Submission? Or Power and Control?

[ILG]

I always find it fascinating how the issue of control comes out in a supposed form of submission. This is evident in the uncut hair issue and I will demonstrate this with quotes from the booklet Guardians of His Glory by Linda and Gary Reed.

The booklet starts out talking about Lucifer and his fall to give a foundation for the rest of the booklet. After talking about Lucifer they write “In the same manner, a wandering star in the kingdom of God spirals out of control.” Pg 7 There is a lot of talk about wickedness, hell, deception. “Beauty queens will appear in this performance as nightmarish monsters….sinners and hypocrites will be tortured together..” pg 10 This sets a foundation of fear.

Later, it talks about being a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. It talks about how we can “shine or irradiate others, as the glory and power of God’s electromagnetic radiation is refracted in our lives….let us leave illusion and self deception….then we will truly be refractors of His glory!” Pg 22.

As many of the books that we have looked at, a foundation of fear is set and then a way to escape the wrath of God…..if you follow the writer’s teaching.

Chapter three begins with talking about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers and the power of holiness. It talks about setting “boundaries on our flesh”. Pg 23 Here is where they begin to talk about a woman’s hair. “The woman’s authority from God is symbolized by her personal glory-her long uncut hair……the entire spectra of God’s glory on earth is clouded when women cut their hair….” Pg 25

It would appear that they try to address some previous teachings (no name is mentioned but I think I know!) when they say “Some teach that we, human beings, have replaced these guardians of God’s glory of God in their homes. This is not substantiated by scripture….” Pg 26

Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men….through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms….they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….pg 27….they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced….women….have used sex to wield power over men…pg 28

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason….she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

They go on about how women can have “power”! Power on her head because of the angels! The word power-exousia means “Force-Capacity-Competency-Freedom and Mastery” When a godly woman (read-woman who does not cut her hair!) is at her wits end, feels totally inadequate, needs protection and power and is threatened with bondage….when she faces Satan’s forces, she becomes a superwoman! “If women only knew what power they would possess by accepting God’s plan, they would readily accept it”! pg 30 Astounding! If you feel out of control….here is a way you can have power and control! Don’t cut your hair! This issue is not about submission. It’s about power and control.
Then, the scary stories ensue about a girl who went insane when a father pushed a girl into the barber’s chair. “When he finished the girl literally went insane, as evil spirits took control of her youthful mind and body.” Pg 30
“A woman’s uncut hair creates a channel of glory in which the angels are empowered to minister. Women especially need an escape valve. This channel is a spiritual hotline to glory. Wow!” pg 30-31

The booklet wraps up with more supposedly convincing arguments.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to UPC theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

Written for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out

[Amanah]

I wanted to start right off the bat with a picture

http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Beardo.jpg

[JoeBandy]

I wanted to start right off the bat with a picture

http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Beardo.jpg

And in your mind how does this relate?

[n david]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMF0Rtr-yfA

[ILG]

Wow, that's pretty vulgar. Women who cut their hair simply don't look like that. If you live in the dry desert in high heat, you might want to drive out a ways so you can cool down. That doesn't mean you have to drive to the Arctic.

[Amanah]

I think women with short hair can be powerful and controlling.

[n david]

I think women with short hair can be powerful and controlling.
To be fair, I've personally known more than a few Apostolic/Pentecostal women with long, uncut hair who controlled their husband/Pastor.

[Esaias]

I always find it fascinating how the issue of control comes out in a supposed form of submission. This is evident in the uncut hair issue and I will demonstrate this with quotes from the booklet Guardians of His Glory by Linda and Gary Reed.

The booklet starts out talking about Lucifer and his fall to give a foundation for the rest of the booklet. After talking about Lucifer they write “In the same manner, a wandering star in the kingdom of God spirals out of control.” Pg 7 There is a lot of talk about wickedness, hell, deception. “Beauty queens will appear in this performance as nightmarish monsters….sinners and hypocrites will be tortured together..” pg 10 This sets a foundation of fear.

Later, it talks about being a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. It talks about how we can “shine or irradiate others, as the glory and power of God’s electromagnetic radiation is refracted in our lives….let us leave illusion and self deception….then we will truly be refractors of His glory!” Pg 22.

As many of the books that we have looked at, a foundation of fear is set and then a way to escape the wrath of God…..if you follow the writer’s teaching.

Chapter three begins with talking about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers and the power of holiness. It talks about setting “boundaries on our flesh”. Pg 23 Here is where they begin to talk about a woman’s hair. “The woman’s authority from God is symbolized by her personal glory-her long uncut hair……the entire spectra of God’s glory on earth is clouded when women cut their hair….” Pg 25

It would appear that they try to address some previous teachings (no name is mentioned but I think I know!) when they say “Some teach that we, human beings, have replaced these guardians of God’s glory of God in their homes. This is not substantiated by scripture….” Pg 26

Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men….through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms….they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….pg 27….they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced….women….have used sex to wield power over men…pg 28

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason….she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

They go on about how women can have “power”! Power on her head because of the angels! The word power-exousia means “Force-Capacity-Competency-Freedom and Mastery” When a godly woman (read-woman who does not cut her hair!) is at her wits end, feels totally inadequate, needs protection and power and is threatened with bondage….when she faces Satan’s forces, she becomes a superwoman! “If women only knew what power they would possess by accepting God’s plan, they would readily accept it”! pg 30 Astounding! If you feel out of control….here is a way you can have power and control! Don’t cut your hair! This issue is not about submission. It’s about power and control.
Then, the scary stories ensue about a girl who went insane when a father pushed a girl into the barber’s chair. “When he finished the girl literally went insane, as evil spirits took control of her youthful mind and body.” Pg 30
“A woman’s uncut hair creates a channel of glory in which the angels are empowered to minister. Women especially need an escape valve. This channel is a spiritual hotline to glory. Wow!” pg 30-31

The booklet wraps up with more supposedly convincing arguments.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to UPC theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

Written for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out

UPC, living in your head, rent free, I see.

[Pressing-On]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

[Amanah]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

people are pretty much already decided, it's best to just cut to the chase.

if you want to be meat for the vultures, by all means go ahead.

[aegsm76]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

PO - this has been sliced and diced many times on this forum.
Most of us have no reason to rehash it again.
Especially with ILG, whose primary goal in life is the destruction of the UPC.

[n david]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?
A bit hard to do this without reading the source material. We're only given snippets of various quotes from several pages. There's no context given for the partial quotes which have been posted. How can anyone accurately offer opinion of the booklet without full quotes and context?

Also, the post wasn't written for debate or a request for opinion. This was written as a statement for an anti-UPC Facebook group.

[ILG]

I think women with short hair can be powerful and controlling.

Yes, they can.

[ILG]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

;)

[n david]

Recent threads created by ILG:

Submission? Or Power and Control?
More on Skirts
Joy Haney on Skirts - Critique
It's Your Fault People are Homosexual
Legalism and Grief
You Can Fake It All

Each one either a direct attack on the UPCI, or, as with Legalism and Grief, a veiled attack on the organization. A few are noted as written for an anti-UPC group on Facebook.

It's not dialogue ILG wants.

[ILG]

PO - this has been sliced and diced many times on this forum.
Most of us have no reason to rehash it again.
Especially with ILG, whose primary goal in life is the destruction of the UPC.

I don't write for those who have their minds made up, I write for those who are struggling and looking for answers. Maybe people who supposedly know the "right" answer should do the same. I notice no one has a valid reason for why Gary and Linda Reed so easily say that long hair is so women can control their environment without sin.

[ILG]

For those who want "context":

[ILG]

bottom of page 28 "God has given holy woman a way to control their environment without sin". There you go.

[JoeBandy]

I always find it fascinating how the issue of control comes out in a supposed form of submission. This is evident in the uncut hair issue and I will demonstrate this with quotes from the booklet Guardians of His Glory by Linda and Gary Reed.

The booklet starts out talking about Lucifer and his fall to give a foundation for the rest of the booklet. After talking about Lucifer they write “In the same manner, a wandering star in the kingdom of God spirals out of control.” Pg 7 There is a lot of talk about wickedness, hell, deception. “Beauty queens will appear in this performance as nightmarish monsters….sinners and hypocrites will be tortured together..” pg 10 This sets a foundation of fear.

Later, it talks about being a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. It talks about how we can “shine or irradiate others, as the glory and power of God’s electromagnetic radiation is refracted in our lives….let us leave illusion and self deception….then we will truly be refractors of His glory!” Pg 22.

As many of the books that we have looked at, a foundation of fear is set and then a way to escape the wrath of God…..if you follow the writer’s teaching.

Chapter three begins with talking about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers and the power of holiness. It talks about setting “boundaries on our flesh”. Pg 23 Here is where they begin to talk about a woman’s hair. “The woman’s authority from God is symbolized by her personal glory-her long uncut hair……the entire spectra of God’s glory on earth is clouded when women cut their hair….” Pg 25

It would appear that they try to address some previous teachings (no name is mentioned but I think I know!) when they say “Some teach that we, human beings, have replaced these guardians of God’s glory of God in their homes. This is not substantiated by scripture….” Pg 26

Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men….through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms….they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….pg 27….they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced….women….have used sex to wield power over men…pg 28

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason….she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

They go on about how women can have “power”! Power on her head because of the angels! The word power-exousia means “Force-Capacity-Competency-Freedom and Mastery” When a godly woman (read-woman who does not cut her hair!) is at her wits end, feels totally inadequate, needs protection and power and is threatened with bondage….when she faces Satan’s forces, she becomes a superwoman! “If women only knew what power they would possess by accepting God’s plan, they would readily accept it”! pg 30 Astounding! If you feel out of control….here is a way you can have power and control! Don’t cut your hair! This issue is not about submission. It’s about power and control.
Then, the scary stories ensue about a girl who went insane when a father pushed a girl into the barber’s chair. “When he finished the girl literally went insane, as evil spirits took control of her youthful mind and body.” Pg 30
“A woman’s uncut hair creates a channel of glory in which the angels are empowered to minister. Women especially need an escape valve. This channel is a spiritual hotline to glory. Wow!” pg 30-31

The booklet wraps up with more supposedly convincing arguments.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to UPC theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

Written for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out

Biblically speaking there is only one way to receive power and that is upon receiving the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:8 I think. Any action that we take that takes the focus off of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is a completely false doctrine!!

[ILG]

Biblically speaking there is only one way to receive power and that is upon receiving the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:8 I think. Any action that we take that takes the focus off of Jesus Christ and Him crucified is a completely false doctrine!!

:tiphat Yes!

[Pressing-On]

people are pretty much already decided, it's best to just cut to the chase.

if you want to be meat for the vultures, by all means go ahead.

You've let down your hair, no pun intended (:heeheehee ), and gotten bolder in your posts. Good on you, Girl! I thought there had to be a little thunder somewhere inside of you. :highfive

[ILG]

You've let down your hair, no pun intended (:heeheehee ), and gotten bolder in your posts. Good on you, Girl! I thought there had to be a little thunder somewhere inside of you. :highfive

I thought that was a little bold for Amanah! Yep, a little thunder is good for the soul! ;)

[Pressing-On]

PO - this has been sliced and diced many times on this forum.
Most of us have no reason to rehash it again.
Especially with ILG, whose primary goal in life is the destruction of the UPC.

I have been taught what ILG posts below. I have never read anyone specifically use scripture to back up or refute this claim on FCF, NFCF nor AFF.

On a bit of a side note: So, yesterday, and again today, I was viewing Ben Shapiro debate Cenk Uygur (Bernie Sanders supporter) on a new platform called Politicon in Los Angeles. At the end of the debate Twitter took a poll and Shapiro won by 95%.

I think that we, as Conservatives, need to adopt Ben's platform - "Facts don't care about your feelings."

One of the liberals (college student, hence the wording) listening to the event stated, "Dude, Ben Shapiro is actually pretty smart. I love how everything is centered in logic. I disagree with some of the things he says, but I find myself agreeing with him on other stuff."

So, I would like to emulate Brother Blume who comes to mind. He is the foremost poster who puts out scripture and facts without insult or injury, and I like that.

Someone needs to line out the scripture text, if it is there, on this one particular part - Is the "glory" of the angel's wings covering the Ark of the Covenant a type and shadow of the woman's long hair being her covering in the NT? I suppose some will say, "No, it is a headcovering". Regardless, is it a type and shadow, because I have heard, for myself, Anthony Mangun say that he believes that to be true?

My take on I Corinthians 11 is that verse 10, "For this cause..." points back to the order of creation and has nothing to do with the hair on our head. I believe that Daniel Segraves holds that view as well. We get to verses 14 and 15, which then gets into gender distinction on length.

BDB lines out which actual Hebrew word identifies with any given OT reference. I don't know a source that does that for the Greek in the NT. Thayers lays out 4 definitions and so I don't know which one is applicable to the passage for "power" in I Cor. 11:10


“Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason….she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!”

[Pressing-On]

I thought that was a little bold for Amanah! Yep, a little thunder is good for the soul! ;)

She is awesome. I am glad she is a poster here. Very level headed. :thumbsup

[ILG]

She is awesome. I am glad she is a poster here. Very level headed. :thumbsup

:thumbsup

[aegsm76]

I have been taught what ILG posts below. I have never read anyone specifically use scripture to back up or refute this claim on FCF, NFCF nor AFF.

On a bit of a side note: So, yesterday, and again today, I was viewing Ben Shapiro debate Cenk Uygur (Bernie Sanders supporter) on a new platform called Politicon in Los Angeles. At the end of the debate Twitter took a poll and Shapiro won by 95%.

I think that we, as Conservatives, need to adopt Ben's platform - "Facts don't care about your feelings."

One of the liberals (college student, hence the wording) listening to the event stated, "Dude, Ben Shapiro is actually pretty smart. I love how everything is centered in logic. I disagree with some of the things he says, but I find myself agreeing with him on other stuff."

So, I would like to emulate Brother Blume who comes to mind. He is the foremost poster who puts out scripture and facts without insult or injury, and I like that.

Someone needs to line out the scripture text, if it is there, on this one particular part - Is the "glory" of the angel's wings covering the Ark of the Covenant a type and shadow of the woman's long hair being her covering in the NT? I suppose some will say, "No, it is a headcovering". Regardless, is it a type and shadow, because I have heard, for myself, Anthony Mangun say that he believes that to be true?

My take on I Corinthians 11 is that verse 10, "For this cause..." points back to the order of creation and has nothing to do with the hair on our head. I believe that Daniel Segraves holds that view as well. We get to verses 14 and 15, which then gets into gender distinction on length.

BDB lines out which actual Hebrew word identifies with any given OT reference. I don't know a source that does that for the Greek in the NT. Thayers lays out 4 definitions and so I don't know which one is applicable to the passage for "power" in I Cor. 11:10

PO - as before stated, ILG does not want an honest debate.
Notice that she did not dispute my statement or ndavids that she is vehemently anti-UPC.
So, I see no point in engaging with her.
Now, let me say that the entire uncut hair equals special favor with God thing is not my viewpoint.
I do believe that there is power in submission and obedience, even for men.
But, ILG's entire focus is to spread doubt and disbelief in ANY doctrine espoused by the UPC.

[Amanah]

I think we need more female posters, the guys are rubbing off on me :heeheehee

most of the posters on AFF do not agree with some of the outlandish claims about hair giving women super powers.

[Pressing-On]

PO - as before stated, ILG does not want an honest debate.
Notice that she did not dispute my statement or ndavids that she is vehemently anti-UPC.
So, I see no point in engaging with her.
Now, let me say that the entire uncut hair equals special favor with God thing is not my viewpoint.
I do believe that there is power in submission and obedience, even for men.
But, ILG's entire focus is to spread doubt and disbelief in ANY doctrine espoused by the UPC.

I am probably speaking for ILG, but I believe that she doesn't want to engage in statements and neither do I. I want cold, hard, Biblical truth backed by scripture. Even if I don't believe or agree, I want scripture.

Why do you believe this and can you back it up? "ILG, I don't agree with this because I believe the scriptures are clear..." That seems relatively easy.

[Pressing-On]

I think we need more female posters, the guys are rubbing off on me :heeheehee
:heeheehee

Most of the posters on AFF do not agree with some of the outlandish claims about hair giving women super powers.
Agreed! If I did have that kind of power, I would.... :heeheehee

[n david]

I think we need more female posters, the guys are rubbing off on me :heeheehee
Been hanging around threads with EB too long! :lol

most of the posters on AFF do not agree with some of the outlandish claims about hair giving women super powers.
I don't believe in holy magic hair.

I do believe in Biblical submission and obedience.

[Aquila]

Beware of the doctrines of both men and devils.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;


Hebrews 13:9
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

If something ISN'T biblical... it's not biblical. If something is rooted in occult practice and witchcraft... it's abomination. Sweet and bitter water cannot flow from the same well.

Consider the sources....

“Hair has always been considered strong magic; witches casting an evil spell needed a piece of hair from their victims to make it truly efficacious.”
The Power of Magic Secrets and Mysteries Ancient and Modern

“Hair has psychical powers that act as a protection from evil entities of the etheric world; cutting of the hair was done in a ritual to discontinue this protection; it is symbolic of strength.”
The Donning International Encyclopedic Psychic Dictionary

“So widespread was the faith in the power of hair that in Scotland it was ominous even to meet a woman with her hair uncovered. If a woman shook her hair at you, they believed anything could happen.”
Hair, Sex, Society and Symbolism

“St. Paul greatly feared the ‘angels’ (spirits) that a woman could command by letting their hair flow loose, he insisted that women’s heads be covered in church lest they draw demons into the building.” In referring to 1 Corinthians 11:10, Walker interprets “because of the angels,” to mean the spirits were supposed to be attracted or controlled by unbound female hair.”
Barbara Walker Enc. of Myths and Secrets 367.
Juli Jasinski My Hair, My Glory 12.

