| Author | Message | ||
     greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 303 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
TITLE: “Hair…The Long And Short Of It” (Drafted 8/14/06 but based on 1996 greg_s research.) (On 12/24/2007 Ex’r Staff et al was changed to a ‘new’ title throughout this article to make it more generic and less offensive to who it is teaching. In other words this ‘new’ title is more ‘code’ like.) Greetings; to our friends, enemies and those that continue to feel sorry for us for various reasons. But mostly…Greetings to the Haters. We humbly request that you break with Hater precedent and incontrovertibly prove to us all why the article that follows is wrong or publicly agree it is right. Thank-you. WE ARE STILL TEACHABLE: We are still teachable, just ask us and we’ll tell you over and over and again and again. So teach us specifically why we are wrong regarding how we present 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 below and elsewhere. We really are still teachable, but one must remember, even though we are still teachable we are not mindlessly so. Maybe now the Haters will be ready to talk about pants again or will be ready to begin to discuss the ‘holy kiss.’ Whatever their choice, no problem, we strive to be versatile regarding which topics we choose to discuss; though we always end up displeasing the Haters. Interestingly, regarding the Haters ex’rgesis/contention…The Body of Christ has no such custom (see 1 Corinthians 11:16). CONTINUED… | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 963 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.17.241 |
greg, Many who read this will laugh at my wasted effort, yet I think it is worth a try... To begin with, you have not earned a response. Many of us have attempted to engage you on this and other points, yet your recourse every time has been to the posting of old essays, run-on discourse based on opinion, scripture references strained through the ntcc filter, and insults; all performed in an oblivious monologue with no intention of a free exchange over single issues. I attempted to discuss everything with you in detail when you emailed me privately, on your initiative, but your response was to hide your identity and rebuff any and all efforts to promote a meaningful exchange of views. You made it clear that you were not interested in the evidence, the testimony, or the facts; but only in sampling the depravity to which all of us have lowered ourselves that we would dispute with God's One True Church. To your mind, all facts that militate against ntcc are lies by definition, and so no amount of accumulated evidence can gain traction. Your claim to be teachable is as empty as your claims to victory, and as meaningless as your insults. The filibustery bluster we see in your posts can have no purpose other than that of filling space. What you DO manage to say within the jungle of words would perhaps inspire debate if it were not for your track record; you do not respond to questions, nor to reason (haughtily reporting on these just to prove that you read the posts is not the same thing as responding), and so most of us believe there is nothing to your presence in this forum that deserves the recognition of an argument. As stated before, your disagreement is with the leaders of your own organization, who know better than you do that these bizzare teachings are not so easily proven by scripture. If you think differently than they do, take it up at the next public discussion of ntcc doctrine. As always, the burden of proof rests not on us, but on the man who openly assigns to a blazing eternity in HELL those who disagree with his opinions on everything from etiquette to pumping gasoline (based entirely on the fiction that he is God's spokesman). It is he who must prove that he is right, and this you will never come close to achieving on his behalf. | ||
| just2bhappy New member Username: just2bhappy Post Number: 5 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.121.192.69 |
Amen and Amen..... | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 307 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.188.117.202 |
DISCLAIMER: In case anyone thinks any of the teaching coming below is novel/new and/or you wish you had known this before you made your move away from a Christian Church and/or the Body of Christ or started cutting your hair short as a women or stopped cutting your hair short as a man…some of this same below premise is found in the March 1999 issue of the ‘Trumpet’. Remember, all the Haters have shared that one reason they left the fellowship of a Christian Church is because of doctrinal differences. One of these doctrinal differences is the ‘hair’ non-question. Others being the ‘pants’ and ‘tithe’ non-question; which we have shown elsewhere on FACTNet are not in question at all by the Body of Christ; only questioned by the Haters. For those that still don’t know the ‘Trumpet’ is the magazine of the Christian Church group New Testament Christian Churches of America Incorporated. This is the group (NTCC) the Haters started out attacking. Now they mostly attack the Body of Christ in general. In other words the Haters have progressed in their hate and hate speech. Or, you can follow http://hebrews1214.bravehost.com/hair.html to the same article that was reprinted the March 1999 issue of the ‘Trumpet.’ But, in all fairness to God and the Holy Spirit we all have a Bible or could easily get one in many versions so ignorance is no good excuse, even among the Haters. Also, the much touted (by the Haters) http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm unintentionally agrees with much of this series. Question: Do the Haters even read the websites they recommend us read? This oft referenced Acts 18 website article is in unintentional agreement with much of what our Christian Church teaches on the subject of hair, submission, a man providing for the family et al. The only major difference is this Acts 18 website and most other teachers of 1 Corinthians 11:1-15, inside and outside of our Christian Church, ignore the Greek grammar which excludes this passage from teaching on any clothing article. As we already stated above, the much touted http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/uncuthair.htm site more reasonably makes the case for allowing a woman’s hair to be trimmed as opposed to the Haters Biblically radical position of a woman’s hair being short or being cut short. But, the Christian woman does have options. If a women ‘feels’ she must have short hair then Paul mercifully says she can (must) shave her head. This has been our long standing position also. Again, Mark 7:18-23; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-20; 1 Peter 4:1-5; Jude 1:1-19; Romans 13:1-14; 2 Peter 2:1-22 et al deal with clothing articles. Hopefully, we all realize that anything at all can be proven with information obtained online. Hopefully, we all also realize that anything at all can be proven with information obtained from the Bible. What has helped us throughout the years is to thoroughly know what God’s New Testament Law states, regarding any given subject, and then only accepting teachings that are in accord with what God caused to be clearly written in His New Testament Law. Predictably, this has caused us to reject most/all of what the Haters want us all to believe. END DISCLAIMER. “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 971 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
Let's go, Greg. If you're gonna say something, then say it. You are trying to hide the fact that this hair-cutting prohibition is conspicuously absent from the text. You have to arrive at it through trickery, and post ten thousand words to explain it. Don't you, Greg. Your apostle-of-constantly-looking-for-the-next-married-woman-to-nail is too stupid to understand this passage, and so are you. Tell Roger the Fat Boy he is a fool next time you see him. I demand that you either cite a CLEAR PROHIBITION in the "New Testament Law" (you wish) or shut your satanic face. | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 972 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
And please, anyone reading this--please try to obtain some material from The Trumpet. This more than anything will demonstrate what a waste of life this cult really is. You will laugh at the serious stuff and not at the 'funny' stuff. You will wonder if originality is considered a sin by these plagiaristic morons. (it is, by the way) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1455 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
Good job, comrade Greg. Keep it coming; you're making NTCC look exactly as bizarre as it really is. (Message edited by victorjohanson on December 26, 2007) | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 975 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
tick, tick, tick, greg... I still do not see that perfect scripture verse, you know that one that skewers us all and pins us up to the gates of hell. Next time you're kissing Davis's fat butt, maybe you can notice the birth mark that several women have volunteered to point out as proof of their intimate knowledge of his bare acreage. Still waiting for the clear, specific, reference--you freak! | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 976 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
Well, greg? Tell us all about the long and short of it, you pneumacephallic jerk. Do you need more time? You'll need the rest of your miserable life to find what I am demanding that you produce. Prove your stupid teachings or shut up, greg. | ||
| rls Member Username: rls Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Tell how you really feel brother. Let it all out.  | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 977 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 69.208.4.151 |
I DEMAND it greg, Direct, specific, and clear. Lay it on us. I'll give you a hint: the worms will have long since ceased to gag on Davis-the-pig's rancid megatonnage before you ever find it. I'm getting as bored waiting as I get reading your filth. You are a witless dork with no flare for literature, yet you continue to pump out tomes of fiction all the same. Get off it already! | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 980 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 69.208.3.123 |
