Hair brings spiritual power message. 😳

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It was a regretably thoughtless post.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Amanah

It's a false teaching based on the book of enoch.

Some people believe that 1 cor 11 teaches hair should be covered with a scarf.

Some teach uncut hair.

Some teach uncut hair gives supernatural power.

Others teach that covered or uncut hair is simply a sign of submission.

You want to know what gives supernatural power? Submission to God and his word. I've know many backsliders in my life, and one of the first things a women that backslide out of the church, is cut their hair. My sisters both did it, it's a sign to the spiritual realm that they are now acting out their rebellion. I've seen men that backslide start to grow their hair long, why, because there showing the spirit realm there manifesting their rebellion.

Our covering is the Holy Ghost, not some cloth or scarf. If we submit to the word through not cutting our hair (women) or allowing our hair to grow long (men) we will be covered through the protection of the authority of Jesus Christ.

"Submit yourself unto God, resist the devil and he will flee."

You CANNOT resist unless you're submitted.

Also, Sister please remember, EVERYTHING that happens in the natural FIRST took place in the spiritual.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by coksiw

This is a great commentary on the hair in 1 Cor 11.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html



Also, Bernard says that Chrysostom teaches that Paul in 1 Cor 11 was referring to long hair as the covering, but that's not true:

Bernard says:

“John Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11 to refer to long hair. In a sermon on that chapter, Chrysostom wrote that Paul “both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. . . . He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. . . . But with regard to the man . . . the wearing long hair he discourages at all times.”13 In the same sermon, Chrysostom compared this teaching with Deuteronomy 22:5, noting that both passages teach a distinction between male and female in appearance.”

Excerpt From
Practical Holiness: A Second Look
David K. Bernard
This material may be protected by copyright.

The portion he is referring to doesn't prove his point, instead, this is what Chrysostom really says:

"For hitherto his discourse was only concerning their not wearing long hair and not covering their heads"

and here, he addressed the point explicitly contradicting Bernard's testimony of Chrysostom entirely:

""And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection"

Go check it out yourself: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ch...nthians/11.htm


This goes in line with the commentary I shared in the first link:

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise.

The text is clear as water to me: uncut hair and covered for a woman, and short and uncovered for a man.

The question here is how you apply it. Is the "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" the goal, then making the headcovering a cultural implementation of a symbol of being under authority, or is it for all ages regardless of the cultural meaning of a headcovering?

I believe the first. The headcovering was an implementation or cultural expression of being under a husband, and submissive to him during worship. That whatever you did publicly in the congregation, prophesying or praying, was under the approval of the husband. Praying or prophesying without the headcovering, was an cultural expression of being an independent woman, that does thing publicly with or without the husband approval. My argument goes in line with the purpose of it explained in that verse: a token of being under authority.

Nowadays, if you are an unbeliever, and you see a woman with headcovering on the street, you don't associate it with a conservative idea of woman expressing her voluntary submission to her house order, but instead you associate it with some "strange religion". It doesn't carry the same meaning it had back then.

However, I see also good points in those that defend the opposite: that the headcovering is not cultural but still applicable to us in our culture.

Rev. Bernard's inability to properly exegete passages in context ultimately had a fair bit to do with my leaving the UPC. He's intellectually dishonest, but I digress.

I surprisingly ended up in a church (Russian Orthodox Church) that does use hair coverings for women (regardless of actual hairstyle which is irrelevant) and appreciate what Esaias is saying. We agree on something

(and I do appreciate that Esaias is not intellectual dishonest, and one of my sons is named after a derivative of his screen name)

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Rev. Bernard's inability to properly exegete passages in context ultimately had a fair bit to do with my leaving the UPC. He's intellectually dishonest, but I digress.

I surprisingly ended up in a church (Russian Orthodox Church) that does use hair coverings for women (regardless of actual hairstyle which is irrelevant) and appreciate what Esaias is saying. We agree on something

(and I do appreciate that Esaias is not intellectual dishonest, and one of my sons is named after a derivative of his screen name)

That makes a lot of sense.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

That makes a lot of sense.

Whaat?

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Whaat?

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Whaat?

Somethings I can't say because the privacy of others.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

You want to know what gives supernatural power? Submission to God and his word. I've know many backsliders in my life, and one of the first things a women that backslide out of the church, is cut their hair. My sisters both did it, it's a sign to the spiritual realm that they are now acting out their rebellion. I've seen men that backslide start to grow their hair long, why, because there showing the spirit realm there manifesting their rebellion.

Our covering is the Holy Ghost, not some cloth or scarf. If we submit to the word through not cutting our hair (women) or allowing our hair to grow long (men) we will be covered through the protection of the authority of Jesus Christ.

"Submit yourself unto God, resist the devil and he will flee."

You CANNOT resist unless you're submitted.

Also, Sister please remember, EVERYTHING that happens in the natural FIRST took place in the spiritual.

Do you ever wear a hat?

What I have heard about men backsliding is not that they grow their hair long, but that they grow facial hair. But yet I have never found any Bible for a prohibition against facial hair or a command to wear facial hair.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

You want to know what gives supernatural power? Submission to God and his word. I've know many backsliders in my life, and one of the first things a women that backslide out of the church, is cut their hair. My sisters both did it, it's a sign to the spiritual realm that they are now acting out their rebellion. I've seen men that backslide start to grow their hair long, why, because there showing the spirit realm there manifesting their rebellion.

How many backsliders are still going through the motions in church? How many adulterers and fornicators and cheats and extortioners are still in the church? Yet they don't abandon the rules about hair?

How many freaky cultists are out there whose dress standards and hair put most UPC types to shame? Hippies (real bona fide hippies) are often more modestly dressed than a lot of today's UPC folks, hair and all.

Our covering is the Holy Ghost, not some cloth or scarf. If we submit to the word through not cutting our hair (women) or allowing our hair to grow long (men) we will be covered through the protection of the authority of Jesus Christ.

"Submit yourself unto God, resist the devil and he will flee."

You CANNOT resist unless you're submitted.

Uncut hair = power over the devil, then. You just affirmed the magic hair doctrine, albeit likely unawares.

Also, Sister please remember, EVERYTHING that happens in the natural FIRST took place in the spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15:46 KJV
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Does the Bible teach "EVERYTHING that happens in the physical FIRST took place in the spiritual"? Because the verse I posted sure seems to read the exact opposite. However, I do know that in Wicca and other occultic systems and religions, it is definitely affirmed that EVERYTHING that happens in the physical FIRST happens in the spiritual. "As above, so below", and all that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Rev. Bernard's inability to properly exegete passages in context ultimately had a fair bit to do with my leaving the UPC. He's intellectually dishonest, but I digress.

I surprisingly ended up in a church (Russian Orthodox Church) that does use hair coverings for women (regardless of actual hairstyle which is irrelevant) and appreciate what Esaias is saying. We agree on something

(and I do appreciate that Esaias is not intellectual dishonest, and one of my sons is named after a derivative of his screen name)

You named your kid after me? Seriously? Get outta here, no way! Must be a miscommunication. You named your son a derivative of Isaiah/Esaias and it is purely coincidental that is my screen name. Right?