Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is what Seagraves says that he and DKB agree on:



The only difference they have is the definition of "head". DS is saying that it is "source" at the beginning of I Cor 11. I'm not sure that I agree with DS on that, although, he asks some good questions. I'm wondering if they are necessary questions after reading the overall text. I'm still studying on that portion of the paper.

Now, I have heard for myself, that LS likens our hair, on the same level as a witch, to the power the witch holds in her hair. Whether or not they do is not the question here. LS believes they do. It appears that KH is in agreement with LS and that is where the disconnect and error lies.

It is a fine line, from what I've seen, on the individual interpretation. That is where the subtle error can remain floating if we don't lock it down. Some have explained to me that their obedience is their "power". That still does not make it correct to define "power" as "miraculous" in I Cor 11.

DKB defines "power" as "authority". It appears that LS and KH define "power" as "miraculous power" found in the Book of Acts. Not the same thing - at all! I Cor 11 and Acts do not use the same definition.

They both need to read the article!

I heard an extensive dissertation by LS as he carefully developed the definition of power as exousia, authority, including all the implications implied by this word. He does NOT define power as dunamis. Also his anectodal references to "letting hair down" are in agreement with DKB's allowance for such an unconfentional act as a means of "focusing individual faith". I would say that LS is in agreement with both DKB and DS regarding the understanding that there are NO "magical powers" in the substance of the hair, and LS never suggests to "let down hair" in order to access "supernatural magical powers" as some slanderous and libellous individual would like to suggest. Everyone Gould read both DKB's and DS's papers, take not of the areas they agree on, and make allowances for differing opnions in the areas where they disagree.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I heard an extensive dissertation by LS as he carefully developed the definition of power as exousia, authority, including all the implications implied by this word. He does NOT define power as dunamis. Also his anectodal references to "letting hair down" are in agreement with DKB's allowance for such an unconfentional act as a means of "focusing individual faith". I would say that LS is in agreement with both DKB and DS regarding the understanding that there are NO "magical powers" in the substance of the hair, and LS never suggests to "let down hair" in order to access "supernatural magical powers" as some slanderous and libellous individual would like to suggest. Everyone Gould read both DKB's and DS's papers, take not of the areas they agree on, and make allowances for differing opnions in the areas where they disagree.

"If we only knew what the witches know."

Sounds like a suggestion to me.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

"If we only knew what the witches know."

Sounds like a suggestion to me.

I understand where you're coming from, and sympathize with your perspective to a certain degree. But seriously, this was one statement in one single message that we have record of through a video clip that was taken out of the context of the entire message and has been virally propogated in order to destroy a man and his message. This single statement standing alone by itself is problematic, but when taken with the entire context of the message can be addressed, rectified, and the rest of the message not disqualified. If a person cannot look past one single statement made years ago in the context of an entire God-ordained ministry, I have more concerns about the antagonist, than the person in question.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I understand where you're coming from, and sympathize with your perspective to a certain degree. But seriously, this was one statement in one single message that we have record of through a video clip that was taken out of the context of the entire message and has been virally propogated in order to destroy a man and his message. This single statement standing alone by itself is problematic, but when taken with the entire context of the message can be addressed, rectified, and the rest of the message not disqualified. If a person cannot look past one single statement made years ago in the context of an entire God-ordained ministry, I have more concerns about the antagonist, than the person in question.

I listened to the entire "message" it was in context. The man's message is way off the mark. Anyone who listens to his "message" comes away thinking he has said there is power in the hair.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I listened to the entire "message" it was in context. The man's message is way off the mark. Anyone who listens to his "message" comes away thinking he has said there is power in the hair.

This attempt to say that the part 2 of a 4 part series of the Memphis message available on Youtube is a snippet or not in context is disingenous.

He's stuck on "viral" and "unfortunate".

The entire message, as well as his message in Visalia and Houston are available, AND BEEN LINKE TO HERE .... for all to hear IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

HMH site provides the entire Memphis message.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DAII

This attempt to say that the part 2 of a 4 part series of the Memphis message available on Youtube is a snippet or not in context is disingenous.

He's stuck on "viral" and "unfortunate".

The entire message, as well as his message in Visalia and Houston are available, AND BEEN LINKE TO HERE .... for all to hear IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

HMH site provides the entire Memphis message.

Dan, the clip of the message that is problematic, that people keep quoting from, was a 3 minute portion in an hour long message. In that portion, there were two or three brief sentences that were problematic... Hardly an "entire message".

Uncut hair, and the proper interpretation and application of 1 Cor 11 (of which you disagree with the UPC and LS on), is the message LS is preaching... You're undue focus on the one portion that was problematic (not to the degree you are making it) is what has tainted people's perception of the message. I could listen you you speak on any day, and find a sentence or two that I could take out of context and exploit to diminish your ministry and destroy your name or reputation, but I try to be above that kind of mud slinging. On second though, let me get a hold of some video or audio of you speaking, see what I can come up with!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Dan, the clip of the message that is problematic, that people keep quoting from, was a 3 minute portion in an hour long message. In that portion, there were two or three brief sentences that were problematic... Hardly an "entire message".

Uncut hair, and the proper interpretation and application of 1 Cor 11 (of which you disagree with the UPC and LS on), is the message LS is preaching... You're undue focus on the one portion that was problematic (not to the degree you are making it) is what has tainted people's perception of the message. I could listen you you speak on any day, and find a sentence or two that I could take out of context and exploit to diminish your ministry and destroy your name or reputation, but I try to be above that kind of mud slinging. On second though, let me get a hold of some video or audio of you speaking, see what I can come up with!

He has preached this message all over the place. This is not a one time thing. If you want to worship at the altar of LS go for it.

There is another thread on here somewhere (One of the HMH threads)where I pointed out the things he said about the Supreme Court and statements that never happened. He told them as truth and even claimed a UPC pastor was involved in the case. Sloppy at best, at worst an outright lie.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

He has preached this message all over the place. This is not a one time thing. If you want to worship at the altar of LS go for it.

There is another thread on here somewhere (One of the HMH threads)where I pointed out the things he said about the Supreme Court and statements that never happened. He told them as truth and even claimed a UPC pastor was involved in the case. Sloppy at best, at worst an outright lie.

Hey, Baron! Good to see you posting! How is your wife doing? Tell her hello and that we miss her here!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Hey, Baron! Good to see you posting! How is your wife doing? Tell her hello and that we miss her here!

Every once in awhile I get some extra time. She has eight weeks of school left then she can come back and dominate the discussions. Working full time and going to school full time doesn't leave much time for AFF. But she graduates in May.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

This attempt to say that the part 2 of a 4 part series of the Memphis message available on Youtube is a snippet or not in context is disingenous.

He's stuck on "viral" and "unfortunate".

The entire message, as well as his message in Visalia and Houston are available, AND BEEN LINKE TO HERE .... for all to hear IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

HMH site provides the entire Memphis message.

It is unfortunate that he is stuck on viral and unfortunate. What a let down