Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Good luck... I hope your endeavors to destroy a man and ministry unwarranted bring you much happiness and joy.

false accusation. I have done nothing but addressed the message. I do so ONLY because the teaching is a false teaching and because of what it is leading to in the UPC body as evidenced by the many quotes of believers of this stuff.

Good luck to you for being a blind koolaid drinking apologist for a doctrine that relies on the occult to substantiate

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

false accusation. I have done nothing but addressed the message. I do so ONLY because the teaching is a false teaching and because of what it is leading to in the UPC body as evidenced by the many quotes of believers of this stuff.

Good luck to you for being a blind koolaid drinking apologist for a doctrine that relies on the occult to substantiate

Misdirection and strawman. You have not addressed the message, you have addressed your interpretation and spin of LS's intent in his message. The UPC as a whole is made up of pastors and ministers who are well equipped to handle false teachings, and the fact is that LS is being invited by many of these credentialled men to preach this message. Unconventional acts that focus faith are confirmed as acceptible by DKB. If some of these acts are taken too far, pastors are well equipped to deal with it. LS need not "rely" on occult to substantiate his message"... Non sequitur... Good try though! Keep it up...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Labelling your argument against LS teaching as "Holy Magic Hair" is a blatant misrepresenation, and implies that you are suggesting LS teaches "supernatural powers in the hair".

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Misdirection and strawman. You have not addressed the message, you have addressed your interpretation and spin of LS's intent in his message.

I wish you would stop. For goodness sakes! Did you even read this? I read this to my husband, in which he replied, "That is just stupid!" And it is!

If a women wants to be free, say, "free", she lets her hair grow. If she wants to be bound, she does not let her hair grow, but if she allows her hair to grow long, uncut, in compliance with God's relationship to man, then the church community has a freedom in the Spirit which does not exist without her compliance.

I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it.

Are you just yanking our chains or do you actually believe what you are writing in defense of this stupid mess?! Yes, now I am thoroughly ticked off! LOL!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I wish you would stop. For goodness sakes! Did you even read this? I read this to my husband, in which he replied, "That is just stupid!" And it is!




Are you just yanking our chains or do you actually believe what you are writing in defense of this stupid mess?! Yes, now I am thoroughly ticked off! LOL!

I found a transcription of a message that you posted a while back. It is quite revealing about what LS has been saying all along...

Taken from PO's transcription of a LS message given in 1996. The title was" Holiness- Separation from Worldliness" 12/31/96.

If a women wants to be free, say, "free", she lets her hair grow. If she wants to be bound, she does not let her hair grow, but if she allows her hair to grow long, uncut, in compliance with God's relationship to man, then the church community has a freedom in the Spirit which does not exist without her compliance. I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...looding&page=8 POST 75 (61-78)

So BOB DYLAN, what do you have to say about this?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I found a transcription of a message that you posted a while back. It is quite revealing about what LS has been saying all along...

Taken from PO's transcription of a LS message given in 1996. The title was" Holiness- Separation from Worldliness" 12/31/96.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...looding&page=8 POST 75 (61-78)

So BOB DYLAN, what do you have to say about this?

Here is the quote you cited, broken down for easy reference:

1.) If a women wants to be free, say, "free", she lets her hair grow. If she wants to be bound, she does not let her hair grow, but if she allows her hair to grow long, uncut, in compliance with God's relationship to man,

2.) then the church community has a freedom in the Spirit which does not exist without her compliance.

(anecdote) I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it.

3.) Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it.

Interesting. From this passage it can be inferred that LS believes:

1.) women have access to freedom and liberty in the spirit realm because of their "compliance" (read submission, obedience) to scriptural commands surrounding God's relationship with man (read order of creation)...

2.) a woman's "compliance" (again, read submission) somehow advocates for the church community

3.) A woman has unique access to divine wisdom and insight, and authority in the angelic realm, because of a life of "compliance", and particulary in the contextual directive of having uncut hair.

These statements and positions are consistent with LS' declared interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10... But I still do not see anything in this passage that is "Holy Magic Hair"...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Here is the quote you cited, broken down for easy reference:



Interesting. From this passage it can be inferred that LS believes:

1.) women have access to freedom and liberty in the spirit realm because of their "compliance" (read submission, obedience) to scriptural commands surrounding God's relationship with man (read order of creation)...

Actually it was her compliance or agreement to have uncut hair

2.) a woman's "compliance" (again, read submission) somehow advocates for the church community

Her compliance to have uncut hair specifically, not her submission or compliance but her compliance to HAVE UNCUT HAIR. Having said that, the part about it some how advocates for the church community is a false doctrine and a dangerous one. It puts our advocate in a woman who is complying when our advocate is Jesus alone because HE alone died for our sins. It focuses attention NOT on Jesus but on a woman complying to have uncut hair.

3.) A woman has unique access to divine wisdom and insight, and authority in the angelic realm, because of a life of "compliance", and particulary in the contextual directive of having uncut hair.

Again correcting you because of her compliance to have uncut hair, but that is beside the point. This is FALSE DOCTRINE. The bible does NOT say if she complies to have uncut hair she has a unique access to divine wisdom and insige and authorityu in the angelic realm, particularly one that man can not receive. That is a false doctrine.

Further more it obliterates the whole point Paul is making about headship and order of creation. Man first, woman second. Man the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man. For THIS reason the woman ought to have authority ON her head. It does not say "She is given authority" let alone one that man does not have or can have.,

These statements and positions are consistent with LS' declared interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10...

