Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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

Why not? You've been unreasonable about what LS teaches, whats the difference?

you claimed to be objective with us when the entire time you have been obviously an apologist FOR LS

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

......
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?

This is what BD reminds me of. A WH press secretary who defends Bill Clinton by saying he DIDN'T "have sex with that woman" even AFTER BC himself admits he did! This is how asinine his defense of LS sounds.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why not? You've been unreasonable about what LS teaches, whats the difference?

you claimed to be objective with us when the entire time you have been obviously an apologist FOR LS

I'm not being an apologist for LS. I am merely trying to argue from what I would think would be his point of view with the resources available to me. I am also giving the man the benefit of the doubt, which is something you are not willing to do. This, IMO, is a reasonable approach. I have attempted to reason with you, or whoever, as to why LS may say things or word things the way he does, and the motivation behind his methodology in appealing to illustrations, anecdotes, resources, and verbiage others are taking issue with him over.

If my "arguments", "spin", and reasoning cannot hold up under critical and objective scrutiny and reasoning (not just debate tactics), I would consider conceding the point. So far, the best attempts I've seen to dislodge my advocating on LS' behalf have been nothing but ad hominem, non sequitur, strawman, red herring, misrepresentation, insult, and attempts at intimidation. Everything you have been crediting me with doing, you are doing as well. I'm not against moving above this kind of tactical exchange, but I perceive that is the extent to which you desire to converse, and if that is the case then it is what it is. Until someone is ready to reason with me, instead of just debate, I'll continue to advocate in LS behalf.

[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"...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Red herring... and your evaluations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I suggest that you are subverting the conversation so as to direct attention away from your inability to handle any other analysis other than your own. Any reasonable analysis that is not "lockstep" with yours is a threat to you, as you are personally invested in yours. Your blatant narcissism would not dare admit your unreasonable, unfair, or subjective handling of any issue, especially as sensitive as this.

You have put too much time and effort into developing your accusations against LS and RRH as to their supposed propogation of the mythical "Magic Hair Doctrine" (which itself is a strawman created by detractors of the 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching). You have invested too much energy into destroying and defaming LS and RRH for their interpretations of 1 Cor 11:10, and your ego will not allow you to back away from it.

Listen Prax, If you want to go down this road, we can... I personally am not interested in it. If you want to handle the issue on a point by point basis, quote by quote, analysis by analysis, we can do that as well, and that would be my preference. I'm personally not interested in getting into the mud simply because of your need for self-affirmation and inability to be reasonable.

[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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Red herring... and your evaluations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't think you can explain why it's a red herring or why it's irrelevant

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

How would you characterize LS and RRH's teachings? If it's not "supernatural power in the hair", (as the HMH nomen indicates), what are their assertions that you disagree with? It seems to me that the basic disagreement lies in their interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10. I am seeing a few things develop here, and I see how people would disagree and be opposed to some things LS and RRH seem to be saying and advocating. But from my analysis at this point, I do not see where it rises to the level of "heresy" or "false doctrine" as some would assert. Their teaching in no way indicates they teach a "holy magic hair" doctrine... I would love to see a bulletted list of the tenets of their teaching that you disagree with. It's real easy, just say something like this: "LS and RRH are teaching 1.) ... and 2.) ... and 3.)...

You can even put your bulletted list vertically, like this:
LS and RRH are teaching this that I disagree with:
1.)...
2.)...
3.)...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

This is getting plainer. I am certain that LS goes into detail as to how he interprets 1 Cor 11:10. He refers to Gk., has conferred with Gk. scholars (supposedly) who have affirmed his interpretation. He quotes leading Gk. scholarship, reading extensively from Spiros Zodhiates and some other resources. Some leading theologians in our movement seem to disagree with his interpretation of 1 Cor 11... You also seem to disagree with it. IMO, the jury is still out. In the context of obedience and submission, I am convinced that individual believers have authority in the spirit realm (yes, supernatural authority over spirits) because of their obedience. The wording of 1 Cor 11:10 seem to support this idea. LS's emphasis on uncut hair and short hair on men as the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, especially in the context of preaching on 1 Cor 11, is consistent with his teaching and preaching on the subject.

Again, I see how someone can disagree with him over this, but it hardly rises to the level of heresy or false doctrine. I have friends who disagree over who the Genesis 6 "Sons of God" are, but one side of this debate does not accuse the other of "false doctrine" and "heresy". I have heard attempts from one side to accuse the other side of teaching "serpent seed", which is totally misleading and a strawman. I have friends on both sides of the wine/grapejuice debate. I will admit that while winers really give the juicers a hard time for not "seeing it", they still have fellowship, and do not accuse the other of false doctrine and heresy, or drunkeness.

I see where there can be some differences in interpretation on 1 Cor 11. People who have confidence in LS teaching will use him and read RRH's books, people who don't can avoid him and discourage the propogation of RRH's books. I hardly think this is an issue that will subvert core doctrine (as do other spurious doctrines like divine flesh, or one-step conversion). If someone in a church has been exposed to the LS interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10, and their pastor disagrees with it, what a great opportunity for that pastor to instruct his people more thoroughly regarding his view of this passage. Whether you agree with LS or not, IMO, it hardly rises to the urgency to label him as a false teacher of heresy (as I have already seen here in this thread).

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

Very well... I appreciate your diligence in reiterating the point you are trying to make. I was under the impression that you and DA were lockstep regarding your objections to LS teaching. Thanks for the clarification...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think you can explain why it's a red herring or why it's irrelevant

It's a red herring because it takes the focus of the issue at hand. I am not the issue, my motivations are not the issue... your attempts to redirect the focus of the discussion to me, instead of the points I am making, are clearly red herrings... and it would be redundant to describe why it's irrelevant.

[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?