Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That we are protected not because WE (men) are obedient but because a woman has uncut hair.

Hey, your protection is rolling back in time... from your future wife.. have faith my brother!!

On a more serious note. I have been in situations that I know I wouldn't have made it through if it weren't for the angel of the LORD. Yes, I said it.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So guys are up the creek without a paddle. Men have no angelic covering, churches with prayed up Holy Ghost filled men have no bearing on the angelic presence? That is what LS is saying.

Well, that just shows why it is not good for the man to be alone. He needs a woman with uncut hair if he wants protection, wisdom, gifts of the Spirit, etc. etc. If only we knew what witches know.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He associates the angelic protection with the HAIR not "her obedience":..if that was the case why not cover more ground like not committing adultery, not lying, not gossiping? Sure we got churches full of uncut hair and bobby pins flying everywhere but that does not make them obedient! Yet that is what LS isolates as the REASON why they have angelic protection AND LS says it "flows OUT from THEM"...from the women! Not from God, it flows OUT from the woman...

That we are protected not because WE (men) are obedient but because a woman has uncut hair.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, for all of those issues are issues of submission and obedience. LS has addressed these at times when he has preached other sermons. This particular sermon is about principles and applications in the context of obedience and submission to Christs headship in the text of 1 Cor 11. The primary issue that marks submission and obedience presented in that particular text is the hair issue... That is why in this sermon LS deals with the issue of uncut hair on women and short hair on men primarily. I've heard him preach about gossip, adultery, fornication, etc.... And there is a time or those sermons as well as there is a time for the order of creation sermon of 1 Cor 11...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, for all of those issues are issues of submission and obedience. LS has addressed these at times when he has preached other sermons. This particular sermon is about principles and applications in the context of obedience and submission to Christs headship in the text of 1 Cor 11. The primary issue that marks submission and
obedience presented in that particular text is the hair issue... That is why in this sermon LS deals with the issue of uncut hair on women and short hair on men primarily. I've heard him preach about gossip, adultery, fornication, etc.... And there is a time or those sermons as well as there is a time for the order of creation sermon of 1 Cor 11...

IN his other sermons did he say "Ladies if you are obedient in not gossiping, there is a power of angelic protection that flows out of you over the whole Christian community"?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

BD?

I forgot I saved this quote by RR:

RR:
Speaking on the Ten Commandments.

"And the last six deal with our love for one another. Honoring our parents, killing, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness and covet."

"Now, you're gonna probably laugh at me, but I can even find HOLINESS in the Ten Commandments."

"It says thou shalt not commit adultery. Well, ladies if I wear a dress that makes a man commit adultery in his heart when he looks at me then I've just committed adultery."

"It says, thou shalt not bear false witness. Well, if I smear something all over my face that is supposed to make me look like something I'm really not, then I have just born false witness."

"I mean, it's called "make-up" which means to lie, right?, so you see you can find Holiness in the Ten Commandments."



Now that is a trip!

I wonder why that logic never applied to curling your hair? That's another of those things I've often pondered.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

IN his other sermons did he say "Ladies if you are obedient in not gossiping, there is a power of angelic protection that flows out of you over the whole Christian community"?

Irrelevant. The verbiage of 1 Cor 11:10, however one may interpret the verse, is directly in the purview of a message or sermon centered around the principles and instruction in immediate context of that verse. A message about adultery or gossip would naturally be couched in scriptural language introduced in the context where these issues are addressed. Similarly, a message about authority, submission, and obedience from the text of 1 Cor 11 is going to be framed in the concepts and verbiage introduced in that passage...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Irrelevant. The verbiage of 1 Cor 11:10, however one may interpret the verse, is directly in the purview of a message or sermon centered around the principles and instruction in immediate context of that verse. A message about adultery or gossip would naturally be couched in scriptural language introduced in the context where these issues are addressed. Similarly, a message about authority, submission, and obedience from the text of 1 Cor 11 is going to be framed in the concepts and verbiage introduced in that passage...

Irrelevant? You keep arguing this is all about obedience and submission, then you bring up that he preaches they should be obedient to the other things too but you failed to answer the question which proves my point.

The point is, what the issue is here is NOT obedience or submission. The point is what we have said it is from the beginning, the point you keep obfuscating. That LS is teaching a direct connection to uncut hair this whole business of protection, NOT obedience...uncut hair. If it was obedience you would have answered my question with a YES.

LS does not say "it's your obedience". He does not say "There is authority in your obedience"

He says it's your uncut hair. That was why he quote witchcraft. That was why he supposedly "went to the greek". He says it FLOWS FROM HER to the christian community.