Notice the works this doctrine is associated with. It should turn the stomach. This is witchcraft. It is written...

Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (KJV)
9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Abomination.

[n david]

PO - as before stated, ILG does not want an honest debate.
Notice that she did not dispute my statement or ndavids that she is vehemently anti-UPC.
So, I see no point in engaging with her.
Most of her threads are rants against UPC officials/authors. I'm not interested in debate, especially when the post is written as a statement for an anti-UPC group.

Now, let me say that the entire uncut hair equals special favor with God thing is not my viewpoint.
I do believe that there is power in submission and obedience, even for men.
But, ILG's entire focus is to spread doubt and disbelief in ANY doctrine espoused by the UPC.
:nod

[ILG]

I am probably speaking for ILG, but I believe that she doesn't want to engage in statements and neither do I. I want cold, hard, Biblical truth backed by scripture. Even if I don't believe or agree, I want scripture.

Why do you believe this and can you back it up? "ILG, I don't agree with this because I believe the scriptures are clear..." That seems relatively easy.

Thanks PO. What I have no interest in is in defending myself against attacks. I used to do it but it became very emotionally exhausting. When I see that a person doesn't want real discussion but wants to attack and belittle, I simply avoid the person posting. If I were in the position of believing uncut hair, and felt it was so important, I would try and explain the position for those reading, no matter what I thought of the original poster.

[n david]

When I see that a person doesn't want real discussion but wants to attack and belittle, I simply avoid the person posting.
Ironic, considering almost every single thread you've created was to attack and belittle the UPC and its ministers/authors.

[ILG]

Ironic, considering almost every single thread you've created was to attack and belittle the UPC and its ministers/authors.

I didn't attack anyone. I simply stated my opinion that what is taught about submission is really about power and control and backed up my opinion with actual quotes. I have done this with all the essays I've written. Anyone is welcome to defend anything pro or con.

[ILG]

Disagreement does not equal attack.

[Pressing-On]

Thanks PO. What I have no interest in is in defending myself against attacks. I used to do it but it became very emotionally exhausting. When I see that a person doesn't want real discussion but wants to attack and belittle, I simply avoid the person posting. If I were in the position of believing uncut hair, and felt it was so important, I would try and explain the position for those reading, no matter what I thought of the original poster.

That is also Ben Shapiro's point - "When the Left uses "intersectionality" as validation of their arguments, it is the conservative's duty to disregard their character-based arguments."

Shapiro uses this view in politics, but we could also use this in Christian debate as well. :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Beware of the doctrines of both men and devils.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;


Hebrews 13:9
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

If something ISN'T biblical... it's not biblical. If something is rooted in occult practice and witchcraft... it's abomination. Sweet and bitter water cannot flow from the same well.

Consider the sources....

“Hair has always been considered strong magic; witches casting an evil spell needed a piece of hair from their victims to make it truly efficacious.”
The Power of Magic Secrets and Mysteries Ancient and Modern

“Hair has psychical powers that act as a protection from evil entities of the etheric world; cutting of the hair was done in a ritual to discontinue this protection; it is symbolic of strength.”
The Donning International Encyclopedic Psychic Dictionary

“So widespread was the faith in the power of hair that in Scotland it was ominous even to meet a woman with her hair uncovered. If a woman shook her hair at you, they believed anything could happen.”
Hair, Sex, Society and Symbolism

“St. Paul greatly feared the ‘angels’ (spirits) that a woman could command by letting their hair flow loose, he insisted that women’s heads be covered in church lest they draw demons into the building.” In referring to 1 Corinthians 11:10, Walker interprets “because of the angels,” to mean the spirits were supposed to be attracted or controlled by unbound female hair.”
Barbara Walker Enc. of Myths and Secrets 367.
Juli Jasinski My Hair, My Glory 12.

Notice the works this doctrine is associated with. It should turn the stomach. This is witchcraft. It is written...

Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (KJV)
9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Abomination.
Thanks, that's a beginning. :thumbsup

[Esaias]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

Its been done before, but ILG always takes it personal and refuses to actually defend what she posts in a logical manner. Additionally, the holy magic hair doctrine has already been refuted here before, numerous times. Nobody here (to my knowledge) believes holy magic hair nonsense.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

Biblical wisdom often demands a response of not responding. :)

[houston]

You've let down your hair, no pun intended (:heeheehee ), and gotten bolder in your posts. Good on you, Girl! I thought there had to be a little thunder somewhere inside of you. :highfive

WB.

[Pressing-On]

Its been done before, but ILG always takes it personal and refuses to actually defend what she posts in a logical manner. Additionally, the holy magic hair doctrine has already been refuted here before, numerous times. Nobody here (to my knowledge) believes holy magic hair nonsense.



Biblical wisdom often demands a response of not responding. :)

Good save! :heeheehee

I would like to know how the cherubims covering the ark correlate with a woman's hair covering in the NT. How did someone logically come to that conclusion? I just don't see it.

It seems as simple as JFB puts it - Hebrews 9:5 - "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly." - the cherubim, the personified [redeemed] creation, looking down on the mercy seat, where God's mercy, and God's law, are set forth as the basis of creation.

[Pressing-On]

WB.

I am a little slow today. I thought, What? Warner Brothers? Oh, Welcome Back! :heeheehee Thanks and I hope you are doing well!

[Esaias]

Good save! :heeheehee

I would like to know how the cherubims covering the ark correlate with a woman's hair covering in the NT. How did someone logically come to that conclusion? I just don't see it.

It seems as simple as JFB puts it - Hebrews 9:5 - "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly." - the cherubim, the personified [redeemed] creation, looking down on the mercy seat, where God's mercy, and God's law, are set forth as the basis of creation.

The cherubim guarded the way to the Tree of Life, and kept sinful man out. The cherubim on the mercy seat (throne of God) symbolically guarded the presence of God. The mercy seat itself covered the ten commandments on stone tables, thus shielding us from the curse of the law.

The woman is the glory of the man, and thus ought to be covered, whereas the man is the glory of God and ought not to be covered.

Hair is nature's lesson confirming that women ought to be covered and men uncovered when praying or prophesying. For, if a woman isn't going to be covered, then her hair ought to be cut short, which would be a shame. Therefore, let her be covered.

The woman ought to have exousia - a token or sign of authority - on her head, because of the messengers. The head covering serves as a sign that Divine Authority is in place and being followed in the assembly.

I'm not sure a connection between the cherubim and the head covering - much less the long hair - of a woman can be made???

[Esaias]

Someone needs to line out the scripture text, if it is there, on this one particular part - Is the "glory" of the angel's wings covering the Ark of the Covenant a type and shadow of the woman's long hair being her covering in the NT?



No, it's the head covering.

:happydance

The wings of the cherubim on the mercy seat are not like most drawings we see, like this:

https://carm.org/images/arkofthecovenant4.jpg

Rather, the mercy seat is more of a throne where God, the King, sits. As such, the cherubim wings are more likely to form the back and arm rests, like an actual throne, as in this:

https://quietplace4prayer.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mercyseatshabbot.jpg

Keeping in mind, though, the cherubim were NOT modern "angels" or "people with wings" but more like the winged lion-bulls found throughout the ancient near east:

Cherubim throne in ivory found at Megiddo:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/files/mvc_010s.jpg

Assyrian cherub statue:

https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/Tabernacle/CherubAssyrian.jpg

So picture the ark as a throne with two large cherubim (bull-like figures with wings and human and lion characteristics) forming the seat part. The wings would form the back and armrests, or perhaps serve as a type of canopy, or both. Perhaps like this (side view, body more lion-like than ox-like, however, in this rendering):

http://www.bibleorigins.net/files/mvc202.jpg

In any event, the woman's head covering is said by Paul to be necessary to cover her head, which represents the glory of man:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Under the new covenant, God's glory is not to be covered, as it was under the old covenant. This is symbolized by the Christian man having his head uncovered when ministering, whereas the priest in the old covenant had his head covered (with a turban, or bonnet) - see Ex 28:40.

God's plan requires His glory be on display, and man's glory be covered. This is symbolized by the woman's head being covered, since she is "the glory of the man".

Under the old covenant, the law is covered or concealed by the mercy seat (the "atonement" or "covering"). The law written on stone tables represents the old covenant, which is subordinate to the new covenant. As the woman is subordinate to the man in the hierarchy of God's creation, the old covenant is subordinate to the new in the hierarchy of God's covenants. The woman is covered, as the stone tables were covered.

I am sure more correlations could be found if pressed, but to suggest the cherubim covering the mercy seat = divine power flowing through the women's head covering (or hair, if you believe that way) seems extremely forced and unnatural.

Paul taught on head covering and nowhere gave the idea that covering = special abilities or special favours. The most that can be said is obedience to God brings favor, and disobedience brings corrective chastisement. But that is true of anything.

[navygoat1998]

I am a little slow today. I thought, What? Warner Brothers? Oh, Welcome Back! :heeheehee Thanks and I hope you are doing well!

PO it is good to see you around these parts again.........:highfive

[Esaias]

This sets a foundation of fear.

Warning and admonishing people not to sin because it brings on bad juju is not "setting a foundation of fear", as if this is a bad thing. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, to depart from evil, to avoid what is contrary to God's will. That is a good thing. But the wicked do not have that fear of God, instead they think it's all "hellfire and damnation preaching to scare people into being mind control victims".


Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men….through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms….they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….pg 27….they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced….women….have used sex to wield power over men…pg 28

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason….she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

Amazing that you confounded the author's meaning. They are not suggesting that women have a Biblical way to manipulate people. Rather, they are saying women have sought control and power through illegitimate means, attempting to control their personal environment by manipulating men and society. Instead, a godly woman is not helpless and powerless, she CAN affect and influence her environment/situation, but in a godly way, by godly means, by being a genuinely godly woman in submission to God's precepts. You have twisted what was said into a caricature, a straw man, that you can knock down.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to UPC theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

Written for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out

Is the whole book about uncut hair?

[houston]

Is the whole book about uncut hair?

Maybe

Product Description
A unique study on the subject holiness. This lesson explores the visions of Ezekiel, giving knowledgeable information about the cherubim and seraphim. The Glory of God is emphasized as the authors discuss divine order, honor, and respect for God's holiness. Holiness is not a list of rules, but rather preparing an environment for the glory of God. Also available is a CD, Video, and DVD by the same title.

[Esaias]

Maybe

I've been trying to find out how many pages are in the book but I can't seem to find that info anywhere.

[votivesoul]

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to UPC theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

We live in interesting times. The cultural backlash against Biblical norms and customs for women and femininity is at an all time high. The Church is all too often found being influenced by the world, instead of the other way around.

One of ways the world has successfully deceived members of the Body of Christ, particularly women, is by linking the word "submission" to "doormat".

The world has had such an awful history when it comes to women being harassed, manipulated, abused, raped, tortured, and murdered, especially in patriarchal societies, that to even suggest a woman ought to submit to her husband comes across as misogynistic and degrading, at least in our Western, 21st century, post-modern culture.

For this reason, many Apostolic women are being fed from two different spoons. They are being presented with a false dichotomy. One spoon contains Biblical morsels about marriage, respect, submission, and etc. None dare pretend they don't stand for these things.

But the other spoon contains worldly morsels about how ugly and hurtful and stupid and mean men are vis a vis how beautiful and caring and intelligent and kind women are, so it's best to make sure you never find yourself underneath one, or, if you do, make sure you let him known who's in charge. Headship becomes neckship.

Now, this second message could never overtly be preached to any Apostolic woman, because everyone would recognize it for what it is: slander and blasphemy.

So, instead, alternative methods are devised in which this second message can be spiritually codified and justified through the perverting of certain verses of Holy Scripture. Then it can be preached as revelation and insight into the deep mysteries of God.

But the "power on her head" phrase has been used so much over the last couple of decades to engender and propagate so many bad ideas and false doctrines as to stagger the mind.

So, for the "silly woman" who is "laden with sins", who is carnally minded, these worldly morsels entice her into circumnavigating God's established order so it can be redefined and made into something it's not, something that is easy to swallow and makes for good sermon and book fodder, especially at retreats and conventions.

Therefore, there will be no end to this kind of nonsense. Paul called it out way back when, and whether or not anyone, man or woman, cares at all about what the Lord's emissary to the Gentiles had to say, or not, is really something no one can adequately measure or enforce, one way or the other.

Everyone will be persuaded each in their own minds. All anyone can do is continue to declare the right ways of the Lord and depend upon Him to sort His people out.

[houston]

The woman has wanted to exercise control over man since the fall. Eve's desire for her husband was the desire to control him. (Whoops)

[votivesoul]

The woman has wanted to exercise control over man since the fall. Eve's desire for her husband was the desire to control him. (Whoops)

Hence,

1 Timothy 2:14,

...but the woman being deceived was in the transgression...

[Evang.Benincasa]

The woman has wanted to exercise control over man since the fall. Eve's desire for her husband was the desire to control him. (Whoops)

You are correct.

That's why every Jezebel must have an Ahab.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I wanted to start right off the bat with a picture

http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Beardo.jpg

Emma would be proud. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Wow, that's pretty vulgar. Women who cut their hair simply don't look like that. If you live in the dry desert in high heat, you might want to drive out a ways so you can cool down. That doesn't mean you have to drive to the Arctic.

Oh, the less I have on the cooler I am argument?

Come work construction down here in the burning hot in a short and t shirt with no hat. Good luck.

[Evang.Benincasa]

UPC, living in your head, rent free, I see.

Bro, you hit the home run. The nail has been hit.

ILG's hobby, collecting UPC heads. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

For once in this forum history, I would love for someone to lay out sound Biblical points as to why ILG is wrong in her views or whether or not the authors are right or wrong in their views.

It is always so easy to throw out insults. Is there someone who has Biblical wisdom to respond intelligently to ILG on this issue - for once? Would that be too much to ask?

Sis, we have already done it. The forum is weighted down thick.
Jesus could preach it, and David could play his harp, and the haters are gonna hate. ILG has a Facebook page where she and her followers lick their wounds. Does she have people show up there when she is holding court? No, it is all jumping through hoops over here to refute a book? Last one was Brother Bernard? What's the name of ILG's forum? Reasons why I hate the UPCI? Wow.

[Aquila]

So, is the Paul was "covering" Paul was talking about a woman's long uncut hair, or is it an actual head covering? Because, I'd like to expand upon this if possible. Here's my understanding, provided as commentary to the text:

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Paul desires that they be imitators of himself as he follows the Lord.

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul commends them for remembering his needs and maintaining the traditions (or ordinances) he taught to them.

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Here Paul is bringing up the primary issue, headship. Paul teaches the order of headship: Christ, husband, and then wife.

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Here Paul states that if any man prays with his head covered or veiled (as the male temple prostitutes) he dishonors his “head” (meaning Jesus Christ).

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

But every wife who prays or prophesies without her veil dishonors her “head” (or husband). This is because it is as shameful AS IF her head were shaven (punishment of public humiliation given to immoral women).

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

If a wife will not wear her veil, then she should cut her hair short (as a form of self inflicted humiliation). But since it is so disgraceful to be put to public shame by having her hair shorn, she should simply wear her veil.

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

A man shouldn’t cover his head as a woman, since the man is the very image and glory of God. However, a wife is her husband’s glory (by bringing honor to him).

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Order of creation: Woman was made from man.

9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Order of purpose: Man wasn’t created for the woman, but rather woman was created to be a mate and companion for man.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Thus a woman’s modesty through the wearing of the veil serves as a symbol of her husband’s authority over her. The term “because of the angels” is widely debated. However, we know that a modestly adorned Christian woman prevents men from being influenced by seductive spirits (fallen angels) that would entice him to lust and adultery.

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Mutual need: Both the husband and his wife need each other.

12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Neither is greater than the other in value because men are born from women and this is by God’s design.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul asks the Corinthians to determine for themselves if a woman should pray to God while immodestly attired.

14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul draws an example to strengthen his argument from nature stated that even human nature teaches that if a man wears long effeminate hair it is disgraceful. However, if a woman has long hair, it is considered beautiful and her glory. For long hair was given her by nature as a covering.

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Some would say that Paul is illustrating that while head covering was customary for the Corinthians, it isn't a church wide custom. Thus contention on the matter is rejected.

In Summary:

-Obviously the women weren't in submission, so Paul explains headship.

-What was the problem? They were not wearing their veils, thereby dishonoring their husbands.

-Paul tells them to be covered.

-Paul explains why headship exists.

-Paul explains that even nature agrees because it covered her with hair.

-Paul illustrates long hair is shameful on a man but is a womans beauty, or glory.

-Some say that Paul indicates that a woman wearing a head covering was proper for the Corinthians, but this isn't a mandated church wide practice.

It's all right there and is still practiced in old world churches in that culture today; and has been for almost two thousand years.

Why do we feel the need to draw from the occult (symbol and power of uncut hair and/or holy magic hair) to establish doctrine???

[Aquila]

No, it's the head covering.

