Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 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://channel.nationalgeographic.co...halleys-comet/

Excellent!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TakingDominion

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]

Originally Posted by n david

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?

[Esaias]

lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

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?

Originally Posted by ILG

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]

Originally Posted by ILG

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.