What a load of rubbish. That is false doctrine, completely unbiblical

Further in the past you have tried to say we have authority in the spirit world, whatever that means, because of our obedience.

So here again then your answer SHOULD have been YES. You are acting as LS's Apologist so you are the one making this an issue of obedience.

Again if that is the case then it is NOT irrelevant.

You are attempting to spin doctor what LS has taught and Im not sure why. Do you get paid? Is he a close friend and asked you to clean up his mess?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Irrelevant? You keep arguing this is all about obedience and submission, then you bring up that he preaches they should be obedient to the other things too but you failed to answer the question which proves my point.

I did answer your question... The language of 1 Cor 11:10, which evidently you have a problem with, IS directly connected to any message preached from the text, and whether he uses that language in messages about gossip, or adultery, or other areas of obedience is irrelevant. We aren't speaking of those areas of obedience regarding this particular sermon of LS. We are speaking of the areas of obedience directly addressed in 1 Cor 11, and that is the distinct and proper grooming of hair for the relative genders. In that context, which is directly associated with authority and submission per the immediate context, the language of 1 Cor 11:10 is introduced. It is absolutely appropriate to cite, exegete, and preach the language of 1 Cor 11:10 in this context, whether or not he does so in another context. Your question is irrelevant, and is a blatant attempt to obsuscate while trying to accuse me of obfuscating...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The point is, what the issue is here is NOT obedience or submission. The point is what we have said it is from the beginning, the point you keep obfuscating. That LS is teaching a direct connection to uncut hair this whole business of protection, NOT obedience...uncut hair. If it was obedience you would have answered my question with a YES.

Let me try to explain this in kindergarten terms... From the context of 1 Cor 11, uncut hair on women and short hair on men is the direct application of the principle of submission and authority. You cannot seperate the two issues. At the beginning of LS message, he lays a foundation of order of creation, authority, and submission to that order and authority. This is the basis and foundation of his preaching on "uncut hair". HE MAKES THE CONNECTION WHEN HE FIRST DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT. That inextricable connection carries through the message. From that point on, when LS speaks of uncut hair on women and short hair on men in his message, obedience and submission to authority is implied. Uncut hair and short hair on men cannot be seperated from the principle of authority and obedience any more water baptism for the remission of sins can be seperated from the blood of Christ.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

LS does not say "it's your obedience". He does not say "There is authority in your obedience"

He says it's your uncut hair. That was why he quote witchcraft. That was why he supposedly "went to the greek". He says it FLOWS FROM HER to the christian community.

Uncut hair IS an issue of obedience. LS lays a foundation at the beginning of his message about God's order in creation, submission to that order, authority, and headship, before he ever gets to the issue of uncut hair. This IS the foundation and basis of his message. You cannot seperate the application of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from the foundation of obedience, submission, authority, and order. LS doesn't seperate it, that's why he takes the time to lay the foundation IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BTW, how do you know exactly "why" LS quoted witchcraft? Did you ask him if this was why? Or are you making assumptions? I already explaing "why" I think he appealed to witchcraft, and thas was to show that their feable magic that they try to perform and manipulate by appealing to God's order in nature is nothing because "we have the Word of God", and "we have more power than anything else in the world" (these are verbatim quotes approx 23 min into the Memphis message). He was making an attempt to appeal to a cliche model that is commonly used by preachers. It's almost identically parallel to the cliche, "if they can jump and shout, and hoop and holler and cheer their team to victory at the football games of this world, what can some Holy Ghost filled saints of God do if we'd come into this place and worship God like there was no tomorrow... we've got the Word of God and we have more power than anything else in the world!"

If you are going to quote LS, quote him verbatim, and consider offering a link to the source, and the approx. time he supposedly made the statement, otherwise I'll consider what you say "he said" and heresay and inaccurate, and with libellous intent. There is no reason to immediately jump to the worst possible way of interpreting LS intent... which is exactly what you are doing? Why? Why would you not give a man who has given his life to this gospel and movement the benefit of the doubt here without jumping to the most ignoble of conclusions? It speaks more of your character than it does his... I am sure if you had some ideas, or approaches, or cliches, or misspoke on a few occasions, he would give you the benefit of the doubt as well, I think it would be appropriate to do the same for him. If you want to know exactly "why" he cited witchcraft resources, don't try to offer your opinion, ask him. If you didn't get the motivation from him, you do yourself well to refrain from judgment.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What a load of rubbish. That is false doctrine, completely unbiblical

Further in the past you have tried to say we have authority in the spirit world, whatever that means, because of our obedience.