That is right. That is what we said! That is what we HAVE BEEN SAYING and THAT my friend is false doctrine.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually it was her compliance or agreement to have uncut hair


Her compliance to have uncut hair specifically, not her submission or compliance but her compliance to HAVE UNCUT HAIR. Having said that, the part about it some how advocates for the church community is a false doctrine and a dangerous one. It puts our advocate in a woman who is complying when our advocate is Jesus alone because HE alone died for our sins. It focuses attention NOT on Jesus but on a woman complying to have uncut hair.

I disagree here. I think the "compliance" is with scriptural admonitions, which in itself proves submission and obedience. But we'll keep going around this circle not making it very far...

As far as the woman advocating, LS does not making the case that she is advcocating in the place of Christ, or for the same purpose Christ does. "Advocating" was the word I used to describe LS's statement. Intercede would also be an applicable word, one you may not be as averse to. Women AND men who are submissive to God's authority in their lives, unuquely intercede on behalf of the Christian community in ways the other gender cannot. In this particular sermon, LS emphasises the intercession that is unique to the woman. You could say that Heb 5:9 focuses attention on "obedience" instead of Christ as well... but the issue is still obedience, whether it's uncut hair, or being "keepers at home", or "keeping silent in the Church", not "teaching or usurping authority over the man", and "honoring their husbands". These are unique ways that women show their submission, that a man cannot do. These are unique roles women play in the community of believers, that men cannot fill. This is the theme, IMO, of LS' statements in this regard.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again correcting you because of her compliance to have uncut hair, but that is beside the point. This is FALSE DOCTRINE. The bible does NOT say if she complies to have uncut hair she has a unique access to divine wisdom and insige and authorityu in the angelic realm, particularly one that man can not receive. That is a false doctrine.

A woman's compliance to have uncut hair, is akin to individual compliance to proper gender roles within the church. It is a submission issue, however you want to frame it. You cannot seperate compliance to have uncut hair from the principle of submission. In the context of 1 Cor 11, the two are inextricable. Uncut hair IS submission for women, and short hair IS submission for men... yes these are emblems that indicate submission, but again, in this context, you cannot seperate the principle from it's most immedate application, which Paul himself ties together in the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Further more it obliterates the whole point Paul is making about headship and order of creation. Man first, woman second. Man the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man. For THIS reason the woman ought to have authority ON her head. It does not say "She is given authority" let alone one that man does not have or can have.,

I do not agree with you here that LS's position "obliterates" the whole point Paul is making about headship. Non-sequitor.... In fact, I think LS's position develops Paul's point about headship quite nicely. Headship IS about authority in the spirit realm. Immediately following his development about headship, Paul begins to describe and explain the gifts we, who are submitted to His authority, have in the spirit realm. Thus we have 1 Cor 12, 13, and 14, all about the gifts of the Spirit.

"She is given authority that man cannot have", IMO, is akin to saying there are "roles in the community that women can fulfill, that men cannot". It's just a fact. Both genders occupy special places in God's plan and purpose that the other gender cannot fulfill. Men hold positions of leadership and influence in the Church that women cannot have. They have Christ as their head, where the woman has only her man as her head... the unique access clause is inclusive of both men and women, in different ways. I see no problem with this statement when taken in the context of other fundamental truths that we know.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is right. That is what we said! That is what we HAVE BEEN SAYING and THAT my friend is false doctrine.

You mean we can really be friends now?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Here is the quote you cited, broken down for easy reference:



Interesting. From this passage it can be inferred that LS believes:

1.) women have access to freedom and liberty in the spirit realm because of their "compliance" (read submission, obedience) to scriptural commands surrounding God's relationship with man (read order of creation)...

2.) a woman's "compliance" (again, read submission) somehow advocates for the church community

3.) A woman has unique access to divine wisdom and insight, and authority in the angelic realm, because of a life of "compliance", and particulary in the contextual directive of having uncut hair.

These statements and positions are consistent with LS' declared interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10... But I still do not see anything in this passage that is "Holy Magic Hair"...

He attributes the woman to having a unique access to divine wisdom and insight that men do not and can not have. That is Holy Magic Hair. Other than that you might have a point that he did actually make his statement in 3.) broad enough to avoid an accusation this time of preaching that hair alone grants special authority and power, or even compliance to hair alone does. He actually says compliance (in general) and then (particulary) with uncut hair. However, the real problem is that every indication I see is that he isn't saying uncut hair grants the same kind of power and authority as keeping the other commandments. What I'm seeing is that he is saying keeping uncut gives a particular kind of power and authority that keeping the other commandments do not. This would also explain why he offers 100 anecdotes about uncut hairs power and not one about power in not commiting adultery. This would also explain why he says in 2.) that its a kind of power that men cannot have. Otherwise as Prax has been saying, if its simply about keeping commandments giving you power then why can't men have the same power as women due to their compliance to the commandments that pertain to them?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I found a transcription of a message that you posted a while back. It is quite revealing about what LS has been saying all along...

Taken from PO's transcription of a LS message given in 1996. The title was" Holiness- Separation from Worldliness" 12/31/96.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...looding&page=8 POST 75 (61-78)

So BOB DYLAN, what do you have to say about this?

I didn't know this was posted on this forum! Thanks! Too bad I can't go back and correct my typos! After reading and typing so much, I have a tendency to overlook them unless they are made by someone else! LOL!

[Pressing-On]

It's not denial... I'm just very selective about the reality I accept. -Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes