRECT translation and a literal one at that.

I love how some use the signs on bathroooms to prove a women must wear a dress in our society.

I do realize you didn't imply that Will McLeod, I just find it so hilarious how others have arrived at this conclusion.

One thing i have not yet figured out is how, after Paul strongly encouraged the new Christians NOT to live after the law, That some Apostolics will completey disregard his teaching and go trapsing off to Deut 22:5 and pick out this one verse and choose to impose it upon Gods people to be obeyed and compltely ignore the other 612 laws of the Torah.

Paul said if we did that (lived by one of them) and did not live by ALL of them we would be guilty of beaking them all.

Then of course you all run into the problem IF your intrepretation of Dt 22:5 Is correct most all apostolic women will be lost.

How long of a list of articles of clothing could we make that our Holiness OP women wear, Mens shirts /mens hats /mens sneakers/ the mens jacket you drape over your wifes shoulders when shes cold. The mans coat she put on to take out the trash.
And DENIM was invented for MEN...whatever will we do with all the blue denim skirts...mens apparell Will McLeod!!!

IF putting on something that pertaineth to man IS an ABOMNATION. There are so many things, beside pants, that our women will be in danger of judgment.

Our inconsistensies in OP church are laughable. You pick out what you want out of a verse and disregard the rest.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I love how some use the signs on bathroooms to prove a women must wear a dress in our society.

I do realize you didn't imply that Will McLeod, I just find it so hilarious how others have arrived at this conclusion.

One thing i have not yet figured out is how, after Paul strongly encouraged the new Christians NOT to live after the law, That some Apostolics will completey disregard his teaching and go trapsing off to Deut 22:5 and pick out this one verse and choose to impose it upon Gods people to be obeyed and compltely ignore the other 612 laws of the Torah.

Paul said if we did that (lived by one of them) and did not live by ALL of them we would be guilty of beaking them all.

Then of course you all run into the problem IF your intrepretation of Dt 22:5 Is correct most all apostolic women will be lost.

How long of a list of articles of clothing could we make that our Holiness OP women wear, Mens shirts /mens hats /mens sneakers/ the mens jacket you drape over your wifes shoulders when shes cold. The mans coat she put on to take out the trash.
And DENIM was invented for MEN...whatever will we do with all the blue denim skirts...mens apparell Will McLeod!!!

IF putting on something that pertaineth to man IS an ABOMNATION. There are so many things, beside pants, that our women will be in danger of judgment.

Our inconsistensies in OP church are laughable. You pick out what you want out of a verse and disregard the rest.

I would recommend NOT using the things you read on the walls of public bathrooms as any kind of guide for anything, especially if you're on the road a lot and visit truck stops.

I don't think I can come down too hard on either side of the "geber" debate over Deuteronomy 22:5; there's just not enough info to be very dogmatic here at all.

The "abomination" issue is relevant too. Mollusks, ocean and freshwater arthropods and many other creatures are all an "abomination forever" under the Law of Moses.

I'm cooking stir fried shrimp tomorrow. I will be wearing "pants" when I do so, but is it still an "abomination?"

Will?

[DAII]

AI makes it's way to the Pentecostal Herald this month with Bernard ... restating his three Apostolic mantras in his Apostolic vision ..

Apostolic Identity + Apostolic Unity = Apostolic Revival.

To his credit AI in this article wraps up the non-negotiable fundamentals of the WeDeclare Crowd ... with a broader scope in defining AI ...

in contrast to the holiness thrust of his last communications.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

AI makes it's way to the Pentecostal Herald this month with Bernard ... restating his three Apostolic mantras in his Apostolic vision ..

Apostolic Identity + Apostolic Unity = Apostolic Revival.

To his credit AI in this article wraps up the fundamentals of the WeDeclare Crowd ... with a broader scope in defining it as it has been defined his last communications.

The Brand© seems to have recently moved toward a Biblical position on facial hair - or at least it seems to be tolerant of the Bible's teachings.

Any sign that this "Apostolic Identity©" might be open to adopting other Biblical standards, or at least in tolerating Biblical norms?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Brother David

The Brand© seems to have recently moved toward a Biblical position on facial hair - or at least it seems to be tolerant of the Bible's teachings.

Any sign that this "Apostolic Identity©" might be open to adopting other Biblical standards, or at least in tolerating Biblical norms?

Of course, as part of the "Apostolic Identity©" branding strategy.... the article states that there can be no compromise of the existing fundamentals ... which might mean the TV prohibition might forever be an Apostolic doctrinal fixture as God-ordained Holiness ...

although the WeDeclare crowd seemed to have wavered on some fundamentals such as jewelry and TV in their quest to outlaw all panties and undies (bi-furcated apparel) with Deut. 22 as prooftext.

[missourimary]

DA, a garment isn't bifurcated until it covers a part of the leg, therefore it is only the boy shorts that had become somewhat popular for awhile that are outlawed.