So here again then your answer SHOULD have been YES. You are acting as LS's Apologist so you are the one making this an issue of obedience.

Again if that is the case then it is NOT irrelevant.

You are attempting to spin doctor what LS has taught and Im not sure why. Do you get paid? Is he a close friend and asked you to clean up his mess?

I've met LS and shaken his hand only twice in my life. That is as many times as I have heard him speak in person. I was invited by a pastor friend a couple weeks ago to visit a church where he was ministering, and heard him speak on the hair issue. My pastor friend said "here is the magic hair message". He then asked me to listen, examine, and tell him what I thought.

I have viewed HMH threads here, and other forums in the past, and was disinterested because it just isn't my main interest, personalities and agendas... and that is what I perceived this whole debate to be about initially. When I heard the message, felt confirmation in my spirit about the sincerity of the message, the accuracy of the presentation, and the move of God confirming the message (I personally prayed with two who ended up praying through, and another who is claiming an instantaneous miraculous healing, having surgery scheduled this month for a serious injury, but now having cancelled the surgery). I have since been interested in investigating this subject.

Two mornings later I wrote the "magic holy benches" satirical peice after having started a couple of provocative articles regarding this message on a couple other forums. I have since then been catching up on the information, considerations, clips, testimonies etc. Yes, I am a johnny come lately in the HMH debate, but as they say, better late than never. I am not a LS apologist, am not getting paid, have no connections with LS. In fact, I come from a very conservative pentecostal background who generally are not LS fans.

I am trying to take an objective look at this as I am reasoning through this as I go along, examining the evidence, reading articles, engaging in the discussion, attempting to give LS the benefit of the doubt, arguing on his behalf where I think I can, and as I have done often over the last week or so, acknowledging problematic language, illustrations, and acts that have and are taking place surrounding this issue. If you want any more information, PM, I'll give it to you... but any personal information you would like from me, I would simply ask you to provide the same about you!

That's the deal in a nutshell...

[DAII]

Prax,

You and the rest of the Apostolic world are not getting our friend who understands the prophet from Schenectady because he heard him speak in person.

Disregard the unfortunate, problematic language and attempts to validate this erroneous presentation of doctrine with uncut hair miracles because in the end message is about obedience and submission (uncut hair) and we know God rewards our prayers in the affirmative when we are both.

It really doesn't matter that LS felt that there is a continual angelic protection and wisdom that flows from the obedience of aposotolic women who through their compliance cover the whole community with a spiritual freedom unique to "our people" - LS' interpretation of exousia.

What matters is LS ... felt this for years ... dug it up in the Greek and is teaching about obedience and submission (uncut hair) and its rewards and benefits.

In like manner, everytime Tek says "divine flesh" we need to hear "Jesus is God". I mean , is He not? And Tek deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Sure there is problematic language and illustrations that could be presented better ... but doesn't divine mean godly or possessing God-like qualities. Ultimately, we know Jesus is God ... in the end that's what this message is about .... in the greater context and purview .... is the Oneness of God , the deity of Christ and he preaches the Acts 2:38 New Birth message ... you can't separate these from the message.

I feel a confirmation in my spirit and there has been a move of God over Ethiopia ... see Billy Cole revivals that confirm this.

You see BD may not realize among his logical fallacies are:

Moving the Goal Posts, Pious Fraud, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, Red Herring and Non Sequitur.

Here's the deal:

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ

BD ... the ends don't justify the means. The language and presentation for 15 years is indeed problematic, as you readily admit, and it needs to be addressed. Misspoken, as you seek to paint them .... or not. And no, saying "it's not magic" is not tweaking or calibrating ... that's an accepted premise. Nor are your attempts to fill the gaps for LS necessary, warranted or accurate in light of voluminous record left behind by the likes of LS, Reider, Jasinski and Woodward.

Sorry kid, you have bought a bag of goods. Still the option of dropping them. It's not your burden. That's the deal in a nutshell.

When you get a chance you may want to consult a lawyer about the legal meanings of libel and slander ... I know I have ... WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Have Sean Hannity's oft-deceptive montages of Pastor Jeremiah Wright been given the worst possible interpretation? Probablys so ... but that in no way exonerates the language of Pastor Wright. Nor does it make Sean's thoughts or analysis. libelous. Nor do you and other cons think Pastor Wright or Obama deserves a free pass for them. In your words, "THINK"!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

BD?

Bob Dylan