:happydance

The wings of the cherubim on the mercy seat are not like most drawings we see, like this:

https://carm.org/images/arkofthecovenant4.jpg

Rather, the mercy seat is more of a throne where God, the King, sits. As such, the cherubim wings are more likely to form the back and arm rests, like an actual throne, as in this:

https://quietplace4prayer.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mercyseatshabbot.jpg

Keeping in mind, though, the cherubim were NOT modern "angels" or "people with wings" but more like the winged lion-bulls found throughout the ancient near east:

Cherubim throne in ivory found at Megiddo:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/files/mvc_010s.jpg

Assyrian cherub statue:

https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/Tabernacle/CherubAssyrian.jpg

So picture the ark as a throne with two large cherubim (bull-like figures with wings and human and lion characteristics) forming the seat part. The wings would form the back and armrests, or perhaps serve as a type of canopy, or both. Perhaps like this (side view, body more lion-like than ox-like, however, in this rendering):

http://www.bibleorigins.net/files/mvc202.jpg

In any event, the woman's head covering is said by Paul to be necessary to cover her head, which represents the glory of man:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Under the new covenant, God's glory is not to be covered, as it was under the old covenant. This is symbolized by the Christian man having his head uncovered when ministering, whereas the priest in the old covenant had his head covered (with a turban, or bonnet) - see Ex 28:40.

God's plan requires His glory be on display, and man's glory be covered. This is symbolized by the woman's head being covered, since she is "the glory of the man".

Under the old covenant, the law is covered or concealed by the mercy seat (the "atonement" or "covering"). The law written on stone tables represents the old covenant, which is subordinate to the new covenant. As the woman is subordinate to the man in the hierarchy of God's creation, the old covenant is subordinate to the new in the hierarchy of God's covenants. The woman is covered, as the stone tables were covered.

I am sure more correlations could be found if pressed, but to suggest the cherubim covering the mercy seat = divine power flowing through the women's head covering (or hair, if you believe that way) seems extremely forced and unnatural.

Paul taught on head covering and nowhere gave the idea that covering = special abilities or special favours. The most that can be said is obedience to God brings favor, and disobedience brings corrective chastisement. But that is true of anything.

This was one of the most thought provoking posts I've read all week. Awesome post! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

The wings of the cherubim on the mercy seat are not like most drawings we see, like this:

https://carm.org/images/arkofthecovenant4.jpg

Rather, the mercy seat is more of a throne where God, the King, sits. As such, the cherubim wings are more likely to form the back and arm rests, like an actual throne, as in this:

https://quietplace4prayer.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mercyseatshabbot.jpg



Exod 25:17-22 "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.

[Amanah]

The cherubim guarded the way to the Tree of Life, and kept sinful man out. The cherubim on the mercy seat (throne of God) symbolically guarded the presence of God. The mercy seat itself covered the ten commandments on stone tables, thus shielding us from the curse of the law.

The woman is the glory of the man, and thus ought to be covered, whereas the man is the glory of God and ought not to be covered.

Hair is nature's lesson confirming that women ought to be covered and men uncovered when praying or prophesying. For, if a woman isn't going to be covered, then her hair ought to be cut short, which would be a shame. Therefore, let her be covered.

The woman ought to have exousia - a token or sign of authority - on her head, because of the messengers. The head covering serves as a sign that Divine Authority is in place and being followed in the assembly.

I'm not sure a connection between the cherubim and the head covering - much less the long hair - of a woman can be made???

Esaias -

some teach that "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels," refers to angels that were in rebellion to God's order.

Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

and women are covered to show submission to authority, what are your thoughts?

[Pressing-On]

PO it is good to see you around these parts again.........:highfive

Hope you and yours are doing well! :highfive

[ILG]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1493617]Warning and admonishing people not to sin because it brings on bad juju is not "setting a foundation of fear", as if this is a bad thing. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, to depart from evil, to avoid what is contrary to God's will. That is a good thing. But the wicked do not have that fear of God, instead they think it's all "hellfire and damnation preaching to scare people into being mind control victims".

So a woman cutting her hair brings on hellfire and damnation as if she killed someone? Preposterous! Especially when the Bible never says a woman should not cut her hair! But it does say Thou shalt not kill!

Amazing that you confounded the author's meaning. They are not suggesting that women have a Biblical way to manipulate people. Rather, they are saying women have sought control and power through illegitimate means, attempting to control their personal environment by manipulating men and society. Instead, a godly woman is not helpless and powerless, she CAN affect and influence her environment/situation, but in a godly way, by godly means, by being a genuinely godly woman in submission to God's precepts. You have twisted what was said into a caricature, a straw man, that you can knock down.


She said a woman can control her environment without sin. How? By not cutting her hair!

Is the whole book about uncut hair?

Here is what the back of the booklet says:

A unique study on the subject of holiness. This lesson explores the visions of Ezekiel, giving knowledgeable information about the cherubim and seraphim. The Glory of God is emphasized as the authors discuss divine order, honor, and respect for God's holiness. Holiness is not a list of rules, but rather preparing an environment for the glory of God.

But yes, pretty much about uncut hair.

[ILG]

I've been trying to find out how many pages are in the book but I can't seem to find that info anywhere.

37 pages if you include the sources.

[ILG]

We live in interesting times. The cultural backlash against Biblical norms and customs for women and femininity is at an all time high. The Church is all too often found being influenced by the world, instead of the other way around.

One of ways the world has successfully deceived members of the Body of Christ, particularly women, is by linking the word "submission" to "doormat".

The world has had such an awful history when it comes to women being harassed, manipulated, abused, raped, tortured, and murdered, especially in patriarchal societies, that to even suggest a woman ought to submit to her husband comes across as misogynistic and degrading, at least in our Western, 21st century, post-modern culture.

For this reason, many Apostolic women are being fed from two different spoons. They are being presented with a false dichotomy. One spoon contains Biblical morsels about marriage, respect, submission, and etc. None dare pretend they don't stand for these things.

But the other spoon contains worldly morsels about how ugly and hurtful and stupid and mean men are vis a vis how beautiful and caring and intelligent and kind women are, so it's best to make sure you never find yourself underneath one, or, if you do, make sure you let him known who's in charge. Headship becomes neckship.

Now, this second message could never overtly be preached to any Apostolic woman, because everyone would recognize it for what it is: slander and blasphemy.

So, instead, alternative methods are devised in which this second message can be spiritually codified and justified through the perverting of certain verses of Holy Scripture. Then it can be preached as revelation and insight into the deep mysteries of God.

But the "power on her head" phrase has been used so much over the last couple of decades to engender and propagate so many bad ideas and false doctrines as to stagger the mind.

So, for the "silly woman" who is "laden with sins", who is carnally minded, these worldly morsels entice her into circumnavigating God's established order so it can be redefined and made into something it's not, something that is easy to swallow and makes for good sermon and book fodder, especially at retreats and conventions.

Therefore, there will be no end to this kind of nonsense. Paul called it out way back when, and whether or not anyone, man or woman, cares at all about what the Lord's emissary to the Gentiles had to say, or not, is really something no one can adequately measure or enforce, one way or the other.

Everyone will be persuaded each in their own minds. All anyone can do is continue to declare the right ways of the Lord and depend upon Him to sort His people out.

Very good points. And true about the worldly order. The worldly order is that men rule and women cower. When the CURSE came to Adam and Eve, work was part of the curse, pain in childbearing, which we try to alleviate. But men ruling over women? That is reinforced.

[ILG]

The woman has wanted to exercise control over man since the fall. Eve's desire for her husband was the desire to control him. (Whoops)

Now she can control without sin! By not cutting her hair!

[ILG]

Sis, we have already done it. The forum is weighted down thick.
Jesus could preach it, and David could play his harp, and the haters are gonna hate. ILG has a Facebook page where she and her followers lick their wounds. Does she have people show up there when she is holding court? No, it is all jumping through hoops over here to refute a book? Last one was Brother Bernard? What's the name of ILG's forum? Reasons why I hate the UPCI? Wow.

It's called Breaking Out. And it's about healing. A bruised reed will He not break....and all that.

[ILG]

So, is the Paul was "covering" Paul was talking about a woman's long uncut hair, or is it an actual head covering? Because, I'd like to expand upon this if possible. Here's my understanding, provided as commentary to the text:

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Paul desires that they be imitators of himself as he follows the Lord.

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul commends them for remembering his needs and maintaining the traditions (or ordinances) he taught to them.

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Here Paul is bringing up the primary issue, headship. Paul teaches the order of headship: Christ, husband, and then wife.

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Here Paul states that if any man prays with his head covered or veiled (as the male temple prostitutes) he dishonors his “head” (meaning Jesus Christ).

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

But every wife who prays or prophesies without her veil dishonors her “head” (or husband). This is because it is as shameful AS IF her head were shaven (punishment of public humiliation given to immoral women).

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

If a wife will not wear her veil, then she should cut her hair short (as a form of self inflicted humiliation). But since it is so disgraceful to be put to public shame by having her hair shorn, she should simply wear her veil.

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

A man shouldn’t cover his head as a woman, since the man is the very image and glory of God. However, a wife is her husband’s glory (by bringing honor to him).

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Order of creation: Woman was made from man.

9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Order of purpose: Man wasn’t created for the woman, but rather woman was created to be a mate and companion for man.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Thus a woman’s modesty through the wearing of the veil serves as a symbol of her husband’s authority over her. The term “because of the angels” is widely debated. However, we know that a modestly adorned Christian woman prevents men from being influenced by seductive spirits (fallen angels) that would entice him to lust and adultery.

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Mutual need: Both the husband and his wife need each other.

12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Neither is greater than the other in value because men are born from women and this is by God’s design.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul asks the Corinthians to determine for themselves if a woman should pray to God while immodestly attired.

14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul draws an example to strengthen his argument from nature stated that even human nature teaches that if a man wears long effeminate hair it is disgraceful. However, if a woman has long hair, it is considered beautiful and her glory. For long hair was given her by nature as a covering.

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Some would say that Paul is illustrating that while head covering was customary for the Corinthians, it isn't a church wide custom. Thus contention on the matter is rejected.

In Summary:

-Obviously the women weren't in submission, so Paul explains headship.

-What was the problem? They were not wearing their veils, thereby dishonoring their husbands.

-Paul tells them to be covered.

-Paul explains why headship exists.

-Paul explains that even nature agrees because it covered her with hair.

-Paul illustrates long hair is shameful on a man but is a womans beauty, or glory.

-Some say that Paul indicates that a woman wearing a head covering was proper for the Corinthians, but this isn't a mandated church wide practice.

It's all right there and is still practiced in old world churches in that culture today; and has been for almost two thousand years.

Why do we feel the need to draw from the occult (symbol and power of uncut hair and/or holy magic hair) to establish doctrine???

I personally believe it was an actual headcovering, most likely meant for those in that culture. Certainly not salvational.

[ILG]

In any event, the woman's head covering is said by Paul to be necessary to cover her head, which represents the glory of man:

Under the new covenant, God's glory is not to be covered, as it was under the old covenant. This is symbolized by the Christian man having his head uncovered when ministering, whereas the priest in the old covenant had his head covered (with a turban, or bonnet) - see Ex 28:40.

God's plan requires His glory be on display, and man's glory be covered. This is symbolized by the woman's head being covered, since she is "the glory of the man".

Under the old covenant, the law is covered or concealed by the mercy seat (the "atonement" or "covering"). The law written on stone tables represents the old covenant, which is subordinate to the new covenant. As the woman is subordinate to the man in the hierarchy of God's creation, the old covenant is subordinate to the new in the hierarchy of God's covenants. The woman is covered, as the stone tables were covered.

I am sure more correlations could be found if pressed, but to suggest the cherubim covering the mercy seat = divine power flowing through the women's head covering (or hair, if you believe that way) seems extremely forced and unnatural.

Paul taught on head covering and nowhere gave the idea that covering = special abilities or special favours. The most that can be said is obedience to God brings favor, and disobedience brings corrective chastisement. But that is true of anything.


So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the covering of hair does not equate to the mercy seat?

[Aquila]

The head covering (or veil) that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 11 was a first century standard of modesty for women.

Any time a woman covers herself in modesty, she reveals that she is submitted to authority and honors her head (meaning her husband).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

An immodest and shameful woman is clearly not in submission. And she dishonors her head (meaning husband). Appearing immodest in public, or in worship gatherings, is just as shameful to her husband as it would be if she were publically put to shame like a prostitute (which involved the shaving or sheering of the hair).

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The entire issue isn't about holy magic hair, uncut hair, or having authority over angels or spirits. It's about submission, modesty, and honoring one's husband by wearing modest attire.

[ILG]

The head covering (or veil) that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 11 was a first century standard of modesty for women.

Any time a woman covers herself in modesty, she reveals that she is submitted to authority and honors her head (meaning her husband).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

An immodest and shameful woman is clearly not in submission. And she dishonors her head (meaning husband). Appearing immodest in public, or in worship gatherings, is just as shameful to her husband as it would be if she were publically put to shame like a prostitute (which involved the shaving or sheering of the hair).

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The entire issue isn't about holy magic hair, uncut hair, or having authority over angels or spirits. It's about submission, modesty, and honoring one's husband by wearing modest attire.

Sounds reasonable!

[Pressing-On]

The head covering (or veil) that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 11 was a first century standard of modesty for women.

Any time a woman covers herself in modesty, she reveals that she is submitted to authority and honors her head (meaning her husband).

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

An immodest and shameful woman is clearly not in submission. And she dishonors her head (meaning husband). Appearing immodest in public, or in worship gatherings, is just as shameful to her husband as it would be if she were publically put to shame like a prostitute (which involved the shaving or sheering of the hair).

1 Corinthians 11:5 (KJV)
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The entire issue isn't about holy magic hair, uncut hair, or having authority over angels or spirits. It's about submission, modesty, and honoring one's husband by wearing modest attire.

I believe that the first part of I Corinthians 11 addresses the order of authority: "for this cause", having to look above verse 10 to see what the "cause" was - God - man - woman. That would correlate with Genesis 1:27, and this would be the authority and submission - not forgetting that the NT teaches both how to submit "one to another" in Ephesians 5:21. More could be said on the role of each sex, but I think we already know these things. We are equal in some things, but not all.

I believe the second part of I Corinthians 11 addresses a separation of the sexes on how they look. He wouldn't have addressed the length of a man or woman's hair if that was not the case - I Corinthians 11:14-15.

So, I agree that I Corinthians is not about Holy Magic Hair, nor do I believe a woman cannot keep her hair looking nice. The passage certainly is about submission and modesty which addresses both sexes.

[Esaias]

So a woman cutting her hair brings on hellfire and damnation as if she killed someone? Preposterous! Especially when the Bible never says a woman should not cut her hair! But it does say Thou shalt not kill!




Did I say that? No, I didn't. Never mind.

[Esaias]

Esaias -

some teach that "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels," refers to angels that were in rebellion to God's order.

Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

and women are covered to show submission to authority, what are your thoughts?

No heavenly beings rebelled against God, that's a Jewish myth.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=49089

[Esaias]

Exod 25:17-22 "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.

Yes, the FACES face each other. The mercy seat is a throne (Hebrews 4:16). He entered the veil and thus into heaven and sat down. The wings are over the seat. Cherubic thrones were well known throughout the ancient near east.

[Aquila]

I believe that the first part of I Corinthians 11 addresses the order of authority: "for this cause", having to look above verse 10 to see what the "cause" was - God - man - woman. That would correlate with Genesis 1:27, and this would be the authority and submission - not forgetting that the NT teaches both how to submit "one to another" in Ephesians 5:21. More could be said on the role of each sex, but I think we already know these things. We are equal in some things, but not all.

I believe the second part of I Corinthians 11 addresses a separation of the sexes on how they look. He wouldn't have addressed the length of a man or woman's hair if that was not the case - I Corinthians 11:14-15.

So, I agree that I Corinthians is not about Holy Magic Hair, nor do I believe a woman cannot keep her hair looking nice. The passage certainly is about submission and modesty which addresses both sexes.

If you see I Corinthians 11:14-15 as being supplemental to Paul's entire polemic, you'll realize that it is a solid teaching on modesty, focused on the first century head covering. Think about it. Paul makes the argument for a head covering for several verses and then writes,

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 King James Version (KJV)
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

In other words, Paul is saying, "Doesn't even nature agree with what I'm telling you about women wearing head coverings? Because women are naturally beautiful with long hair. Therefore, her hair is given to her for a head covering."

[TakingDominion]

No heavenly beings rebelled against God, that's a Jewish myth.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=49089

I know I'm late to the party, but... honest question here, what about Lucifer and his band of heavenly misfits?

[Esaias]

I know I'm late to the party, but... honest question here, what about Lucifer and his band of heavenly misfits?

Lucifer is a Latin translation of hallel (sp?) which is a title applied to the king of Babylon in Isaih 14. It is not a proper name (except a Latin term for the planet Venus).

There was no angel named Lucifer who was heaven's choir director, who tried to stage a coup against God, etc.

The thread I linked to goes in depth into the subject.

[houston]

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Never mind.

But do you believe that?

[Pressing-On]

Yes, the FACES face each other. The mercy seat is a throne (Hebrews 4:16). He entered the veil and thus into heaven and sat down. The wings are over the seat. Cherubic thrones were well known throughout the ancient near east.

BDB defines "cover" in Exodus 25:20 -verb overshadow, screen, cover - 1 screen, cover, usually co. עַלֿ of thing covered בְּ of covering Exodus 25:20

I will have to think about your view.

[ILG]

Yes, the FACES face each other. The mercy seat is a throne (Hebrews 4:16). He entered the veil and thus into heaven and sat down. The wings are over the seat. Cherubic thrones were well known throughout the ancient near east.

But what does this have to do with hair?

[Esaias]

BDB defines "cover" in Exodus 25:20 -verb overshadow, screen, cover - 1 screen, cover, usually co. עַלֿ of thing covered בְּ of covering Exodus 25:20

I will have to think about your view.

In any event, equating a woman's hair with cherubim over the mercy seat is a bit too much. I mean, what about the men?

lol

[ILG]

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Never mind.

This is what you said: Warning and admonishing people not to sin because it brings on bad juju is not "setting a foundation of fear", as if this is a bad thing. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, to depart from evil, to avoid what is contrary to God's will. That is a good thing. But the wicked do not have that fear of God, instead they think it's all "hellfire and damnation preaching to scare people into being mind control victims".