NTCC preachers have been proudly strutting like roosters across podiums all over America pimping their evil teachings, eye-balling other men's wives, living in adultery, strangling their teenaged stepdaughters, ripping people off through extortion, committing crimes and being quietly relocated... ...and all the while preaching about hair and pants! They fill people's minds with turmoil, frighten children, abuse and destroy families. I am sick of pretending that they deserve respect. I am sick of pretending that Davis is anything but a pig. Yeah, I know "Brian, you're setting a bad example, and making it look like we're all a bunch of haters, blah, blah, blah..." Well, guess what; I AM a hater. I hate evil people and spiritual extortioners. Greg, what IS YOU PROBLEM? Are you still looking for the verse that says "Doth not even the SCRIPTURE itself teach you that if a woman CUT HER HAIR AT ALL it is a SIN to her?" Where is it, you brainwashed buffoon? SHOW IT TO US if it's there. Your stupid so-called 'church' just needs to shut its doors. Yeah, I know BDH thinks it can so some good, but he's a nice guy. I'm NOT nice, greg. Give Davis the pig a good, hard kick for me next time you show up at his so-called 'conference' (kinda carries the suggestion of 'conferring' doesn't it? Sorta like everybody coming to an agreement as to a course of action, right? Anything but) pretending to love him, pretending to speak in tongues, pretending to believe his filthy trash, pretending that God is blessing you, pretending, pretending... | ||
| clearwater Junior Member Username: clearwater Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 71.227.171.20 |
Pelf, it does seem as though Greg has an uncanny ability to manipulate (intentional or unintentional) certain people to a rage of sorts. He comes out occasionally, stirs the embers of a dying fire(s) and sits back and enjoys the warmth he has created by the heat/energy of others produced by the "appearance" of being on the verge of going stark raving mad!!! Man, if this is intentional Greg, you are not a musician but a maestro.........Though quite treacherous. | ||
| mklo Advanced Member Username: mklo Post Number: 686 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 67.185.114.218 |
I agree that rev. greg_s is a masterful troll. He's lured me with flame bait on several occasions. Bringing out the worst in people must be a Gift of the Spirit, the mention of which is buried somewhere deep within God's New Testament Law.
Dude, that's harsh. Accurate, but harsh. | ||
| clearwater Junior Member Username: clearwater Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 71.227.171.20 |
"I agree that rev.greg_s is a masterful troll. He's lured me with flame bait on several occasions". So then we are in agreement. At this point he has positioned himself to come across as being the "Master of the Asylum" so-to-speak. Clever. | ||
| leftin1991 Intermediate Member Username: leftin1991 Post Number: 476 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
OK, there's no use to rag on NTCC as if they invented the uncut hair doctrine. I say this not to defend NTCC's way of approaching the issue, but in North America alone it is also practiced and taught by over 2 million others such as Amish & Mennonites, the UPC, old-time Wesleyan Methodists, various Pentecostal and anti-Pentecostal Holiness groups, and even some Baptists! It has been discussed many times on the 1000 threads - (yes, there are 1000 of them now!) but here's some real meat for discussion on this thread: http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/bobbed.html That material comes from old-time Independent Fundamental Baptists. http://members.lycos.nl/hairaffair/Blank%20Page%205.htm - Les R. (aka Granite) | ||
| just2bhappy New member Username: just2bhappy Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.121.192.69 |
Les R. Looked at and read both..very interesting. I gotta tell ya, those ladies with the long hair..especially the one with the split to the hip or the one with the spagetti strap top..they convinced me completely that all women with incredibly long hair must be saved! Because dragging your hair like a wedding veil is so spiritual! I am curious though, what about those woman of color who have a hard time getting their hair down to their shoulders, much less their knee caps? Hmmm | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1973 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.216.164.52 |
1) The teaching about hair on men and women by 'Go-to-the-Bible' guy is good, except that he doesn't go to the Bible far enough. He did not address the main issue with Pentecosts: Cutting hair at all for a woman is a sin. God tells us that He wants a difference between the covering of heads in our prayer and worship, and hair is meant for that purpose (I mean, what else is hair on the head for except to cover the head??). However, the Scriptural difference is NOT that women don't cut it at all, but rather than women don't cut their hair too far so as to have a men's haircut, which is EXACTLY what being 'shorn' is. So, if a woman wants to act like a man and get a man's haircut, then she ought be spiritually honest about it and shave it all off like the pagan temple whores (!) Thus, the purpose of 1 Cor 11 is about Headship: God's or the devil's, and the length of hair is a visible part thereof, so far as God is concerned. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 312 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT”… INTRODUCTION: Is it shameful for women in all countries to sheer/scrape/shave (verb) their head? No/Yes/Don’t know or just potentially strange? As you will see below the only two options/topics that Paul is presenting/discussing is to sheer/scrape/shave (verb) the head or to cover/veil (verb or preposition, not the clothing article which would be a noun) the head. A women or man’s deportment coupled with their clothing is what will keep a person from being lascivious whatever their decision regarding sheering/scraping/shaving (verb) the head or covering/veiling (verb or preposition) the head. Sheer/scrape/shave (verb) the head and to cover/veil (verb or preposition) the head or clothing (noun) are two separate issues. Clothing (men’s and women’s) is addressed in Mark 7:18-23; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-20; 1 Peter 4:1-5; Jude 1:1-19; Romans 13:1-14; 2 Peter 2:1-22 et al. As you should already know, but will see below, clothing articles are not being addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. What about split ends? The question is not can a women cut split ends and still be right with God the question is will a women’s hair be allowed to be given a chance to cover/veil (verb or preposition) or will she sheer/scrape/shave (verb) her head? These are the only two choices Paul is inarguably presenting. If a women cuts split ends and does not have covering/veiling (verb or preposition) hair is her standing in relation to Paul’s simple teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 the same as the women that does not manually shorten her hair and is not able to grow covering/veiling (verb or preposition) hair? Most women justify cutting hair as the sole means of dealing with split ends. Yet, there are many other methods that are effective repair and/or prevention of split ends that routinely go unpursued. If cutting of split ends is the sole means a woman deals with split ends this will result in ever increasingly shorter hair. (See any recent picture of Mother Smit et al for proof of this.) But, Paul is not dealing with hair care in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 either although http://members.lycos.nl/hairaffair/Blank%20Page%205.htm shows/proves women can maintain healthy hair without resorting to cutting their hair short or even at all. Glorious! Why don’t you agree? Additionally, Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16; Hebrews 6:19; Hebrews 9:3; Hebrews 10:20 all show us that the Greeks had a word for the covering (noun)/clothing (noun) article veil (noun)/vail (noun) which is katapetasma (noun)/kalymma (noun) respectively. Which word Paul by the Holy Ghost chose not to use in 1 Corinthians 11. This shows, contrary to what the Haters may aver, that a mistake was not made by God. Therefore, is “to hair or not to hair still the question?” If it is, let’s continue. But, be warned, this article is entirely boring from beginning to end. SOME QUOTES: Let’s start with some totally original greg_s quotes…“To hair or not to hair; that is the question.” “Et tu, Paul?” “What light through yonder veil breaks?” “The uncovered doth protest too much, methinks.” “He’s mad that trusts in the tameness of the uncovered.” “To veil is human, to hair divine.” “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| charger Junior Member Username: charger Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.32.36.197 |
Greg. Ofcourse anyone is welcome to jump on in an answer this for me, but I would love to hear what Greg has to say. What about Perms? Are they a form of cutting ones hair? Are they condoned in the Bible? How about a YES or No asnwer. It is very clear to see the damage done to a womans hair who has it permed. Secondly, If I a man have hair down to the middle of my back and get the ends trimmed, then am I uncovered? Is that the same as if I had shaved my head? | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 325 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.188.117.202 |
CONTINUING “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT”… THE HATERS ALWAYS ENDORSE THE CONTRARY VIEW: Predictably, since we focused on the Greek behind the English, the Haters want/may want to teach us that Brother Paul is talking about the Greek‘s ‘culture of the veil/vail (noun).’ Yet, again, Brother Paul uses verbs and prepositions for cover/covered/covering et al and not nouns (except for hair). So, Brother Paul isn’t talking about the Greek’s ‘culture of the veil/vail (noun).’ Therefore, thanks to Brother Paul, as far as veils (noun)/vails (noun) go, the Body of Christ has no such custom. If a woman wants to wear a veil/vail that is her prerogative…she just can’t/shouldn’t sight Biblical Command for support of it. If a woman wants to wear a veil/vail this is not to be in lieu of covering length hair since Paul is not teaching about clothing articles in 1 Corinthians 11. Continuing, if a woman cuts split ends and does not have covering/veiling (verb or preposition) hair is her standing in relation to Brother Paul’s clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 the same as the woman that has covering length hair and cuts her split ends or the woman that does not manually shorten her hair and is not able to grow covering/veiling (verb or preposition) hair? Most women justify cutting their hair by their eager perception that hair cutting is the only means of dealing with split ends. Yet, there are many other methods that are effective repair and/or prevention of split ends that routinely go unpursued. If there is nothing wrong with a woman cutting her hair why does she need to justify her behavior as most/all short hair wearing women do? If cutting of split ends is the sole means a woman deals with split ends this will always result in increasingly shorter hair. (See any recent picture of Mother Smit et al for proof of this.) As far as we can