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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You have failed to acknowledge the point I have made about the context of 1 Cor 11..

Why would I acknowledge your point? I read it. I disagreed with it. I asked you to PROVE it (you did not) and I refuted it by addressing the REAL context of 1cor 11 PLUS giving an exegetical look at the actual verse in question, which you did not.

The context is headship and order of creation, man is the image and glory fo man, no woman. Man was created first, now woman. FOR THIS REASON a woman is supposed to have exousia on her head. Why? because of the angels

It does NOT say what LS or YOU try to claim.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

He didn't say those words verbatim. But that doesn't mean he didn't imply it!"

Did I mention flying elephants?

"the sky is blue"
"oh you are implying I have purple elephants with wings flying out of my butt?"
"No I never said that"
"But that doesn't mean you didn't imply it"...

the problem isn't what he did not say verbatim. The problem is what he DID say verbatim. You keep SPINNNIG what he said verbatim.

Stoneking said...
BobDylan: Yes but it was unfortunate

Stoneking said
BobDylan: yes but that is not what he means

Stoneking said
BobDylan: he never said Holy Magic Hair.

Stoneking said
BobDylan: but he implied something else

Stoneking said
BobDylan: It's just a cliche.

BobDylan, I submit that YOU are embarrassed at what LS teaches, but are entrapped into part of a false lockstepping mentality that you will defend ANYTHING someone like LS says no matter HOW rediculous, heretical or Spiritually dangerousn by spinning it into something OTHER than what the man actually said.

That or you are just yanking our chains.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

FTR Big Flatus, I was not speaking of immorality as in sexual immorality... i was speaking of the types of immoral acts oletyme was speaking of. I have heard first hand reports from pastors who I have preached for who are in direct connection with the Ethiopia work, what was left of it after Tek exited, and the persecution of those who reject Tek's "bishoprick" and teaching. I have no evidence particularly... and I am not on any kind of effort to discredit him, have no agenda against him, no dog in the fight. Are you a Tek supporter? If so, your attempts to parallel Tek with LS has lost all credibility, in that you seem to be advocating the type of treatment toward LS that you disdained toward Tek. Speak of hypocrisy! lol....

IF Tek taught something you thought was heretical and or bad for the body, would you speak out about it?

[Praxeas]

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".

I've never labled MY arguments against what LS teaches as "Holy Magic Hair"

You have said it yourself, whether you used the word "magical powers in the hair" verbatim or not.

What I said was, we have all been there done that. We have already heard your "They don't say Magic hair" and we all agreed with you and pointed out THAT was not what we disagreed with them on. We never said they said "magic hair", thus you introduce a red herring having no bearing on the real issues at hand

Now you are trying to get by with what you are accusing LS of. You are saying "I didn't say he said he believes in 'magic powers in the hair'", while the whole time saying "LS is teaching supernatural powers in the hair".

Supernatural meaning "From God"...magic meaning as you put it, casting spells. You said authority in the spirit realm...THAT I would call supernatural.

Call it what you want, supernatural, magical, etc... you are accusing LS of teaching something he is not teaching. Your advocacy of DA's website further discredits your objection to LS's message

No I am not. I am accusing LS of teaching exactly what he said he was teaching. I never said he taught anything about magic. Supernatural is NOT akin to magic. Miracles by God are supernatural. Spell casting by witches is magic

[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...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

IF Tek taught something you thought was heretical and or bad for the body, would you speak out about it?

I would... But I would not be unreasonable about it...

[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!

[Praxeas]

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. 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...

Why don't you quote LS telling us verbatim what his intent was. So far you have only told us what YOU think his intent was

I quoted him. I quoted LS saying he was going to talk about the Spiritual significance of hair and then said if only WE KNEW what witches know...what that they gain power in the spirit realm if they would just obey God?

Nope

"Let's talk about the spiritual significance of hair"..why? What POSSIBLE reason could LS want to talk about that in this message on a woman's uncut hair? That was certainly unfortunate to interject something that has NOTHING to do with his message? Clearly this is a PART OF HIS MESSAGE

It pertains to what he wants to get across about HAIR.

The Spiritual significance of HAIR..what does he quote? He quotes extra biblical sources on the occult.

"Let's talk about the SPIRITUAL significance of hair. If only Christians knew what witches and new agers know"

Please explain LS's intent with the above. Because to us it sounds like he is talking about hair, not obedience. Do witches obey scriptures?

"They don't seem to get the message but they KNOW THINGS"

That is an innocent cliche? Would you preach that in your church?

"They (witches) know there is power on the head because of what we do with our hair"

Is this true? Do witches know there is power on their heads because of what we do with our hair? Is this what we can learn from witches? "If only Christians knew what witches and new agers know"...LS is telling us we can learn something from witches and new agers

"Think of the “classic image” of a witch … it is a woman with long, scraggly uncut hair. WHY? Because the evil side of the supernatural realm knows there is power associated with hair!"

Power associated with hair...oops, how unfortunate he said that when he meant to say "obedience"

Why start off by saying "the spiritual significance of hair" if he meant "obedience"? Huh?

I don't know what is more sad, LS teaching this or you trying to do damage control like a presidential press secretary. I suppose you believe Clinton did not have sex with that woman too?

[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?