So, is a woman cutting her hair sin? Is it evil? Does it bring on bad juju?

[ILG]

In any event, equating a woman's hair with cherubim over the mercy seat is a bit too much. I mean, what about the men?

lol

Completely agree.

[Pressing-On]

In any event, equating a woman's hair with cherubim over the mercy seat is a bit too much. I mean, what about the men?

lol

Well, we do agree on that. :highfive The point on that issue is, if the man is the order after God, why would God place protection being the woman's place? It doesn't make sense. She would be usurping the man's authority, and that isn't going to fly.

20The cherubim will face each other and look down on the atonement cover. With their wings spread above it, they will protect it. (NLT)

20The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. (NIV)

20The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. (ESV)

[Esaias]

But do you believe that?

I believe what the Bible says. It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, her not having her head covered is the same as being shorn or shaved, if she won't be covered then let her be shorn, otherwise, let her be covered.

Long hair on a woman is a glory to her (looks good on her) and that is a lesson from nature that women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

[Esaias]

This is what you said: Warning and admonishing people not to sin because it brings on bad juju is not "setting a foundation of fear", as if this is a bad thing. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, to depart from evil, to avoid what is contrary to God's will. That is a good thing. But the wicked do not have that fear of God, instead they think it's all "hellfire and damnation preaching to scare people into being mind control victims".

So, is a woman cutting her hair sin? Is it evil? Does it bring on bad juju?

The issue is "is warning about the consequences of sin setting a foundation of fear, and is it wrong to do that?"

THAT is what I addressed.

[Pressing-On]

I believe what the Bible says. It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, her not having her head covered is the same as being shorn or shaved, if she won't be covered then let her be shorn, otherwise, let her be covered.

Long hair on a woman is a glory to her (looks good on her) and that is a lesson from nature that women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off? There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have. what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers, some time back, teaching about the passage not being about a woman needing to have long hair. I was kind of surprised that the audience didn't respond. It seemed they weren't sure what they thought about what she said. She moved on. lol! Just thought that was interesting.

[ILG]

The issue is "is warning about the consequences of sin setting a foundation of fear, and is it wrong to do that?"

THAT is what I addressed.

Okay, no, that isn't wrong-for real sin. But they set this foundation for a woman cutting her hair. Do you think that is right?

[ILG]

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off? There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have. what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers, some time back, teaching about the passage not being about a woman needing to have long hair. I was kind of surprised that the audience didn't respond. It seemed they weren't sure what they thought about what she said. She moved on. lol! Just thought that was interesting.

If a woman be not covered-let her also be shorn.........shorn is like a military haircut. Shaved is completely removed.

[Esaias]

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off?

No. He is talking about being covered or not, and then says being uncovered is the same as being shaven.

There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have.

Out of 16 verses in his teaching, Paul only mentions a man's hair once, saying nature teaches us long hair on a man is no good. Therefore, there is NOT a "strong emphasis" on men having short hair. In fact, there is no "strong emphasis" on hair at all except that a woman praying uncovered is as spiritually shameful as a woman having her hair shaved or shorn off is naturally shameful.

what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

Historically, women did not cut or trim their hair at all, except for high society "fashionable" types in the medieval-renaissance period who took to shaving their foreheads and dyeing their hair red, blue, green, purple, etc.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers,

I'm sorry. I try to forget ever having heard her "teaching". :)

[Esaias]

Okay, no, that isn't wrong-for real sin. But they set this foundation for a woman cutting her hair. Do you think that is right?

I haven't read the book (and honestly don't intend to) so I can't even say what the book is about. Speaking strictly about hair issues, if one believes cutting hair is an abominable sin, it only makes sense to establish first of all that sin = death in the lake of fire.

I don't get upset if someone is consistently wrong. If you told me everything I believe is going to send me to hell for eternity, I am not going to take umbrage at how "uncharitable" your presentation was because it "makes me uncomfortable" or because "you are trying to scare me". I just look at "is this data scripturally accurate, or not" and take it from there. If a person is being hypocritical, trying to scare me while simultaneously complaining about other people's scare tactics, I may point it out, or I may just move on and not waste time with an irrational twit.

Not saying you are being an irrational twit. Just want to be clear on that. :)

As for hair cutting being a damnable sin, I think sisters need to worry more about getting their glory under wraps. Yes, that was a pun.

[Pressing-On]

No. He is talking about being covered or not, and then says being uncovered is the same as being shaven.
Agree that the passage is saying this.

Out of 16 verses in his teaching, Paul only mentions a man's hair once, saying nature teaches us long hair on a man is no good. Therefore, there is NOT a "strong emphasis" on men having short hair. In fact, there is no "strong emphasis" on hair at all except that a woman praying uncovered is as spiritually shameful as a woman having her hair shaved or shorn off is naturally shameful.

More than "no good" - "Shame" is a bit more colorful, meaning as you know, "dishonour, ignominy/public shame or disgrace, disgrace". A shame in the view of the public is pretty strong, IMO.

To bring the man in as an example on hair, after verses 3-12 in I Cor. 11, seems a bit on the side of strong emphasis. Or, at least, a big deal, IMO.

Historically, women did not cut or trim their hair at all, except for high society "fashionable" types in the medieval-renaissance period who took to shaving their foreheads and dyeing their hair red, blue, green, purple, etc.
I think they trimmed it, at least around the face, bangs, etc., from what I have seen, leaving the back long.

Ran into a cute, elderly woman coming out of the grocery store when my daughter was around 7 years old. She said, "Oh, she is so pretty. You know, we used to wear dresses and wore our hair long when I was a youngster. My children made me cut mine because it is too hard to take care of." Thought that was interesting.

I'm sorry. I try to forget ever having heard her "teaching". :)
I don't normally ever listen to her, just happened to have viewed that session for some reason. Probably out of curiosity. I will say that I read her book, "7 Things that Steal Your Joy" and have never felt such peace at the end of any book I have ever read, besides the Bible, of course. That isn't an endorsement, just an observation. I was rather surprised by that.

[ILG]

I haven't read the book (and honestly don't intend to) so I can't even say what the book is about. Speaking strictly about hair issues, if one believes cutting hair is an abominable sin, it only makes sense to establish first of all that sin = death in the lake of fire.

I don't get upset if someone is consistently wrong. If you told me everything I believe is going to send me to hell for eternity, I am not going to take umbrage at how "uncharitable" your presentation was because it "makes me uncomfortable" or because "you are trying to scare me". I just look at "is this data scripturally accurate, or not" and take it from there. If a person is being hypocritical, trying to scare me while simultaneously complaining about other people's scare tactics, I may point it out, or I may just move on and not waste time with an irrational twit.

Not saying you are being an irrational twit. Just want to be clear on that. :)

As for hair cutting being a damnable sin, I think sisters need to worry more about getting their glory under wraps. Yes, that was a pun.

The only thing that really concerns me is when teachings hurt people. You didn't outright answer my question though. Are women who cut their hair sinning in your opinion?

[Pressing-On]

If a woman be not covered-let her also be shorn.........shorn is like a military haircut. Shaved is completely removed.

Agreed!

[Pressing-On]

As for hair cutting being a damnable sin, I think sisters need to worry more about getting their glory under wraps. Yes, that was a pun.

I am thinking that when I really wanted to know God, I said, "God, I have seen the rain, hail, snow, etc. There has to be something in this Book that I am missing, because I know that you are a powerful God."

Shortly thereafter, a woman started working with me and brought me into the UPC. Of all my years of praying, fasting and seeking God, He has NEVER told me to put bonnet or scarf on my head. He has told me a good many other things.

So, I have to think about that after 32 years, He would have showed that to me.

[Esaias]

I am thinking that when I really wanted to know God, I said, "God, I have seen the rain, hail, snow, etc. There has to be something in this Book that I am missing, because I know that you are a powerful God."

Shortly thereafter, a woman started working with me and brought me into the UPC. Of all my years of praying, fasting and seeking God, He has NEVER told me to put bonnet or scarf on my head. He has told me a good many other things.

So, I have to think about that after 32 years, He would have showed that to me.

He did, in 1 Corinthians 11. Whether you accept it or not, it's there. We go by the Word, not just some internal feeling.

[Esaias]

The only thing that really concerns me is when teachings hurt people. You didn't outright answer my question though. Are women who cut their hair sinning in your opinion?

Depends on the motivation. A woman who cut her hair because she needed surgery on her skull is one thing. But a woman who cut her hair because she's gonna do what she wants and who cares what the Bible says about it has got bigger problems than scissors.

[houston]

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Never mind.

It is sadly amusing. That reading the writings of ex-fill in the space, one walks away from it as they only were given a shopping list. I guess that is why all the books from UPCI preachers get filleted. Instead of dealing with what the scripture is trying to convey. Will a man go to hell if he "fill in the blank"

When I first came around "Christians" they were the flavor without any kind of standards. I found out quick it wasn't a shirt and tie that was the problem. Or long uncut hair. You see if a wolf scares the sheep that is normal. But if a sheep troubles the flock, then we have something unnatural going on. But long uncut hair on a woman, and a dress down to the floor is so easy to see. That's why it gets impaled on a spike every so often. But what about the ILGs of the world? You look at them and they look like the rest of the herd. No one takes notice, they say they're Christian. Butter melts in their mouth?

The issue no matter what you do on the outside is what is on the inside. Jesus loved the way the pharisees dressed. He said they appear beautiful on the outside, but inside they were rotting corpses. Hair cut to hell? How about the secret passages to the mind where we can't see? Where more people are gutted, hated, maligned, cursed, over and over in the mind. While sweet fragrant Jesus permeates from the lips. Happens in both camps. But those who drop the standards just don't have the stand apart look any more.

Therefore they think it's all good.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

He was, a Judean cultural issue which he was bringing to a Hellenized empire
The lion share of the New Testament is an attempt to bring Judean culture to the entire known empire. To this day we are still spreading that over 2,000 year old culture to the world.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The only thing that really concerns me is when teachings hurt people. You didn't outright answer my question though. Are women who cut their hair sinning in your opinion?

So, your solution is to combat one teaching which you believe is hurting people by hurting people?

OK, I see.

[Esaias]

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

Paul gave several reasons in support of the action he wanted men and women to take. None of those reasons were cultural. Instead, the reasons were based on Scripture, the angels, and a supporting argument from nature.

Therefore Paul's instructions are not limited to the local culture at that time.

[houston]

Paul gave several reasons in support of the action he wanted men and women to take. None of those reasons were cultural. Instead, the reasons were based on Scripture, the angels, and a supporting argument from nature.

Therefore Paul's instructions are not limited to the local culture at that time.
But that supports the argument for a veil, not uncut hair. The contention was over the requirement for women to be veiled. Which, I just noticed that the text requires women to be veiled, even today. And this kinda upset me.

Rambling here. Been up since 10:30pm last night. Anyway.
If any seem to be contentious, we (Apostles/elders) have no such custom of women praying or prophesying unveiled...

[Pressing-On]

He did, in 1 Corinthians 11. Whether you accept it or not, it's there. We go by the Word, not just some internal feeling.

Except that you have factions who don't agree, and only your side is definitive because that is how you interpret it personally.

[ILG]

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

Right! There is a saying that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. This is mentioned in one place and is hard to understand.

[ILG]

So, your solution is to combat one teaching which you believe is hurting people by hurting people?

OK, I see.

Who am I hurting by discussing the issue and quoting a published booklet and saying I disagree?

[Esaias]

But that supports the argument for a veil, not uncut hair. The contention was over the requirement for women to be veiled. Which, I just noticed that the text requires women to be veiled, even today. And this kinda upset me.

Yes, Paul is teaching that Christian women are to wear head covering when praying or prophesying. You do not need to be upset, why would this upset you?


If any seem to be contentious, we (Apostles/elders) have no such custom of women praying or prophesying unveiled...

:thumbsup

[Esaias]

Except that you have factions who don't agree, and only your side is definitive because that is how you interpret it personally.

Nobody interpreted it any other way until the early 20th century-late 19th century. Other interpretations can be demonstrated to be inconsistent or irrational and thus error. I believe what I believe about this because it is the plain reading of the text.

[Esaias]

Right! There is a saying that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. This is mentioned in one place and is hard to understand.

Where else is it taught that tongues are to be accompanied with interpretation otherwise the tongue speaker is to be quiet and speak to himself and to God?

Where else is it taught that evangelists are a gift to the church for the perfecting of the saints?

Where else is it taught that if we eat the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner it produces negative spiritual and even physical consequences?

This is not hard to understand at all. Just hard for lots of western women to obey.

[votivesoul]

If long hair on a woman is a "glory" to her, is it not reasonable to assume that covering it with a veil is given by Paul because it can be a source of pride and vanity in that woman, while also being a source of lust and sexual attraction in men?

Think about it.

If someone not in the faith went up to an Apostolic woman and seeing her long, uncut hair, styled for service or whatever, said something like "OMG. Your hair is so beautiful, it's simply glorious!", isn't it obvious that the complement being paid has nothing to do with the divine order of Headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman) but instead has everything to do with outward appearance, one that, let's all face it, draws an inordinate amount of attention toward an Apostolic woman?

In Created to Be His Helpmeet author Debbie Pearl addresses this topic and one of the things she mentions is how her long, flowing hair drives her husband wild (you know what I mean here, I think).

So, it's likely that many a man, and probably even a few women, are likewise driven wild by long, flowing, even uncut hair on an Apostolic woman, sufficient to make the person so enflamed to sin.

This being the case at least some of the time, isn't it reasonable to think that Paul would urge a veiling of such a thing to help the woman not be a stumbling-block to other people? Isn't that what modesty is all about? Protecting other people from their own carnal instincts and weaknesses?

So, if a woman is to be "shame-faced", having a glorious head of hair for the world to see and admire and potentially lust after would mean a veil covering all of it, so only the husband has access to it, seems a just position to take. Otherwise shamefacedness seems rather difficult to maintain.

[ILG]

Where else is it taught that tongues are to be accompanied with interpretation otherwise the tongue speaker is to be quiet and speak to himself and to God?

Where else is it taught that evangelists are a gift to the church for the perfecting of the saints?

Where else is it taught that if we eat the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner it produces negative spiritual and even physical consequences?

This is not hard to understand at all. Just hard for lots of western women to obey.

It doesn't even say uncut hair.

[JoeBandy]

Right! There is a saying that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. This is mentioned in one place and is hard to understand.

This is why I started a thread about a fishing story.

[ILG]

This is why I started a thread about a fishing story.

This is what I was taught by a UPC pastor-that you can't have a doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture. This is why they don't use Matt 28:19 as valid.

[Esaias]

It doesn't even say uncut hair.

Tea was 23 yuan last week.

[Esaias]

This is what I was taught by a UPC pastor-that you can't have a doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture. This is why they don't use Matt 28:19 as valid.

Sounds like you were spiritually abused by false doctrine.

[ILG]

Tea was 23 yuan last week.

I didn't want to look up everything you mentioned to see if what you were saying was legit. The point is, the New Testament never says one word about uncut hair on women. However, Samson-a man- didn't cut his hair. And in the Nazarite vow you could shave your head and be a man OR woman. Does God change? Is he the same yesterday, today and forever?

I was taught that you need two witnesses to make a doctrine. Maybe you weren't taught that. Even so, you don't even have one for uncut hair.

[ILG]

Sounds like you were spiritually abused by false doctrine.

In more ways than one!

[Esaias]

I didn't want to look up everything you mentioned to see if what you were saying was legit. The point is, the New Testament never says one word about uncut hair on women.

I was taught that you need two witnesses to make a doctrine. Maybe you weren't taught that. Even so, you don't even have one for uncut hair.

Translation: "I'm not going to bother with what you said, I'm on a crusade against uncut hair on women and I'll ignore anything that deviates from my mission."

[ILG]

Translation: "I'm not going to bother with what you said, I'm on a crusade against uncut hair on women and I'll ignore anything that deviates from my mission."

If you believed in that doctrine (in the mouths of two or three witnesses), then it would work against your belief in uncut hair. But since you don't believe in it, it doesn't really apply to the discussion between us.

[Aquila]

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

[ILG]

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

:thumbsup Very good.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Who am I hurting by discussing the issue and quoting a published booklet and saying I disagree?

But isn't that what everyone says? You see ILG you won't consider what you do is the same as your so called opposition is doing. You have entered a website which is supposed to cater to one religious group. You have come out of that religious group, and now are on a mission to liberate those who you view as disagreeing with you. You have young people, new converts who are still in this religious group. Some are "teenagers" who have parents who are trying to have their children follow them in the path they believe is Christian, being the UPC. You come along from your UPCI hater forum on facebook and start to rant solely concerning the UPC, and their material. But, instead of the Forum being entitled "Apostolic Foes Forum" or "Reasons why I Hate the UPCI part 3", or "I Had a Really Bad Experience, So, Share My Pain."

Somebody gets hurt.

Because after all, they didn't expect this place to be a venus fly trap.


But what about a father who tries to stop his 13 year old daughter from reading your material? But he can't because she has issues not only with religion, but with her own thoughts and feelings? Hey, parents can stop their young people from coming here, and even stop them from getting on the internet.

But what if you are wrong?