tell a woman having split ends does not displease God because split ends are not addressed by God in his New Testament Law. This can not be said regarding a woman’s hair length which, according to Brother Paul, must be long enough to cover (verb or preposition). Again, Brother Paul is not dealing with hair care in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. Additionally, Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16; Hebrews 6:19; Hebrews 9:3 and Hebrews 10:20 show us that the Greeks had a word for the covering (noun)/clothing (noun) article veil (noun)/vail (noun) which is katapetasma (noun)/kalymma (noun) respectively. Which word Brother Paul, via the Holy Ghost, chose not to use in 1 Corinthians 11. This shows, contrary to what the Haters may aver, that a mistake was not made by God and Brother Paul is not dealing with head covering clothing articles in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. Additionally, the term for wearing something on your head is epi (a preposition), which word Brother Paul only uses in verse 10 of 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. But, Brother Paul uses kata (also a preposition) elsewhere in this same portion of God’s New Testament Law, which means literally "down over." This also shows, contrary to what the Haters may aver, that a mistake was not made by God and Brother Paul is not dealing with head covering clothing articles in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15. Another question an honest seeker (this would exclude Haters) could reasonably ask themselves is, “Does the Bible anywhere Command us to follow the social customs of first century un-regenerated pagan Greeks or how all generations in all lands during any era can know and please God?” “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 994 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.217.221.221 |
greg, I used to assume that your references to the Greek and to certain parts of speach were legitimate scholarship. Now I realize you are faking it. The initial issue was the veil. Everyone knows this except holiness Pentecostals, Roger Davis and you. Paul could have simply said there is no such custom, but this would create a problem among those who insist upon the use of veils. Got that much? Ok... Paul has to be careful, knowing that his arbitrary choosing of sides in a local dispute would create new problems. The hair issue is introduced as a means of showing the pro-veil party that a substitue is provided naturally, and that this substitute should satisfy their demands. All he wants to do is make them realize they do not have to wear veils. Of course he uses a verb when the verb is called for, and a noun when a noun is called for. This does not determine the nature of the topic. The context does. And the context here is "concerning the questions you asked..." There never was a 'hair question', only a veil question. But...and this is important, greg... There is no verse that says a woman is wrong, or that it is a sin, to cut the hair; and never will you see an indication that cutting it AT ALL signifies sinful rebellion. That is simply insane. We are currently at war against a religion that 'covers' its women. All religions that require this should be fought, because they are murderously dangerous. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 227 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
J2B: Simply put, when "nappy-headed" women have consecrated that to God, they can have as much glory as anyone else, because that is all God gave them to work with! While longer hair may seem to be more glorious "IF" a woman have it (according to God's gift and her personal choice), and although the 1920s made bobbed hair a symbol of worldliness, neither are infallible indicators of anything. Notwithstanding, if women's hair were not an area of particular concern to God, He would not have given quite specific instructions about it in 3 different New Testament Epistles (1 Cor. 11:15, 1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3). While it is not unlikely that at least some of those women in the photos on the link above are/were indeed Christians, NTCC's approach to the issue is entirely wrong. It is not a doctrinal matter to be legislated by the church, but should be left between the woman's conscience and God. When it ceases to be left as a sanctification issue and is preached as a salvation issue, then it becomes HAIR HERESY! Examples: "If a woman can be saved cutting her hair, then I can go to Heaven getting rip-roaring drunk!" - RWD "If a woman cuts her hair, it's the same as if she had prostituted her body -- the only difference is, prostitution doesn't show." - RWD Num. 5:18, 6:2, 5; Deut. 21:12, Isa. 3:24, Jer. 7:29, Ezek. 16:7; Luke 7:38, John 11:2 & Rev. 9:8. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 329 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT”… HOW EX’RGESIS WORKS OR WHY THEY TEACH US WHAT THEY TEACH US (ADDED 12/24/07): Have you ever wondered why the Haters believe what they share they believe? It is quite simple as follows: The Haters start with their only premise that a specific Christian Church and non-accredited Bible College is wrong in all areas and proceeds from there. With the Haters it’s all about negatives. Conversely, the Body of Christ starts with the premise that God’s New Testament Law is right and proceeds from there. This is why the Haters online ex’rgesis is aggressively and consistently wrong. To illustrate: The B-i-b-l-e teaches the Body of Christ that Christians will go to heaven. But, because a specific Christian Church believes this also the Haters must start with the premise that this is wrong and proceed from there. The B-i-b-l-e also teaches the individual Christian is/can be healed. But, because a specific Christian Church believes this also the Haters must start with the premise that this is wrong and proceed from there. The B-i-b-l-e also teaches the individual Christian can be lascivious. But, because a specific Christian Church believes this also the Haters must start with the premise that this is wrong and proceed from there. Repeat as necessary/desired. This is easy to understand and what we have all easily observed isn’t it? If not, why not? “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| tracypelfrey New member Username: tracypelfrey Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 76.211.13.190 |
HEY GREG, ARE YOU STILL A MINISTER IN NTCC? This is just an easy YES or NO question...no wordy explanations needed. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 335 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
NOT IN THE HATER STYLE: This post is rather dry/boring as it is technical. As have all greg_s posts to date. We have not yet mastered the Hater style of making posts juicy with scintillating innuendo; although, we haven’t tried posting a Hater style post to date but this may soon change at least for one already drafted, never yet posted series called “Meet The Candidate – Linda Lamblin-Smit.” Continuing…In this series the Word of God with references are in Blue; words of greg_s et al are in black. The parts of speech in this teaching that refer to the words used in the sighted verses are the parts of speech from the Greek. The chosen Bible Versions used in this series are the King James (Authorized) Version (KJV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB95) 1995 Edition. The KJV and the NASB95 both use Strong’s numbering and definitions. As you will see below Paul’s (noun) teaching does not require an understanding of eastern ancient and modern clothing styles, custom or culture--also, Paul does not appeal to these. Paul’s (noun) teaching is scripture and therefore all inclusive…applying to us today as written just as it was to be applied in Paul’s (noun) day as written. As we show below God’s New Testament Law does not require a woman to wear a veil (noun). But God’s word does require a woman to be covered/veiled (verb or preposition). Also as we show below God’s New Testament Law does not command a man not to wear a veil (noun). But God’s word does require a man to be uncovered/unveiled (adjective). A Hateresque individual may counter that this still sounds like it is talking about clothing. If this would be the case then the B-i-b-l-e could possibly be counseling men to pray naked using this same Hateresque logic. The Haters could/would possibly be all for this; though this would be unfair to the ladies. Continuing, we do not all wear veils (noun) but we all have hair; barring some tragedy. As we should all know the short haired woman and the long haired man, as a part of Christian society, is a recent phenomenon/convention/aberration. QUESTION: Since long hair on a man is still considered, by most, to be effeminate and/or outside of mainstream societal norms; why is short hair on women not considered masculine and/or outside of mainstream societal norms by these same people (other than because the Haters say so)? Answer: It’s Hater logic and Hater logic is illogical. “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1001 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.214.221.30 |
Greg commits two egregious fouls in his above posts. First, he merely repeats assertions already challenged without further support. Second, he proceeds from the assumption of insincerity on the part of his opponent. He is saying "You are factually wrong because you hate." Look up the issue of hair on any legitimate site that is dedicated to sound doctrine and widely recognized by mainstream churches and you will gain valuable perspective. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 346 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT”… SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?: Because we had long hair (down past our hips/belt) before (of course) we became a Christian our personal perception is we do not consider the hair length from the powdered wig days long; but does what anyone thinks set the standard? The Haters think so. Although long curly wigs and hair were the custom of secular society at one time was this ever the standard of the Church? Hair down around a persons shoulders doesn’t cover/veil (verb or preposition) much of anything; although, the conventions of an era do not/should not dictate the meaning and/or applicability/appropriateness of any part of God’s New Testament Law. Don’t you agree? Why not? The French called them perruques, the English periwigs. By either name history tells us the Church forbade men don wigs, suggesting they wear their hair short, straight and unadorned. Henry IV (King from 1572–1610) went so far as to ban wigs and men’s long hair at court. Before wigs became the rage, fashionable men wore their hair long; painstakingly arranged with waves and curls. But again, the conventions of an era do not/should not dictate the meaning or