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

[Evang.Benincasa]

PO - as before stated, ILG does not want an honest debate.
Notice that she did not dispute my statement or ndavids that she is vehemently anti-UPC.
So, I see no point in engaging with her.
Now, let me say that the entire uncut hair equals special favor with God thing is not my viewpoint.
I do believe that there is power in submission and obedience, even for men.
But, ILG's entire focus is to spread doubt and disbelief in ANY doctrine espoused by the UPC.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HX8nyGDW71A/Uygl_wjBjDI/AAAAAAAAF2Q/PXPZzCYkyUw/s1600/tumblr_mqcwoy4YRd1qe8a0fo1_500.gif

[Aquila]

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

I'd be interested in seeing the references on this.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

A woman's hair never stops growing. Therefore it is a fitting example demonstrating that even nature itself agrees with Paul's position that a woman should be veiled (I Corinthians 11:5-6, 13). I don't see a mandate for uncut hair. There is only the admonition for women to be veiled in church gatherings, which was a cultural expression of modesty at the time. Thus the heart of the issue is that immodest women shame their heads (their husbands). A loving and submitted Christian wife will love and honor her husband by being modest in her appearance.

[Pressing-On]

I'd be interested in seeing the references on this.



A woman's hair never stops growing. Therefore it is a fitting example demonstrating that even nature itself agrees with Paul's position that a woman should be veiled (I Corinthians 11:5-6, 13). I don't see a mandate for uncut hair. There is only the admonition for women to be veiled in church gatherings, which was a cultural expression of modesty at the time. Thus the heart of the issue is that immodest women shame their heads (their husbands). A loving and submitted Christian wife will love and honor her husband by being modest in her appearance.

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?

[houston]

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?
The only few that I ever see listed as cultural are:

veils
long or uncut hair
women preachers


I laugh when I see liberal women argue for femininity but they have crop cuts that are lesbian-ish.

[Aquila]

It would probably be beneficial to the conversation to list any other cultural expressions in the NT that are not practiced today. Can you list any?

Well, head covering is still practiced today throughout the Mid-East and in a lot of the very same regions that the early church advanced in. And women who travel extensively will often dawn head coverings when in that region of the world so as to not insult their cultural expectations of modesty. The custom is also still embraced as a social norm for women who attend services in a lot of the old world churches. But like I said, the point was modesty, not a legalistic mandate. Think of it as an ancient modesty standard. Today it might not offend our cultural sensibilities... but low cut blouses and mini-skirts would. Women who dress immodestly still dishonor their heads (meaning their husbands).

But you asked about other expressions... would these qualify?

The washing of a guest's feet in a gathering.

1 Timothy 5:10
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

The custom of kissing upon greeting a dear friend.

Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

I'm sure that I can find more. But those immediately come to mind.

[Pressing-On]

The only few that I ever see listed as cultural are:

veils
long or uncut hair
women preachers
I think the argument after determining hair/veil is going to have to be whether it is cultural or not. Aquila gave a pretty persuasive argument for culture. I'd like to hear a strong rebuttal, other than, in the 16th century...


I laugh when I see liberal women argue for femininity but they have crop cuts that are lesbian-ish.

I know, right? I was having my taxes prepared, some years ago, and a woman mailman, ooops..., mailperson (lol) came in to have her taxes prepared as well. The tax guy looks up and says, "I will be right with you, sir." She had to correct him. I thought, well, you did that to yourself.

I've never understood why older women cut their hair like a man. Easier to take care of, but very unattractive, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Well, head covering is still practiced today throughout the Mid-East and in a lot of the very same regions that the early church advanced in. And women who travel extensively will often dawn head coverings when in that region of the world so as to not insult their cultural expectations of modesty. The custom is also still embraced as a social norm for women who attend services in a lot of the old world churches. But like I said, the point was modesty, not a legalistic mandate. Think of it as an ancient modesty standard. Today it might not offend our cultural sensibilities... but low cut blouses and mini-skirts would. Women who dress immodestly still dishonor their heads (meaning their husbands).

But you asked about other expressions... would these qualify?

The washing of a guest's feet in a gathering.

1 Timothy 5:10
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

The custom of kissing upon greeting a dear friend.

Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

I'm sure that I can find more. But those immediately come to mind.
Most of the groups that I am aware of that don the veil are Hispanic groups. I always thought they were transitioning from Catholicism.

Yes, the last two are great cultural examples. Those are the two that came to my mind as well.

[Amanah]

But isn't that what everyone says? You see ILG you won't consider what you do is the same as your so called opposition is doing. You have entered a website which is supposed to cater to one religious group. You have come out of that religious group, and now are on a mission to liberate those who you view as disagreeing with you. You have young people, new converts who are still in this religious group. Some are "teenagers" who have parents who are trying to have their children follow them in the path they believe is Christian, being the UPC. You come along from your UPCI hater forum on facebook and start to rant solely concerning the UPC, and their material. But, instead of the Forum being entitled "Apostolic Foes Forum" or "Reasons why I Hate the UPCI part 3", or "I Had a Really Bad Experience, So, Share My Pain."

Somebody gets hurt.

Because after all, they didn't expect this place to be a venus fly trap.


But what about a father who tries to stop his 13 year old daughter from reading your material? But he can't because she has issues not only with religion, but with her own thoughts and feelings? Hey, parents can stop their young people from coming here, and even stop them from getting on the internet.

But what if you are wrong?

You just thumbed up a post with a John Chrysostom, Henry Alford? Yet, if you know anything about these two individuals they believed a woman was to let her hair to grow unhindered. Also, you wouldn't of been able to live in a church setting with either of these guys.

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.

[TakingDominion]

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.

Very, very good point. :yourock:highfive

[Aquila]

If we see this as an ancient modesty standard (the veil) reflecting the cultural norms of the time, we see several things:

- Culturally relevant modesty standards of dress are indeed biblical and within the authority of the elders.
- We see that immodesty dishonors a woman's husband.
- We see that when a woman adorns herself in modesty it shows submission and honor to her husband.

Those who would look at this with wide eyes and imagine some holy magic hair notion, or as some legalistic uncut hair notion, actually miss the entire point of Paul's polemic. A woman should honor her husband by adorning herself modestly. And immodest women bring dishonor to their husbands with their immodesty.

[Amanah]

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The KJV translates Strong's G2863 in the following manner: have long hair (2x).

I.to let the hair grow, have long hair

κομάω komáō, kom-ah'-o; from G2864; to wear tresses of hair:—have long hair.

-----------------

I'm leaving this thread at it's pointless to continue arguing.
I just want to say that it's perfectly reasonable to translate this passage as saying to have long hair you have to stop cutting it.

[Aquila]

I think what people aren't paying attention to is the design of the chapter. For example here's how it is structured:

Paul makes the argument for women wearing veils in church gatherings:

I Corinthians 11:1-13
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Now Paul draws a supporting argument from nature illustrating that even nature agrees that a woman should be veiled:

I Corinthians 11:14-15
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Most take verses 14 and 15 and run with them as the rule. But they were only a supplemental argument of example to support veils. Hence the phrase, "Doth not even nature itself teach you...?"

It would be like making the argument that men shouldn't wear womanly veils, and then saying, "Doesn't even nature teach you that a man shouldn't have his head covered? For it then and falls out as he grows older."

It's a supplemental argument to support Paul's overall polemic that women should ear veils. The point: Women should wear veils over their heads. Even nature agrees with this standard because it gave her long flowing hair that never stops growing to cover her head naturally. Thus if nature would cover her, should she not be veiled?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Paul told women that their long uncut hair was their covering which showed their glory. Men were told that if they had long uncut hair it was degrading.

[Aquila]

Paul told women that their long uncut hair was their covering which showed their glory. Men were told that if they had long uncut hair it was degrading.

Follow the polemic, doesn't even the text bear out that a woman's long growing hair is a natural covering? Thus a woman should be veiled.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Follow the polemic, doesn't even the text bear out that a woman's long growing hair is a natural covering? Thus a woman should be veiled.

The polemic is originally against the woman who cuts here hair.

1st Corinthians 11:15 follows the idea concerning nature. He sure isn't talking about spiders and snakes. The Greek word for nature is pointing to the creation in the Garden. Plato used the word to describe the primordial world. Here we see it employed by the Roman Judean Shaul Paulous. Showing that if man allowed his hair to grow that he would wear the sign of the submissive, instead but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory?

1st Corinthians 11:15

For growing hair instead of a covering is given to her.
of the woman who wore it as a glory.

Jerome understood this passage to mean that a woman's growing hair was her covering glory. Therefore he employed the Latin word which we use today as nurture.

[Esaias]

I think the argument after determining hair/veil is going to have to be whether it is cultural or not. Aquila gave a pretty persuasive argument for culture. I'd like to hear a strong rebuttal, other than, in the 16th century...


Paul commanded women to be covered and men uncovered. This is obligatory today for the following reasons:

1. Paul was an apostle, inspired by God, to pen 1 Cor 11. It's Bible, therefore expresses the will of God. It is not merely an historical account of what someone did or said, but is a teaching (doctrine) of an apostle, therefore it is apostolic, Biblical doctrine, and istherefore still valid today.

2. Paul gave 5 distinct reasons in support of his doctrine: Headship, glory, angels, nature, and the universal apostolic practice. None of those reasons are "cultural" (except that they belong to the culture of the apostolic church), none of those reasons are "local" or unique to Corinth, Greece, the ancient near east, the Roman Empire, or the first century. The reasons are rooted in creation, the created order, nature, and the universal practice of the church. Therefore, the head covering doctrine of the Bible is still valid today.

3. The five reasons are related, but distinct. Therefore, if any one reason still exists, then the practice demanded by the apostle is still obligatory. Regardless of what one may argue about the reason from nature, or the current lack of unity throughout the churches, angels still exist, the head of the man is still Christ and the head of the woman is still the man, the man is still the glory of God and the woman is still the glory of the man. Therefore, the apostolic doctrine of head covering is still valid today.

[houston]

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

[Esaias]

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

Of course I do. Don't you?

Oh wait, you mean a smack on the face with one's mouth/lips?

That is not the only meaning of kiss...

[Esaias]

The command to greet one another with a holy kiss/kiss of charity is a general command, and thus obligatory through all ages and cultures. However, the particular manner of performing the greeting (literally, "embrace") will vary with the culture. Just as the head covering doctrine is a general command and thus obligatory in all ages and places, yet the particular style of head covering is variable.

Again, just as singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a general command and obligatory today, but the particular style (melodies, rhythms, tunes, and specific lyrics) will vary from culture to culture, locale to locale, and era to era.

[Esaias]

Most of the groups that I am aware of that don the veil are Hispanic groups. I always thought they were transitioning from Catholicism.


The only Hispanic group (oneness pentecostal) that I know of who practice head covering for women is the Asamblea Apostolica de la Fe (Apostolic Assembly). Many black apostolics practice head covering, as do many others throughout the world. It is not a "transitioning from catholicism" as the RCC don't really require headcoverings anymore, although many traditionalists retain the practice.

[votivesoul]

Two wonderful, but commonly unknown factoids:

The Koine Greek word used by Paul for "long" as in long hair, is where we get the word "comet".

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comet?s=t

In ancient Greek and Latin, the words for a comet, both literally translate to "hairy stars" (aster cometes and stella cometa, respectively).

Here is a computer simulated depiction of Halley's Comet created for a National Geographic Special:

http://media-channel.nationalgeographic.com/media/uploads/photos/content/video/2014/03/20/201081923663_201081923663_103_3_tagged_h264.jpg

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/videos/halleys-comet/

[houston]

Of course I do. Don't you?

Oh wait, you mean a smack on the face with one's mouth/lips?

That is not the only meaning of kiss...

A kiss is a kiss... as eastern cultures still embrace the practice.

Even Mexicans kiss each other on the face.

[Esaias]

A kiss is a kiss... as eastern cultures still embrace the practice.

Even Mexicans kiss each other on the face.

What do Eskimos do?

Paul did not define the manner in which a kiss is to be performed, except that it must be "holy". Russians kiss on the cheeks, some don't even actually make contact, more of a near-cheek brush-by, but some do a full on the lips kiss.

Some cultures greet by kissing the hand, and sometimes its not even a lips-to-hand kiss.

The particular manner of greeting someone with a kiss is culture and relation dependent. A simple hug with one's cheek near the other's qualifies.

In Roman society there were various types of kisses, regulated by Imperial law, used as greetings. Paul simply said it was, for Christians, to be holy.

[Pressing-On]

Paul did not define the manner in which a kiss is to be performed, except that it must be "holy". Russians kiss on the cheeks, some don't even actually make contact, more of a near-cheek brush-by, but some do a full on the lips kiss.

Like the Trump family. It's always about Russia with those people. :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

God bless,



Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

The polemic is originally against the woman who cuts here hair.

1st Corinthians 11:15 follows the idea concerning nature. He sure isn't talking about spiders and snakes. The Greek word for nature is pointing to the creation in the Garden. Plato used the word to describe the primordial world. Here we see it employed by the Roman Judean Shaul Paulous. Showing that if man allowed his hair to grow that he would wear the sign of the submissive, instead but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory?

1st Corinthians 11:15

For growing hair instead of a covering is given to her.
of the woman who wore it as a glory.

Jerome understood this passage to mean that a woman's growing hair was her covering glory. Therefore he employed the Latin word which we use today as nurture.

Paul commanded women to be covered and men uncovered. This is obligatory today for the following reasons:

1. Paul was an apostle, inspired by God, to pen 1 Cor 11. It's Bible, therefore expresses the will of God. It is not merely an historical account of what someone did or said, but is a teaching (doctrine) of an apostle, therefore it is apostolic, Biblical doctrine, and istherefore still valid today.

2. Paul gave 5 distinct reasons in support of his doctrine: Headship, glory, angels, nature, and the universal apostolic practice. None of those reasons are "cultural" (except that they belong to the culture of the apostolic church), none of those reasons are "local" or unique to Corinth, Greece, the ancient near east, the Roman Empire, or the first century. The reasons are rooted in creation, the created order, nature, and the universal practice of the church. Therefore, the head covering doctrine of the Bible is still valid today.

3. The five reasons are related, but distinct. Therefore, if any one reason still exists, then the practice demanded by the apostle is still obligatory. Regardless of what one may argue about the reason from nature, or the current lack of unity throughout the churches, angels still exist, the head of the man is still Christ and the head of the woman is still the man, the man is still the glory of God and the woman is still the glory of the man. Therefore, the apostolic doctrine of head covering is still valid today.

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys! :thumbsup

[n david]

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys! :thumbsup

All of which have been endlessly debated before.

:beatdeadhorse

[Pressing-On]

All of which have been endlessly debated before.

:beatdeadhorse

Then next time, try linking the conversation to save time instead of wasting time insulting ILG as though she is hated here.

[n david]

Then next time, try linking the conversation to save time instead of wasting time insulting ILG as though she is hated here.
ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

[Pressing-On]

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

Okay, I agree with taking it to the Debate Room and following the rules of this forum. :thumbsup

[ILG]

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

I considered this to the very depths at one time. And I became convinced that I was wrong when I believed that uncut hair was an extremely important issue, maybe even salvational and so I changed, even though it cost me a lot.

[ILG]

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.

I wish all we had were women dressing modestly and looking like women. For those of you who are doing just that, that is fine with me. But there is a mind prison that goes along with this for some people. It did for me. It does for others. I know because I have talked to many who had the exact same experiences and problems I did with it. And it took me many years to break out of it. It was hard and difficult to do so but I am so much freer and better off now.

[ILG]

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

Smoochie Smoochie! :heeheehee

[ILG]

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys! :thumbsup

Indeed! The reason I left this forum for the most part, even though I made many friends here is because every time I opened my mouth in discussion, because some disagreed, I was insulted, attacked, accused, what-have-you. That is not Christian behavior. People who are secure in their position have no need to insult others as they only want to lead others in the right way. This ia also the reason I only come here occasionally-because I only want to put up with so much abuse....and I do it only for those who were suffering like I was and looking for answers to many questions.

[ILG]

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

So nothing can be cut and pasted to this forum? I doubt if anybody goes along with that one. I wrote the post after all. I could write it all over key-stroke by key-stroke instead of cutting and pasting but that seems silly.

Also, I posted to the debate room before and it doesn't seem like anyone reads over there.

[Captain]

Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.

The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.

So let’s just break this down into the coherent parts:

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”

• Reading 1Cor chapter 11 in full context clearly lays out that God has a hierarchy of authority; Christ, man, woman. Short version – the woman’s long, feminine hair is a sign of her submission to her husband and thus to God.

• The teaching of uncut hair is unclear in the scripture but it is very clear that it is a matter of a woman remaining feminine i.e. long hair and a man masculine i.e. short hair. Paul says that this is so natural that it is self-evident.

• So a feminine man or a masculine woman is out of God’s natural order just as a woman who is not submitted to her husband or a man who does not rightly exercise his natural authority in the home is out of God’s natural order.

• The idea of a doctrine requiring at least 2 or 3 verses comes from theology and is not biblical. It may be a good rule of thumb but there is nothing rigidly biblical about it. Another theological practice that is more true in practice is that of First Principles. Look it up, not important enough to get deeply into here but essentially something that is stated plainly enough to be self-evident can be a 1st principle i.e. Acts 2:38

[Esaias]

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”



Wrong.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

[Captain]

You're simply wrong.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Her hair is given her for a covering.

If you can read that and still deny the plainness of what it says then you can turn any scripture into whatever you want.

[Captain]

I should add that 1800 years of church history has also produced quite a bit of false doctrine.

And teaching a veil is simply a manmade loophole so women can cut their hair as short as they please.

[jfrog]

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

Side issue:

A rule is only as good as it's enforcement. It's against the rules to go 5 mph over the speed limit and yet we all do it because even though it's clearly against the written rules we all know you typically face no reprucussions going 5 mph over the speed limit.

There's many other examples of rules on the books that have never been officially changed but aren't really enforced any longer.

The point is that the easiest way to change a rule isn't to go in and change what is written, instead it's easier to just stop enforcing the rule.

Anyways, the forum is down to a small handful of posters. Unless what she's doing is actively driving people away or keeping them from coming here who really cares?

[Esaias]

You're simply wrong.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Her hair is given her for a covering.

If you can read that and still deny the plainness of what it says then you can turn any scripture into whatever you want.

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

Sisters who wear the head covering do not do so because they want an excuse to cut their hair short. But many who refuse to cover their heads do so because they like showing off their "glory".

[Amanah]

Indeed! The reason I left this forum for the most part, even though I made many friends here is because every time I opened my mouth in discussion, because some disagreed, I was insulted, attacked, accused, what-have-you. That is not Christian behavior. People who are secure in their position have no need to insult others as they only want to lead others in the right way. This ia also the reason I only come here occasionally-because I only want to put up with so much abuse....and I do it only for those who were suffering like I was and looking for answers to many questions.

I don't think the intent of people is to personally insult you. I think many find you personable and charming and love for you to be here. What people are objecting to is what they perceive as your attacking the UPC because of bitterness you feel towards that org. I think you know from many years of posting on this forum that standards elicit a strong response. So when you constantly post standards threads you must know what you are getting into.

[Aquila]

Is one's take on hair a salvation issue?

[Aquila]

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

Sisters who wear the head covering do not do so because they want an excuse to cut their hair short. But many who refuse to cover their heads do so because they like showing off their "glory".

One of the interesting things I've noticed is that those alive during the time of, and immediately after, the writing of the epistle not only spoke the language that the Epistle was written in, but they also applied it in their church practice and spread this custom throughout the Western world. While they agreed that women should have long hair (they generally didn't demand uncut), they understood the point of the passage to clearly teach that a woman was to wear a head covering. It was a near universal modesty standard for women throughout those centuries and the centuries that followed. It's about modesty.

[ILG]

You're simply wrong.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Her hair is given her for a covering.

If you can read that and still deny the plainness of what it says then you can turn any scripture into whatever you want.

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

[ILG]

Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.

The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.



I wrote the piece so you are welcome to ask me what I meant. :)

It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense. We should trust God, not our own ability to keep rules so we can control outcomes.

[ILG]

I don't think the intent of people is to personally insult you. I think many find you personable and charming and love for you to be here. What people are objecting to is what they perceive as your attacking the UPC because of bitterness you feel towards that org. I think you know from many years of posting on this forum that standards elicit a strong response. So when you constantly post standards threads you must know what you are getting into.

Yes, I do know what I am getting into, which is why I limit it to what I feel I am capable of doing and/or defending.

Here is the thing....I don't attack anyone personally here. I write about ideas and open discussion about those ideas. Those who disagree attack me personally. It's simply uncalled for and that is what PO is pointing out and I am glad she is because it's hard to point out when you are the one being attacked and insulted. What I ask for is open and honest discussion without the nastiness. It is possible.

[aegsm76]

Yes, I do know what I am getting into, which is why I limit it to what I feel I am capable of doing and/or defending.

Here is the thing....I don't attack anyone personally here. I write about ideas and open discussion about those ideas. Those who disagree attack me personally. It's simply uncalled for and that is what PO is pointing out and I am glad she is because it's hard to point out when you are the one being attacked and insulted. What I ask for is open and honest discussion without the nastiness. It is possible.

ILG - Let me first say that I do not mind debating with those that have different ideas than I have.
However, when someone seems to only post things that are "hot buttons" , constantly is on the opposite side of what many people here believe, is constantly bashing a certain org that many here belong to and seems to have some bitterness in their heart over said org, than I see no point in debating.
Now I know that you cannot get the full measure of a person through this medium, however, a certain amount of spirit and attitude do come through.
Since you seem to spend a large amount of your time outside of here posting anti-UPC stances, I have to consider that.

[ILG]

ILG - Let me first say that I do not mind debating with those that have different ideas than I have.
However, when someone seems to only post things that are "hot buttons" , constantly is on the opposite side of what many people here believe, is constantly bashing a certain org that many here belong to and seems to have some bitterness in their heart over said org, than I see no point in debating.
Now I know that you cannot get the full measure of a person through this medium, however, a certain amount of spirit and attitude do come through.
Since you seem to spend a large amount of your time outside of here posting anti-UPC stances, I have to consider that.

That's fine. No one said you have to debate me. Choosing not to debate isn't the same as attacking and insulting. I wanted to add though, that I post about "hot button" issues because they affected me deeply and I know they affect others deeply as well. That's why I write on them. I also have a few current UPC members on my facebook group (Breaking Out) that dress conservatively and are happy doing so. They seem balanced and largely happy with their stance and views. We discuss issues with respect. My issue is not with how people choose to dress and live but with what people believe about how they choose to dress and live and, most importantly, if they feel that others are going to hell if they have a different opinion and they cannot treat them well. I have many current UPC people who are friends on my timeline. I respect their space and they respect mine. I write about these issues for those who want to think about and discuss them and there are always those here that do. If what I do is seen as "bashing" that is not my intent, but I do have the right to write and discuss my views as long as that is done respectfully and I do my best to be as respectful as possible.

[Aquila]

Let's not bash any churches.

We all agree that hair should be long. We disagree on rather it must be uncut or not. That is obviously a matter of interpretation. We all agree that women should practice Christian modesty when attending worship gatherings. So cut or uncut, head covering or no head covering? Let us allow for the liberty of conscience on these issues.

But let us unite against false doctrine. Any church that teaches holy magic hair isn't a church, it
s a coven. And any organization that condones the teaching aides and abets witches.

[Captain]

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:



Well I guess there's not much left to say. You've managed to assume clarity in the verses where there's less actual clarity and applied subjective reasoning to the clearest verse in the passage so we're just talking past each other at this point.

. . .While they agreed that women should have long hair (they generally didn't demand uncut), they understood the point of the passage to clearly teach that a woman was to wear a head covering. . .


Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

Like Esaias, you're applying a large degree of subjective interpretation to the verses that are universally understood to be the less clear of the passage and then attempting to cast a cloud over the clearest verse.

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

I didn’t say it did.


It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense.

That doesn't make any sense in context to what the Bible actually says. Paul is laying out God's natural hierarchy of authority; Christ, husband, wife. A woman has a specified power through angelic protection if she remains submitted to this stated hierarchy as evidenced by her retaining a show of her feminine submission i.e. her long hair.

Now, obviously a woman can keep her hair long and still be an otherwise "clamorous woman" but in full context of what Paul is saying here, clearly the point is the overall hierarchy itself and the woman's place in that hierarchy.

[Praxeas]

Well I guess there's not much left to say. You've managed to assume clarity in the verses where there's less actual clarity and applied subjective reasoning to the clearest verse in the passage so we're just talking past each other at this point.




Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

Like Esaias, you're applying a large degree of subjective interpretation to the verses that are universally understood to be the less clear of the passage and then attempting to cast a cloud over the clearest verse.



I didn’t say it did.



That doesn't make any sense in context to what the Bible actually says. Paul is laying out God's natural hierarchy of authority; Christ, husband, wife. A woman has a specified power through angelic protection if she remains submitted to this stated hierarchy as evidenced by her retaining a show of her feminine submission i.e. her long hair.

Now, obviously a woman can keep her hair long and still be an otherwise "clamorous woman" but in full context of what Paul is saying here, clearly the point is the overall hierarchy itself and the woman's place in that hierarchy.
Wow...talk about subjective...Paul doesn't mention protection by angels not does she have power.

[Aquila]

Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

I Corinthians 14:6
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


If a woman isn't veiled, let her be shorn (a form of humiliation for an adulteress): but if it is so shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

Refusal to wear the veil in Paul's day was to look like an immoral woman. If a Christian woman wasn't covered in public, she was worthy of being humiliated like an adulteress because such immodesty shames her head, meaning her husband. And so, since such a thing would be so shameful, women should submit to their husbands by honoring them, in the wearing of their veils.

Don't believe me? Is it proper for a woman to engage in prayer and worship in public gatherings all uncovered without her veil??? Doesn't even nature teach us that women should be covered? After all, it has given her long hair that never stops growing as a covering.

[TK Burk]

Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Kome
A1. Hair [Noun] thrix denotes the "hair," whether of beast, as of the camel's "hair" which formed the raiment of John the Baptist, Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6; or of man. Regarding the latter
(a) it is used to signify the minutest detail, as that which illustrates the exceeding care and protection bestowed by God upon His children, Matt 10:30; Luke 12:7; Luke 21:18; Acts 27:34;
(b) as the Jews swore by the "hair," the Lord used the natural inability to make one "hair" white or black, as one of the reasons for abstinence from oaths, Matt 5:36;
(c) while long "hair" is a glory to a woman (see komao), and to wear it loose or dishevelled is a dishonor, yet the woman who wiped Christ's feet with her "hair" (in place of the towel which Simon the Pharisee omitted to provide), despised the shame in her penitent devotion to the Lord (slaves were accustomed to wipe their masters' feet), Luke 7:38,44 (RV, "hair"); see also John 11:2; John 12:3;
(d) the dazzling whiteness of the head and "hair" of the Son of Man in the vision of Rev 1:14 is suggestive of the holiness and wisdom of "the Ancient of Days;"
(e) the long "hair" of the spirit-beings described as locusts in Rev 9:8 is perhaps indicative of their subjection of their satanic master (cp. 1 Cor 11:10, RV);
(f) Christian women are exhorted to refrain from adorning their "hair" for outward show, 1 Pet 3:3.

Note: Goat's hair was used in tentmaking, as, e.g., in the case of Paul's occupation, Acts 18:3; the haircloth of Cilicia, his native province, was noted, being known in commerce as cilicium.


A2. Hair [Noun] kome is used only of "human hair," but not in the NT of the ornamental. The word is found in 1 Cor 11:15, where the context shows that the "covering" provided in the long "hair" of the woman is as a veil, a sign of subjection to authority, as indicated in the headships spoken of in 1 Cor 11:1-10.

See also : kome

B1. Hair [Verb] komao signifies "to let the hair grow long, to wear long hair," a glory to a woman, a dishonor to a man (as taught by nature), 1 Cor 11:14,15.


C1. Hair [Adjective] trichinos akin to thrix, signifies "hairy, made of hair," Rev 6:12, lit., "hairy sackcloth." Cp. SACKCLOTH.

Result 2- Bag
glossokomon
ballantion
1. Bag glossokomon from glossa, "a tongue," and komeo, "to tend," was, firstly, "a case" in which to keep the mouthpiece of wind instruments; secondly, "a small box" for any purpose, but especially a "casket or purse," to keep money in. It is used of the "bag" which Judas carried, John 12:6; John 13:29; in the Sept. of 2 Chron 24:8,10, used of the "box" appointed by King Joash for offerings for the repair of the Temple.


2. Bag ballantion from ballo, "to cast," "a money-box or purse," is found in Luke's Gospel, four times, Luke 10:4; Luke 12:33 (AV, "bag"); Luke 22:35,36. See PURSE.

Note: Zone, "a gridle or belt," also served as "a purse for money," Matt 10:9; Mark 6:8. See GIRDLE.

Result 3- Town
komopolis
kome
1. Town komopolis denotes "a country town," Mark 1:38, "a large village" usually without walls.


2. Town kome "a village," or "country town without walls." The RV always renders this "village" or "villages," AV, "town" or "towns," Matt 10:11; Mark 8:23,26 (twice), Mark 8:27; Luke 5:17; Luke 9:6,12; John 7:42; John 11:1,30. See VILLAGE.

See also : kome

Result 4- Village
kome "a village," or "country town," primarily as distinct from a walled town, occurs in the Gospels; elsewhere only in Acts 8:25. The difference between polis, "a city," and kome, is maintained in the NT, as in Josephus. Among the Greeks the point of the distinction was not that of size or fortification, but of constitution and land. In the OT the city and the village are regularly distinguished. The Mishna makes the three distinctions, a large city, a city, and a village. The RV always substitutes "village(-s)" for AV, "town(-s)," Matt 10:11; Mark 8:23,26,27; Luke 5:17; Luke 9:6,12; John 7:42; John 11:1,30. See TOWN.

[Evang.Benincasa]

κομήτης , ου, ὁ, (κομάω)

A.wearing long hair, of the Persians, Orac. ap.Hdt.6.19; of dissolute men, Pherecr.14, Ar.Nu.348, 1101, etc.; ὁ ἐν Σάμῳ κ., prov. variously expld., Duris 62 J., etc.; also, simply, with hair on the head, opp. φαλακρός, Pl.R.454c, cf. Grg.524c; “κ. τὰ σκέλη” Luc.Bacch.2.
2. metaph., κ. ἰός a feathered arrow, S.Tr. 567; κ. λειμών a grassy meadow, E.Hipp.210 (anap.); “θύρσος κισσῷ κομήτης” Id.Ba.1055.
II. κομήτης, with or without ἀστήρ, ὁ, comet, Arist.Mete.343b5, Epicur.Ep.2p.52U., etc.
III. = τιθύμαλλος χαρακίας, Dsc.4.164.1.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabeti c+letter%3D*k%3Aentry+group%3D145%3Aentry%3Dkomh%2 Fths

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is what I was taught by a UPC pastor-that you can't have a doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture. This is why they don't use Matt 28:19 as valid.

What book of the New Testament did your pastor write?

Like I said, what if you are wrong?

[Evang.Benincasa]

It doesn't even say uncut hair.

The Greek Judeans, Jerome, and Reina-Valera tell you it is growing hair, not a specific length. It is growing, therefore if you CUT it, you cease the growing process. Simple?

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is why I started a thread about a fishing story.

sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sounds like you were spiritually abused by false doctrine.

Sounds like all she once learned from the UP is recalled through a Mandela Effect? She must only contain her debates and arguments within the confines of the UPCI, and their ex-members.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If you believed in that doctrine (in the mouths of two or three witnesses), then it would work against your belief in uncut hair. But since you don't believe in it, it doesn't really apply to the discussion between us.

How can you say he doesn't believe it? He believes Deuteronomy 17:5-7 in it's original context. John 8:13-18 is discussing Judean trial law, not how doctrine is relayed. In the New Testament Israel the trail law is brought into church government. Again the situation isn't about teaching doctrine, but how to deal with accusations and situations among the congregations Matthew 18:16, 1 Timothy 5:19. Nowhere are we given a rule where this is to be applied to teaching concerning the church. Remember, two or three were required for a death penalty, and in the New Testament Israel it would be excommunication.

It may sound nice to you, but a misapplication doesn't help anyone.

It hurts them.

[TakingDominion]

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

1800 years of church history the overwhelming majority of Christians also taught the trinitarian doctrine and baptismal formula, along with many other false doctrines... so uh yeah... history does not equal accuracy

[Evang.Benincasa]

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.

They want to discredit, so people will leave the UPC, or any other Apostolic group which believes in standards of separation. You see, they bought a motorcycle, never really actually learned how to ride the motorcycle. They didn't start out riding a small manageable bike, but a 1982 Suzuki GS1000 Katana. They went out felt really good at the beginning, felt a bit confident, started going faster. But lo and behold, in a turn they wipe out to sail clean over the embankment. After getting out of the hospital they begin their campaign against all motorcycles. Motorcycles are dangerous, motorcycles are bad. Anyone who would even own one is crazy? Wait, you didn't even know what you were doing when you walked into the dealership, instead of taking some hard earned time to get a skill set, you bought a full set of instant MOTORCYCLIST look, from leathers, boots, gloves, and helmet. Bell helmet, best you can buy! At the first tune up and general service, you are heard fussing and moaning because the bike won't start. Twist the throttle, pushing the electric start button, even to the point of throwing your Bell full face Helmet onto the floor! HERESY!!!!!

All upset until the dumb bike mechanic walks out and turns on the fuel valve under the tank.

Embarrassed, but sadly not humbled.

My question was has never changed, what were you all thinking? How were you all hooping and hollering, with dresses down to the floor, sleeves to the knuckles, and now after crashing through Farmer Bill's pasture fence, everything was wrong? Even tongues was wrong?

There was a pastor who tried to tell me that tongues weren't for today. I told him, "then what were you doing for all these years?"

Hey, if someone had an original argument I would be shocked but when someone tells you how long is long in 1st Corinthians 11:15? I know that they are just repeating old arguments.

But, yes, they don't want anyone to be part of the UPCI, or any Apostolic church which teaches Standards of separation of dress.

Do they care where the people go after they discredit the UPCI?

No, they don't care, they are motivated by their rightness.

That's why I ask what if they are wrong?

Anyway, I thought her face book forum was called Break Out?

If so, why is she always trying to break back in? :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Two wonderful, but commonly unknown factoids:

The Koine Greek word used by Paul for "long" as in long hair, is where we get the word "comet".

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comet?s=t

In ancient Greek and Latin, the words for a comet, both literally translate to "hairy stars" (aster cometes and stella cometa, respectively).

Here is a computer simulated depiction of Halley's Comet created for a National Geographic Special:



http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/videos/halleys-comet/

Excellent! :thumbsup

[Esaias]

1800 years of church history the overwhelming majority of Christians also taught the trinitarian doctrine and baptismal formula, along with many other false doctrines... so uh yeah... history does not equal accuracy

The point is not that "what everyone believed throughout history is right because everyone believed it." The point is that the no head covering interpretation is a new fangled doctrine, unknown to history, and therefore is subject to skepticism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

Maybe ILG is just trying to convert us to Spaceology?

http://i.imgur.com/2i4o2nY.gif

[Esaias]

lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

I considered this to the very depths at one time. And I became convinced that I was wrong when I believed that uncut hair was an extremely important issue, maybe even salvational and so I changed, even though it cost me a lot.

But, what if you are wrong?

I mean, honestly, sister, you make this statement?

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

Long does not necessarily mean uncut?

So, you use the phrase "not necessarily" because you aren't willing to explain why long doesn't mean uncut in the verse? Are you more concerned with the un cut hair crowd being wrong than you are with yourself being right?

Let me show you something.

long (v.)

Middle English longen, from Old English langian "to yearn after, grieve for," literally "to grow long, lengthen," from Proto-Germanic *langojan, which probably is connected with the root of long (adj.). Cognate with Old Norse langa, Old Saxon langon, Middle Dutch langhen, Old High German langen "to long," German verlangen "to desire." Related: Longed; longing.

Sis, you need to put the Word Aflame Press down, and leave Google alone.

This Bible teaching isn't higher math, it is pretty simple.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif

[Esaias]

How can you say he doesn't believe it? He believes Deuteronomy 17:5-7 in it's original context. John 8:13-18 is discussing Judean trial law, not how doctrine is relayed. In the New Testament Israel the trail law is brought into church government. Again the situation isn't about teaching doctrine, but how to deal with accusations and situations among the congregations Matthew 18:16, 1 Timothy 5:19. Nowhere are we given a rule where this is to be applied to teaching concerning the church. Remember, two or three were required for a death penalty, and in the New Testament Israel it would be excommunication.

It may sound nice to you, but a misapplication doesn't help anyone.

It hurts them.

:yourock

[Evang.Benincasa]

I wrote the piece so you are welcome to ask me what I meant. :)

It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense. We should trust God, not our own ability to keep rules so we can control outcomes.

I understand that we never do this through human discipline minus God.

But train up a child in the way they should go still a basic of teaching to obey scripture. You have the choice whether to obey, or disobey. Legalism, is saying and doing not. Not, a haircut and a bow tie. ILG, do you believe that you can live an overcoming life without transgressions? Or do you believe that you are saved in sin and stay in sin?

[ILG]

[QUOTE=Captain;1494766]I didn’t say it did.

Okay.

That doesn't make any sense in context to what the Bible actually says. Paul is laying out God's natural hierarchy of authority; Christ, husband, wife. A woman has a specified power through angelic protection if she remains submitted to this stated hierarchy as evidenced by her retaining a show of her feminine submission i.e. her long hair.

Now, obviously a woman can keep her hair long and still be an otherwise "clamorous woman" but in full context of what Paul is saying here, clearly the point is the overall hierarchy itself and the woman's place in that hierarchy.

But I am looking at the results of the applied interpretation. When you take the interpretation of uncut hair=women can control their environment without sin (the quote from the booklet) I think that is a far stretch from "specified power" as you mention. The bible says she will have power on her head because of the angels but we have no real idea of what that means. I am saying it's pretty clear to me that it doesn't mean women can control their environment without sin as the authors of this booklet say.

[ILG]

What book of the New Testament did your pastor write?

Like I said, what if you are wrong?

That's what he said. I thought most UPC'ers believed this. I stand corrected.

[ILG]

The Greek Judeans, Jerome, and Reina-Valera tell you it is growing hair, not a specific length. It is growing, therefore if you CUT it, you cease the growing process. Simple?

Then men can trim the bottoms and have "short" hair.

[ILG]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1494876]But, what if you are wrong?

The fear of that kept me from looking at this objectively the whole time I was in UPC. When I was able to finally trust that I could look at the answer and that God would help me deal with whatever the truth was, no matter what it cost me, I was then able to finally see past the fear and doctrine that I was taught.

[ILG]

ILG, do you believe that you can live an overcoming life without transgressions? Or do you believe that you are saved in sin and stay in sin?

I believe that God gives us the power to overcome sin. That doesn't mean we are perfect. For example, that second donut might be gluttony but I think God leaves a little room for human weakness.

[Scott Pitta]

The second donut is for me :)

[ILG]

The second donut is for me :)

I already ate it. Human weakness. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes, I do know what I am getting into, which is why I limit it to what I feel I am capable of doing and/or defending.

Here is the thing....I don't attack anyone personally here. I write about ideas and open discussion about those ideas. Those who disagree attack me personally. It's simply uncalled for and that is what PO is pointing out and I am glad she is because it's hard to point out when you are the one being attacked and insulted. What I ask for is open and honest discussion without the nastiness. It is possible.

Sis, did Jesus, and John the Baptist call the pharisees serpents, a brood of vipers, the children of Satan? Matthew 3:7, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23:33, Luke 3:7, John 8:44. Jesus tells the pharisees that their father was the devil due to the lies they spoke. Jesus is referring to their false teachings. Jesus called them blind leaders of the blind, that they were to be disregarded. The Apostle Paul called his opposition disguised just like Satan, as an angel of light, therefore his ministers were disguised as ministers of righteousness. Paul repeats Jesus' idea that these false leaders' end would be destruction. Same as the blind leading other blind ones into a ditch. Jesus was corrected and warned by His disciples when they pointed out that His parable was offending the pharisees, Matthew 15:12.

Insults, attacks? Seriously?

No, Sister, if you were facing off with the apostles, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul, you may be shocked at what you would hear.

Elijah didn't preach a sweet love message to the prophets of Baal.

The Proverbs still contain Proverbs 18:6.

Hey, you were the one who said God doesn't change.

Romans 16:17 has the apostle urging us to consider carefully those who teach contrary to doctrine. The KJV tells us that they are to be marked, watched carefully.

Personal attacks?

You mean if an Apostolic points out that an ex-Pentecostal is posting here solely to discourage the young, and neophyte, they are being personally attacked?

Sister, it is Apostolic friends forum. FRIENDS not foes.

So, if I went over to a Sedevacantist forum should I expect a foot rub?

Reality is refreshing for those who are brave enough to embrace it. :thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

I believe that God gives us the power to overcome sin. That doesn't mean we are perfect. For example, that second donut might be gluttony but I think God leaves a little room for human weakness.

What is the Bible definition of perfect?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Then men can trim the bottoms and have "short" hair.

Sister, did Jesus speak 17th century English?

What is trim the bottom? What is the bottom, what is trim, what is short? In Revelation 9:8 the locust have hair like women, what is hair like women?

You see the Greek, and Latin is very descriptive. Etymology shows us the origin of words. As Votivesoul pointed out the Greek word used in 1st Corinthians 11:15 is where we get the word comet. Which was known as the star with flowing hair. For it to be shameful for a man to have uncut growing hair it would cause him to step down from his natural position "natural" pointing towards Adam, not Darwin. Sis, you really need to put down the Word Aflame and get honest enough to find the truth. Not protect an agenda motivated position.

[Evang.Benincasa]

That's what he said. I thought most UPC'ers believed this. I stand corrected.

Hooray!!! :happydance

Sister, that is just it.

Now, think about what you just posted?

You have way too much UPCI on the brain, instead of book, chapter, and verse on the mind. :)

[Esaias]

The fear of that kept me from looking at this objectively the whole time I was in UPC. When I was able to finally trust that I could look at the answer and that God would help me deal with whatever the truth was, no matter what it cost me, I was then able to finally see past the fear and doctrine that I was taught.

So you were in fear all those years because you didn't cut your hair? It was a major fear, terror, that required divine intervention to help you overcome the terror, the fear, of having long hair?

I mean no disrespect, but doesn't this all sound... waaaay too dramatic?

I can't comprehend people living in fear because they have long hair. What about the brothers? Are there brothers out there, right now, with night sweats, high blood pressure, stressing out, bound by fear and doctrine, because they believe they ought to keep their hair short?

Really?

[ILG]

What is the Bible definition of perfect?

It means your sins are covered by the blood of the perfect one. It doesn't mean you leave your hair uncut as a woman or keep from eating too many donuts.

[ILG]

Sister, did Jesus speak 17th century English?

What is trim the bottom? What is the bottom, what is trim, what is short? In Revelation 9:8 the locust have hair like women, what is hair like women?

You see the Greek, and Latin is very descriptive. Etymology shows us the origin of words. As Votivesoul pointed out the Greek word used in 1st Corinthians 11:15 is where we get the word comet. Which was known as the star with flowing hair. For it to be shameful for a man to have uncut growing hair it would cause him to step down from his natural position "natural" pointing towards Adam, not Darwin. Sis, you really need to put down the Word Aflame and get honest enough to find the truth. Not protect an agenda motivated position.

According to your definitions, hair is either completely uncut or short. But there happens to be a middle of the road. It would be a shame for a man to have uncut flowing hair but according to your logic, if he trimmed it, it wouldn't be shameful.

[ILG]

Hooray!!! :happydance

Sister, that is just it.

Now, think about what you just posted?

You have way too much UPCI on the brain, instead of book, chapter, and verse on the mind. :)

What I have posted in the original post is a refutation of UPC theology. Are you saying you agree? Does UPC theology=bible theology? Some people think they are one and the same.

[ILG]

So you were in fear all those years because you didn't cut your hair? It was a major fear, terror, that required divine intervention to help you overcome the terror, the fear, of having long hair?

I mean no disrespect, but doesn't this all sound... waaaay too dramatic?

I can't comprehend people living in fear because they have long hair. What about the brothers? Are there brothers out there, right now, with night sweats, high blood pressure, stressing out, bound by fear and doctrine, because they believe they ought to keep their hair short?

Really?

I was in fear because I was taught things like I mention in this book and others. Things like Joy Haney mentions about Jezebel's blood being licked up, things like Ruth Reider mentions like when a woman cut her hair and her home was invaded by spirits. Things like Gary and Linda Reed write about how a girl cut her hair cut and went stark raving mad.

Uncut hair is neither here nor there until you tie in all these crazy fearmongering stories into it.

[Esaias]

I was in fear because I was taught things like I mention in this book and others. Things like Joy Haney mentions about Jezebel's blood being licked up, things like Ruth Reider mentions like when a woman cut her hair and her home was invaded by spirits. Things like Gary and Linda Reed write about how a girl cut her hair cut and went stark raving mad.

Uncut hair is neither here nor there until you tie in all these crazy fearmongering stories into it.

But it seems as if these fears would only be an issue if you had cut your hair? If you had uncut hair, you would not be subject to those supposed doomed fates you read about, right?

So, is this how it went down: You wanted to cut your hair, but were afraid of what would happen?

Why did you want to cut your hair to begin with?

[Evang.Benincasa]

It means your sins are covered by the blood of the perfect one. It doesn't mean you leave your hair uncut as a woman or keep from eating too many donuts.

OK, you don't know. The Bible definition of perfect is a Greek word which means "end." Or complete and final, which denotes growth from an infant to a matured elder.

Matthew 5:48 Jesus is telling His followers after a list of guidelines that they are to be perfect just like the Father. Meaning that through their conversion they would be born again as babes in Christ, and grow through the sincere mother's milk of the word. They would develop into mature elders who were now able to eat strong food. Hebrews 5:12 shows us that some Diaspora Judeans who had converted to the Apostolic faith weren't maturing. They are told that they should be at the place of teaching, but they need to be taught. Which meant they were to be nursed again, because they were inexperienced, and not acquainted with the teaching of "righteousness."

Philippians 3:12 is Paul saying what? Paul is talking about obtaining maturity. He is simply following Jesus' teaching of trees, which a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, or a bad tree produce good fruit. 1 Corinthians 3:1 Has Paul addressing Diaspora Judeans and Greeks informing them that he can't deal with them on a spiritual level. Because they were still immature. If a person can't run with footmen, how can they contend with heavy cavalry?

Philippians 3:14-13 Paul is directing the Roman Apostolics that they much press on to maturity in Christ Jesus. Just like 1 Corinthians 11:1 where the apostle tells his church family that they should follow his example as he follows Christ's example. All about coming to a place of maturity where you can now produce good spiritual fruit. The owner of the Garden comes to inspects trees, finds one that produces no fruit, yet, wants to cut it down. The gardener asks the Garden owner to hold off while the gardener treats the tree. Yet, what people fail to take into consideration is that if the tree still doesn't produce fruit, it was promised that it then would be rooted up and burned.

So, please clarify about your correlation concerning hair uncut as a woman or keep from eating too many donuts?

I don't follow where you are going with this?

[Evang.Benincasa]

According to your definitions, hair is either completely uncut or short. But there happens to be a middle of the road. It would be a shame for a man to have uncut flowing hair but according to your logic, if he trimmed it, it wouldn't be shameful.

What?

Ok, let's try this out.

Why is it disgusting for a man to have continually growing hair.

Yet, when a woman prevents her hair from continually growing it is embarrassing? Why nature? The Greek: φύσις which is translated as nature is talking about order. Everyone from Homer to Plato used the word to describe the creative order.. Aristotle used this word to describe the "process of an acorn growing into an oak tree" The apostle does the same thing when he speaks of the natural order of God, Christ, Adam, and Eve. Continually growing uncut hair on a man was the order being changed. Your idea of what if he trimmed his hair (I would suspect when it grew to the length to touch the soles of his feet), makes no sense, because it isn't about what ifs, or any Ex-UPCers hypothetical.

Revelation 9:8 points out to us locust which have hair like women? This obviously means that there are two opposing symbols one hair as WOMEN and logically hair like men. ILG? Can you tell the rest of us cavemen what is Revelation 9:8 talking about when it uses the symbol "their hair was like women's hair?" Therefore, trimming is your modern way of wresting an ancient manuscript into your modern culture.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I was in fear because I was taught things like I mention in this book and others. Things like Joy Haney mentions about Jezebel's blood being licked up, things like Ruth Reider mentions like when a woman cut her hair and her home was invaded by spirits. Things like Gary and Linda Reed write about how a girl cut her hair cut and went stark raving mad.

Uncut hair is neither here nor there until you tie in all these crazy fearmongering stories into it.

Ruth Reider.

Ruth Reider?

OK, we aren't talking Ruth Rieder, we are talking Book here.

I have a huge library of religious books, that fill my home.

I teach the church family this, don't use "books" to understand the Bible. Use the Bible to understand the books, whether they are true or false.

Sister, we aren't trying to Break Out of the UPCI, because some of us were never UPCI. I saw Ruth Rieder get behind the pulpit at General Conference years ago, but I don't believe women preachers are Biblical. Anyway she's a yeller, and if I need a woman to yell at me I'll go see my mother. :heeheehee

[Pressing-On]

Someone posted this link some time back on this forum or maybe it was NFCF. I haven't seen anyone ever comment on it. If you follow the link the information is on the top, far right side of the page. You have to get there by going through "253" under Max. Inst.

My question would be, if there is a word in Greek for "uncut", which apparently there is, why wouldn't Paul have used it? Especially because he is speaking to a Greek audience.


Headword
Dictionaries Max. Inst.
Min. Inst.
# Documents
Short Definition
ἄτομος
LSJ, Middle Liddell
253
41 30 uncut, unmown,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?redirect=true&lang=greek&lookup=uncut&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically&.submit=Do+Search

[Pressing-On]

Ruth Reider.

Ruth Reider?

OK, we aren't talking Ruth Rieder, we are talking Book here.

I have a huge library of religious books, that fill my home.

I teach the church family this, don't use "books" to understand the Bible. Use the Bible to understand the books, whether they are true or false.

Sister, we aren't trying to Break Out of the UPCI, because some of us were never UPCI. I saw Ruth Rieder get behind the pulpit at General Conference years ago, but I don't believe women preachers are Biblical. Anyway she's a yeller, and if I need a woman to yell at me I'll go see my mother. :heeheehee

Brother, ILG has a legitimate issue here as many of us were taught out of RR's book and the teaching of Stoneking. IT IS Gospel in the organization. So, stop insulting her and listen to where she is coming from.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother, ILG has a legitimate issue here as many of us were taught out of RR's book and the teaching of Stoneking. IT IS Gospel in the organization. So, stop insulting her and listen to where she is coming from.

Someone's insulted?

OK, IT is Gospel in the organization? No it isn't, because there are UPCI brothers and sisters who don't believe it. They are insulted when you broad brush them with all the rest. ILG and Emma Bonecruncher have been doing this for how long? So, she is a seasoned rodeo rider, and she and I have been at this for who knows how long. She is a pro, and no neophyte. PO, just like ndavid so correctly brought to everyone's attention. We have been at it for how long?

So, now that we got all that out of the way, we shall continue.

[Pressing-On]

Someone's insulted?

OK, IT is Gospel in the organization? No it isn't, because there are UPCI brothers and sisters who don't believe it. They are insulted when you broad brush them with all the rest. ILG and Emma Bonecruncher have been doing this for how long? So, she is a seasoned rodeo rider, and she and I have been at this for who knows how long. She is a pro, and no neophyte. PO, just like ndavid so correctly brought to everyone's attention. We have been at it for how long?

So, now that we got all that out of the way, we shall continue.

Well, then I should say the people I have been familiar with do still believe this. I don't personally know a lot of people who don't. Except here maybe.

I wouldn't have an issue with the discussion if those wanting to engage with ILG would simply address her point in a scholarly fashion instead of a bunch of mean spirited bullying. I agree with ILG, it is not becoming of a Christian.

She posted some text that was a bit startling and wanted to run that by us. My faith is everything. Without it I can't please God. It is troubling, IMO, to have hair placed on the same level of faith and power of the Holy Ghost.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Someone posted this link some time back on this forum or maybe it was NFCF. I haven't seen anyone ever comment on it. If you follow the link the information is on the top, far right side of the page. You have to get there by going through "253" under Max. Inst.

My question would be, if there is a word in Greek for "uncut", which apparently there is, why wouldn't Paul have used it? Especially because he is speaking to a Greek audience.