applicability/appropriateness of any part of God’s New Testament Law. Recently a theologian among the Haters sighted examples of past men of God that had long hair and queried about their eternal destination. We will assume to somehow show that long hair on men is Godly? Interestingly and contradicting what the Haters have averred…First through sixth century Romans (no Roman emperor is ever depicted with long hair…Jews and Christian were part of the Roman Empire and observed Roman customs); first through twenty-first century Popes (no Pope is ever depicted with long hair); English Monarchs (774-Present: No English Monarch is ever depicted with long hair.); French Monarchs (843-1870: No French Monarch is ever depicted with longish hair except from 1643-1774); Martin Luther (1483-1546); Spanish Monarchs (1516-Present: No Spanish Monarch is ever depicted with longish hair except from 1700-1759); after the 1720’s short wigs and short hair on men again became popular in secular society into the 1800’s--in the 1800’s women also began to wear their hair very short; US Presidents (1789-Present: No US President is ever depicted with long hair.); D.L. Moody (1837-1899); Smith Wigglesworth (1859-1947) (in the 1900’s men and women continued to wear their hair short until the 1960’s); Billy Graham (1918-present) et al are all depicted with short hair. Matthew Henry is depicted in long hair but teaches against long hair on men in his commentary. So, did Matthew Henry have long hair in his day to day life or did the artist take his liberty and paint/sketch Reverend Henry with long hair to match the secular conventions of that day? This also begs the question; is anyone depicted as having long hair proof that they actually had long hair? And again, does what anyone thinks set the standard or is it God’s New Testament Law that sets the standard for the Body of Christ? “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1011 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.128.77.151 |
RW Davis makes a direct claim to know what the standard is, greg. He believes that pastoral authority gives him the right to do exactly the thing you seem to despise. You ask if what anyone thinks should set the standard, and then go about to set the standard based on what you and, more specifically, your self-proclaimed apostle THINKS. This forum is devoted to the doctrinal/spiritual abuse perpetrated by controlling groups, and legalistic codes of deportment elevated to the level of salvation requirements are spiritually abusive. Therefore, a discussion of what a person may do in order to maintain a good conscience is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is over the right of ANY sect to set such standards based on what the leadership THINKS. | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 261 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
"Billy Graham (1918-present) et al are all depicted with short hair." Greg, do you even know what the phrase et al means? And, I might actually enjoy being at the conference when you show up with this Billy Graham hair... www.chief.org/images/BillyGraham.gif | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1997 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.208.111.39 |
"If a woman can be saved cutting her hair, then I can go to Heaven getting rip-roaring drunk!" - RWD If Davis can be saved pushing a church for personal success, then he can indeed go to heaven getting rip-roaring drunk! Indeed, A man getting rip-roaring drunk is far less dangerous and destructive to the saints of God, than a man getting intoxicated on his own ministerial pursuits. The church and the world would have been, and would be far better off if Davis-types would just get rip-roaring drunk and leave everyone else alone. Dear Davis: I have never, ever as a Christians ever couselled anyone on earth to commit sin, and I really don't wish to do so now. BUT if it will help you to depart from the ministry altogether and thus help others to be ministered too much better, then please sir: Get Drunk. Rip-roaring so. Now! There is far more space of repentence for that, than for what you are doing now. 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Luke 5:32) 'Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.' (John 9:41) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1998 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.208.111.39 |
*Sigh* Greg backslid to his old Encyclo-Glyphics again... I Just Can't Read It... Too Hard On Head... 'Oh, My Head! My Head!' (2 Kings 4:19) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 2001 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.208.111.39 |