Headword
Dictionaries Max. Inst.
Min. Inst.
# Documents
Short Definition
ἄτομος
LSJ, Middle Liddell
253
41 30 uncut, unmown,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?redirect=true&lang=greek&lookup=uncut&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically&.submit=Do+Search

instantaneous time?

https://media.giphy.com/media/9aA4GGsFrYkkE/giphy.gif

[Amanah]

I have NEVER heard RR or L.S.esque teachings taught at FPC Palm Bay. So don't claim is it gospel for the organization.

Standards are taught using scripture in the discipleship class.

People are welcome to come to church as they are. My Sister comes to church in pants and with cut hair and no one makes her feel unwanted.

IF you want to be a part of a church ministry or platform ministry it is expected that you follow church standards.

the UPC is a fellowship of churches, not all are alike in every respect.

If someone has had a bad experience 20 years past, they should get past it and move on.

[Esaias]

I have NEVER heard RR or L.S.esque teachings taught at FPC Palm Bay. So don't claim is it gospel for the organization.


I've never heard it in any UPC, ALJC, or independent church I've been to or been a member of. Never even heard of it until these forums.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, then I should say the people I have been familiar with do still believe this.

Beautiful, because the United Pentecostal Church is made up of a ministerial fellowship. Each minister believes in basic tenets of the organization. Yet, not all believe somethings like talismen hair.


I don't personally know a lot of people who don't. Except here maybe.

Not all Texans can barbeque, or wear cool boots like preachers in Ogden Utah. :)


I wouldn't have an issue with the discussion if those wanting to engage with ILG would simply address her point in a scholarly fashion instead of a bunch of mean spirited bullying.

We are talking about ILG, who created the hooded ape woman called Emma Barbellswinger? An alter ego created to insult the UC? Nope, ILG is one of us, and she is skilled in the fine art forum Kung Fu. :heeheehee

I agree with ILG, it is not becoming of a Christian.

ILG doesn't want anyone to be a Christain?

She posted some text that was a bit startling and wanted to run that by us. My faith is everything. Without it I can't please God. It is troubling, IMO, to have hair placed on the same level of faith and power of the Holy Ghost.[/QUOTE]

But we don't believe that.

I haven't even heard of the authors she is shredding out in slices.

If they are still alive send them an email and have them come here an explain their position

[Evang.Benincasa]

I've never heard it in any UPC, ALJC, or independent church I've been to or been a member of. Never even heard of it until these forums.

I've heard some good ones come over the pulpit. I've been sitting on a platform where it was testified. That a sister laid her hair on the altar and asked God to heal her daughter. Daughter was healed, I make sure I don't disrupt anyone's church family. If they believe that, then the minister and I will discuss it in private. But for me to get up in anyone's pulpit and preach against what they all believe is ludicrous.

[n david]

I've heard some good ones come over the pulpit. I've been sitting on a platform where it was testified. That a sister laid her hair on the altar and asked God to heal her daughter. Daughter was healed, I make sure I don't disrupt anyone's church family. If they believe that, then the minister and I will discuss it in private. But for me to get up in anyone's pulpit and preach against what they all believe is ludicrous.

Heard an old district presbyter testify about a young boy who was healed when he (the presbyter) laid on top of him. He said God told him to do it.

*cringe*

[Evang.Benincasa]

Heard an old district presbyter testify about a young boy who was healed when he (the presbyter) laid on top of him. He said God told him to do it.

*cringe*

Thank you.

I had a mouthful of chewed banana when I got to the "cringe" portion of the post. You can imagine the rest.

:foottap

[Evang.Benincasa]

Heard an old district presbyter testify about a young boy who was healed when he (the presbyter) laid on top of him. He said God told him to do it.

*cringe*

I have heard of that before.

Where a minister did exactly as the verse stated.

Then he lay down on the child's body, placing his mouth on the child's mouth, his eyes on the child's eyes, and his hands on the child's hands. And as he stretched out on him, the child's body began to grow warm again!

[Pressing-On]

instantaneous time?

https://media.giphy.com/media/9aA4GGsFrYkkE/giphy.gif
Have no idea what this means.

I've heard some good ones come over the pulpit. I've been sitting on a platform where it was testified. That a sister laid her hair on the altar and asked God to heal her daughter. Daughter was healed, I make sure I don't disrupt anyone's church family. If they believe that, then the minister and I will discuss it in private. But for me to get up in anyone's pulpit and preach against what they all believe is ludicrous.

Oh, so like ILG, you had this experience. Listen, we didn't know anything about RR, never heard her name - YET - we were taught to put faith in the healing power of our hair and that our submission gave that to us.

Once in prayer, I was crying out to God, "See, I haven't cut my hair." In that moment, I realized it was about my love and faith in Jesus Christ. My hair wasn't what would get me through that trial. I never focused on my hair ever again after that time in prayer.

What I am saying is that I know a lot of women who don't cut their hair, however they can't explain why because it doesn't make sense. It has always been confusing to them. They thought their walk was about Acts 2:38. And especially a life with Jesus Christ having the indwelling spirit.

[Pressing-On]

I have NEVER heard RR or L.S.esque teachings taught at FPC Palm Bay. So don't claim is it gospel for the organization..

You might want to dial it back a few notches, Annie.

[Esaias]

ROFL!

Cat fight!

The hair will be flying!

[Esaias]

Don't you edit or delete that, PO!

Its an instant AFF classic!

[Esaias]

Abuse of the delete option! Foul! Foul!

[Pressing-On]

Don't you edit or delete that, PO!

Its an instant AFF classic!

I had a double post, using my tablet. I deleted the wrong one? Lol

[Esaias]

I had a double post, using my tablet. I deleted the wrong one? Lol

Yeah, typical female... "What, who me?" blink, blink

Oh well, I saw it, and I laughed out loud quicker than I could type lol.

[Amanah]

You might want to dial it back a few notches, Annie.

Just refuting false claims Peggy Sue.

[Pressing-On]

Yeah, typical female... "What, who me?" blink, blink

Oh well, I saw it, and I laughed out loud quicker than I could type lol.
:heeheehee
:girlnails

[Esaias]

Where's the popcorn? With extra butter?

[Esaias]

Not all Texans can barbeque, or wear cool boots like preachers in Ogden Utah. :)




Say what????

lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Have no idea what this means.

It has nothing to do with our discussion.

The Greek word means instantly, or instantaneous time.



Oh, so like ILG, you had this experience. Listen, we didn't know anything about RR, never heard her name - YET - we were taught to put faith in the healing power of our hair and that our submission gave that to us.

Who is WE?

We weren't taught about using one's hair as a talismen. I can find noting in the UPCI ministerial manual advocating talismen hair. UPC has no official position on a woman's hair being able to contact angelic beings. Therefore if someone taught you that and you believed it, well, I'm sorry to hear this. Yet, I'm happy that you no longer believe that when a bell rings an angel gets his wings. :heeheehee



Once in prayer, I was crying out to God, "See, I haven't cut my hair." In that moment, I realized it was about my love and faith in Jesus Christ. My hair wasn't what would get me through that trial. I never focused on my hair ever again after that time in prayer.




What I am saying is that I know a lot of women who don't cut their hair, however they can't explain why because it doesn't make sense. It has always been confusing to them. They thought their walk was about Acts 2:38. And especially a life with Jesus Christ having the indwelling spirit.

Sis, I have met people who can't explain eschatology, why they believe what they believe. People who can't explain the godhead, can't explain why Jesus is who He said He is. People who had been in the church longer than I've been alive who believe is some far out unbiblical stuff. Yet, all that means is that are wrong, and never felt a need to correct their wrongness. Also they are wrong but sincere about their wrongness, but never understood why they are wrong.

I knew people who would pray for a person's home and smear olive oil all over the lintels and window sills. I stopped a couple and asked them to show me where they found that exercise in the Bible.

People are people, and in religion, no matter what the religion may be, people are content to just sponge up what comes over the podium unquestioned. People who sit for years on a pew and don't believe in some things their preacher is preaching to them. But whose fault is that?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Just refuting false claims Peggy Sue.

You go sister! :highfive

[Evang.Benincasa]

Say what????

lol

I ate at a place in El Campo Texas, it's called Mikeska's Bar-B-Q & Catering. It was drier than a mummy's pocket. I'm use to eating Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana Bar-B-Q. I think Louisiana cooks could even make an old work boot taste good. Brother Scott Grihm cooks an awesome gumbo, and smoked boudin that would make you see visions and dream dreams. He is originally from the Beaumont area. I think he had ancestry from Louisiana. :)

[Amanah]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

There are people on this thread who have been hurt by the UPC and yet have the personal integrity to see that souls are at stake and are putting their hurt aside to be cautious as to not cause a brother or sister to fall.

There are others who seem to have no care for repercussions and are self centered in their concern.

I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church. Let me just say up front UPC is very moderate in comparison.

My strong feelings on certain subjects are not because I want to hurt people's feelings, or defend an organization, it's because I have a concern for people losing their footing and finding themselves confused or even lost.

[Esaias]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

There are people on this thread who have been hurt by the UPC and yet have the personal integrity to see that souls are at stake and are putting their hurt aside to be cautious as to not cause a brother or sister to fall.

There are others who seem to have no care for repercussions and are self centered in their concern.

I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church. Let me just say up front UPC is very moderate in comparison.

My strong feelings on certain subjects are not because I want to hurt people's feelings, or defend an organization, it's because I have a concern for people losing their footing and finding themselves confused or even lost.

:yourock

[phareztamar]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

There are people on this thread who have been hurt by the UPC and yet have the personal integrity to see that souls are at stake and are putting their hurt aside to be cautious as to not cause a brother or sister to fall.

There are others who seem to have no care for repercussions and are self centered in their concern.

I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church. Let me just say up front UPC is very moderate in comparison.

My strong feelings on certain subjects are not because I want to hurt people's feelings, or defend an organization, it's because I have a concern for people losing their footing and finding themselves confused or even lost.

Great post. I see Christ in you. :tiphat

[houston]

Let's not act like this is done in a dark corner somewhere unbeknown to the leadership in the UPCI. It is the UPCI website where a pic was retrieved of a woman letting down her uncut hair to pray over the offering plate.

LS spread this junk all over the USA and around the world. He doesn't have a small following.

[jfrog]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

There are people on this thread who have been hurt by the UPC and yet have the personal integrity to see that souls are at stake and are putting their hurt aside to be cautious as to not cause a brother or sister to fall.

There are others who seem to have no care for repercussions and are self centered in their concern.

I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church. Let me just say up front UPC is very moderate in comparison.

My strong feelings on certain subjects are not because I want to hurt people's feelings, or defend an organization, it's because I have a concern for people losing their footing and finding themselves confused or even lost.

When "an organization" enables a false doctrine and doesn't come out and speak against it while allowing it's most well known ministers to spread the false doctrine then that is a sign to look deeper at all the things taught by such "an organization". One sin doesn't ruin an organization but it should cause caution.

As for people getting confused and losing their footing. Of course that is a concern. But be aware, the things you are doing and saying and defending may also cause be a cause and stumbling block for some. There is no one size fits all approach and even the noblest actions can offend and act as a stumbling block for certain people.

[Evang.Benincasa]

When "an organization" enables a false doctrine and doesn't come out and speak against it while allowing it's most well known ministers to spread the false doctrine then that is a sign to look deeper at all the things taught by such "an organization". One sin doesn't ruin an organization but it should cause caution.

They don't enable, there are many ministers who are card carrying members who don't agree with the teaching of hair being a talismen. Again, there is nothing ever written in the Forward or the Pentecostal Herald concerning this issue, pro or con.


As for people getting confused and losing their footing. Of course that is a concern. But be aware, the things you are doing and saying and defending may also cause be a cause and stumbling block for some. There is no one size fits all approach and even the noblest actions can offend and act as a stumbling block for certain people.

Therefore someone has to do something, and they do. Ministers talk with ministers all the time concerning different subjects. So, we can't broad brush a whole organization with a teaching that isn't "officially" stated in their material. As far as people getting off track and confused because of a teaching or discussion concerning a teaching. Then we pray for their church eldership to be able to land their plane. Forums are the utmost worst place to get council or substitute for real face to face ministerial interaction. ILG and myself should never be taken as a replacement for the local assembly. Our banter should always be processed through the church leadership, prayer, and those who are in personal reach. I have young daughters, and I would be none too friendly to find out if they were on this forum (or anything like it) having "private counseling" by a self appointed "deliverance minister" or Emma Boatstrangeler's good twin, ILG.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

There are people on this thread who have been hurt by the UPC and yet have the personal integrity to see that souls are at stake and are putting their hurt aside to be cautious as to not cause a brother or sister to fall.

There are others who seem to have no care for repercussions and are self centered in their concern.

I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church. Let me just say up front UPC is very moderate in comparison.

My strong feelings on certain subjects are not because I want to hurt people's feelings, or defend an organization, it's because I have a concern for people losing their footing and finding themselves confused or even lost.


https://m.popkey.co/fef2ca/K68Qj.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Let's not act like this is done in a dark corner somewhere unbeknown to the leadership in the UPCI. It is the UPCI website where a pic was retrieved of a woman letting down her uncut hair to pray over the offering plate.

LS spread this junk all over the USA and around the world. He doesn't have a small following.

So, it is an official position of the United Pentecostal Church International?

No, it isn't, also Brother Stoneking does not represent all the ministers of the UPCI. A lot of ministers I have fellowshipped over the years had critical observations of Brother Stoneking. None which had anything to do with hair being used to summon an army of angels. UPCI website having a woman laying her hair over the collection plate? Is the video still there? Did the UPCI defend the video as they would defend Jesus name baptism or One God?

Bro, we just need to tell the truth and shame the devil. The UPCI is like any other group of people. You got your good, your really good, your very cool, your super cool, your bad, your very bad, your bozos, and your shapeshifting ghouls. Every group should be judged by its best. UPCI will be around way after you and I are long gone. One God, Jesus name baptism and Holy Ghost infilling with speaking in other tongues is what I know she believes. That is her official statement, That is a great starting place to start.

So, let the dogs bark, and the trucks roll on!!!

You go on UPCI :thumbsup

[houston]

I'm sorry. The hair was placed over prayer requests at an Alabama ladies retreat.

[Pressing-On]

If there is false doctrine being taught, then it is good to see what the bible actually teaches and hold fast to that, and refute error.
Right, that is what we have been trying to discuss, and why I asked for respectful dialogue. That is the point that ILG was making.

Contentious issues have always been discussed on FCF, NFCF, and AFF. FCF was a much better forum as people DID have respectful and intelligent dialogue. It wasn't a bunch of insults and GIF's. And there were a lot more posters because of that.

But to say that because a few are teaching incorrectly that a whole organization should be discounted is cutting to deeply with possible serious repercussions, and possibly souls at stake.

I don't believe anyone was taking that view. I don't believe that is the stance that ILG is taking either. I see a lot of value in the UPCI.


I am not here to defend an organization per se. I spent the majority of my walk with the Lord in an independent Apostolic Church, before joining a UPC church.


Right, you didn't spend the "majority" of your time in the UPCI and so....

Let's not act like this is done in a dark corner somewhere unbeknown to the leadership in the UPCI. It is the UPCI website where a pic was retrieved of a woman letting down her uncut hair to pray over the offering plate.

LS spread this junk all over the USA and around the world. He doesn't have a small following.

Thank you, true. :thumbsup

I'm sorry. The hair was placed over prayer requests at an Alabama ladies retreat.

Thank you, true. :thumbsup

[ILG]

But it seems as if these fears would only be an issue if you had cut your hair? If you had uncut hair, you would not be subject to those supposed doomed fates you read about, right?

So, is this how it went down: You wanted to cut your hair, but were afraid of what would happen?

Why did you want to cut your hair to begin with?

No, I never had a problem with standards. I had a problem with the mind prison the teachings put me into. I loved standards and I loved the lifestyle. If standards had been taught differently, I would probably be doing it today. I quit when I realized that to continue them would be to lead someone into the same mind prison I had found myself in and I didn't want to be responsible for that.

[ILG]

What?

Ok, let's try this out.

Why is it disgusting for a man to have continually growing hair.

Yet, when a woman prevents her hair from continually growing it is embarrassing? Why nature? The Greek: φύσις which is translated as nature is talking about order. Everyone from Homer to Plato used the word to describe the creative order.. Aristotle used this word to describe the "process of an acorn growing into an oak tree" The apostle does the same thing when he speaks of the natural order of God, Christ, Adam, and Eve. Continually growing uncut hair on a man was the order being changed. Your idea of what if he trimmed his hair (I would suspect when it grew to the length to touch the soles of his feet), makes no sense, because it isn't about what ifs, or any Ex-UPCers hypothetical.

Revelation 9:8 points out to us locust which have hair like women? This obviously means that there are two opposing symbols one hair as WOMEN and logically hair like men. ILG? Can you tell the rest of us cavemen what is Revelation 9:8 talking about when it uses the symbol "their hair was like women's hair?" Therefore, trimming is your modern way of wresting an ancient manuscript into your modern culture.

Hair like women's hair is obviously long hair. That doesn't mean it had to be uncut. And, for the record, Samson was commanded not to cut his hair and women could take the Nazarite vow and shave their head. If women cutting their hair was a sin, it would have been a sin then and now.

[ILG]

Someone posted this link some time back on this forum or maybe it was NFCF. I haven't seen anyone ever comment on it. If you follow the link the information is on the top, far right side of the page. You have to get there by going through "253" under Max. Inst.

My question would be, if there is a word in Greek for "uncut", which apparently there is, why wouldn't Paul have used it? Especially because he is speaking to a Greek audience.


Headword
Dictionaries Max. Inst.
Min. Inst.
# Documents
Short Definition
ἄτομος
LSJ, Middle Liddell
253
41 30 uncut, unmown,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?redirect=true&lang=greek&lookup=uncut&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically&.submit=Do+Search

Yep. But he didn't.