"When it ceases to be left as a sanctification issue and is preached as a salvation issue, then it becomes HAIR HERESY!" Granite An interesting point, I have never heard put that way before (My hair is standing on my head). While Davis is guilty of Hairesy in the opposite direction, I do not agree with your distinction between salvation and sanctification issues... The instant salvation and sanctification of God from the transgressions and sins of the dead (Eph 2:1-3) are one and the same event and work of God. (1 Cor 1:2,6:11) It's the false doctrine of 'progressive sanctification', taught as part of salvation, for the sake of adding men's 'holiness' standards to God's true holiness that is the Hairetical error. (!) (Private interpretations and applications of Scripture (that are our choices of personal faith and liberty within the law of Christ) preached as the Scriptural rule of Christ for all. So it is mis-treating personal standards issues as salvation and God's sanctification for all, that gets things all hairy and mixed up for the sheep.) Every born again child of God is instantly saved and sanctified from the transgressions and sins that are of the devil and contrary to God's written Word: I.e. The works of the flesh. The saved woman will NOT go back to her fornication, and the saved man to his drunkenness. But she may continue with her job and hair trimming, if she so desires. Likewise the man to drinking wine without excess. A woman cutting her hair like a man's is excessive. (If she has not enough hair to cover the head (Shorn) or no hair at all (Shaven), then a veil of hair (Wig) or other fabric will do just fine...) God's main point in 1 Cor 11 is Headship. He uses the veil issue to then address the hair rule that He seeks as difference between man and woman in His New Covenant of Jesus Christ. I do not know if I agree with you Mr Pelfry or not, because you are confusing to me. Therefore, you are dumb. And excessive. And accusative. And slanderous. And going-too-far. And not moving-on-enough. (heh-heh) | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 352 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT”… CONTINUING SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?: If we painted a picture of victorjohanson with short hair would it be because he has short hair or be proof he has short hair in his normal day to day life or did we merely take artistic liberty? QUESTIONS: Why does victorjohanson have a fresh haircut in all the online pictures of him we have seen? What is he trying to hide? And why? Since he has attested/detested he no longer cares what the Body of Christ thinks of him? END QUESTIONS. Again we say, the conventions of an era do not/should not dictate the meaning or appropriateness of any part of God’s New Testament Law. Also, because a person’s likeness is represented in a painting/drawing as having/endorsing long hair does not mean that person had long hair in their daily life. All renderings of Jesus with long hair illustrate this. A painter can paint anything, accurate or not. The Bible doesn’t say if Jesus ever made a Nazarite vow. So a Nazarite vow cannot be used to justify all the longish haired Jesus paintings. A good example of inaccuracy is the word pictures the Haters paint, on a regular basis, in representing the Body of Christ to the rest of the world. You will notice that we give choices about the meanings of things below, specifically the word ‘head.’ This is not because we do not know what God’s New Testament Law says or don’t understand it. Again, as we have already state in the ‘THE HATERS ALWAYS ENDORSE THE CONTRARY VIEW’ greg_s paragraph above, as you could have noticed with all Hater positions to date if we say one thing they say it’s really something else; if we (the Body of Christ) say God’s New Testament Law says ‘this’ they say that it means ‘that.’ To minimize/avoid this we provide different meanings for the word head (noun) et al to attempt to keep the discussion directed toward the issue at hand…Hair length. Remember, to hair or not to hair; that is the question. Although, the only reason the hair (noun) issue is a question is because elements of the modern church have morphed into an entity that only desires milk and still needs/desires to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God (1 Corinthians 3:2 NASB; Hebrews 5:12 NASB) again. This is also the only reason what constitutes lascivious dress is debated by some and that there are proponents that believe Christians drink undiluted fermented wine and other undiluted fermented and distilled beverages and approve of drug use for the Body of Christ. And again, does what anyone thinks set the standard or is it God’s New Testament Law that sets the standard for the Body of Christ? Do the Haters set the standard for the Body of Christ or does God’s New Testament Law set the standard? “HAIR…THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"QUESTIONS: Why does victorjohanson have a fresh haircut in all the online pictures of him we have seen? What is he trying to hide? And why? Since he has attested/detested he no longer cares what the Body of Christ thinks of him?" Well, Greg, the only online photos I'm even aware of were on the St. Baldrick's site; naturally the "after" photo showed a "fresh haircut," since I'd just had my head shaved, but the "before" shot was a bit shaggy, actually. Oh, there were those "unconference" shots, but I didn't run out and get a special haircut for that, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. My hair generally fulfills the legalistic guidelines of NTCC (which is an entity quite distinct from "the Body of Christ"), although I'm not too fanatical about rushing to the barber every nine days like RW says he does. Anyway, what's your point? That I'm a closet hippy or something? Well, I think that in general, the average hippy is much closer to the Kingdom of God than the leadership of your "church." I did grow a beard, though. You should try it! Doesn't "God's New Testament Law" prove that Jesus had one? Why does your overlord forbid NTCC ministers from emulating the savior in this respect? Are y'all better than Jesus? Greg, where are the online photos of you? What are YOU trying to hide? |
