Trying to Rescue Another from HMH Doctrine

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

A woman was not permitted to pray or prophecy in a NT assembly with her head uncovered! Uncut hair is the covering. NO Church of God has the custom of women worshipping with cut hair. See 1 Cor. 11. Very plain and simple to me.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

When did LONG = UNCUT ???

Btw, Paul is comparing hair as a natural covering to a veil as an artificial covering...

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

A teacher who teaches women can worship in a NT assembly with cut hair is a false teacher and will be lost.

Again, I ask, what are ALL the requirements to not be lost?
You keep adding to the list. Can you please give us the complete list????

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Most of these folks have utter contempt for the Apostolic church so don't expect to find any encouragment toward truth.
For example tell us where you go to church?

Serioulsy, where you go to church?
Salvation is NOT about where you go to church...It's a living PERSONAL relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

When did LONG = UNCUT ???

Btw, Paul is comparing hair as a natural covering to a veil as an artificial covering...



Again, I ask, what are ALL the requirements to not be lost?
You keep adding to the list. Can you please give us the complete list????

The word for long is komao which means 'let her hair grow' can't do that and cut it. Better than my list tell me is there anything a saved person can do to be lost?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Serioulsy, where you go to church?
Salvation is NOT about where you go to church...It's a living PERSONAL relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just what I thought. If I wasn't going to an Apostolic church I would be ashamed too.

[MissBrattified]

My biggest problem with making this a point of salvation is this verse:

"6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

Tell me, to whom must it be a shame in order for this rule to apply? The verse says, "IF" it be a shame. Meaning, there could be situations or cultures or times when it may NOT be a shame for a woman's hair to be shorn or shaven.

So where does the IF fit in--or when does it fit in? Who decides if it's a shame? And where did Paul get the idea that it was a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy "uncovered?" It certainly wasn't mentioned in the Law anywhere.

The passage also says clearly that a woman's LONG hair is a glory to HER. It says nothing at all about it being a glory to God.

This is one of the most divisive issues in the Apostolic church. I am amazed that anyone would view a woman trimming her hair in the same category as fornication or other immorality--but I am not surprised by it. I've seen women shamed and forced into the altar for much less--and often by men who had much greater character flaws or moral issues they were dealing with in private.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

My biggest problem with making this a point of salvation is this verse:

"6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

Tell me, to whom must it be a shame in order for this rule to apply? The verse says, "IF" it be a shame. Meaning, there could be situations or cultures or times when it may NOT be a shame for a woman's hair to be shorn or shaven.

So where does the IF fit in--or when does it fit in? Who decides if it's a shame? And where did Paul get the idea that it was a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy "uncovered?" It certainly wasn't mentioned in the Law anywhere.

The passage also says clearly that a woman's LONG hair is a glory to HER. It says nothing at all about it being a glory to God.

This is one of the most divisive issues in the Apostolic church. I am amazed that anyone would view a woman trimming her hair in the same category as fornication or other immorality--but I am not surprised by it. I've seen women shamed and forced into the altar for much less--and often by men who had much greater character flaws or moral issues they were dealing with in private.

Her uncut hair is her covering. That is God given. The "If" is not asking a question but rather saying "SINCE" it is a shame for a woman to be uncoverd. That is really what is being said.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The word for long is komao which means 'let her hair grow' can't do that and cut it. Better than my list tell me is there anything a saved person can do to be lost?

Most of the places I look simply say "have long hair." You may have provided your link before--it seems like you provided an alternative definition one time. I can't recall. However, all the general definitions are pretty vague. To "have long hair" isn't the same thing as "to have uncut hair." You can into the "how long is long" debate, and decide that uncut is the safest interpretation of that, but I think it's a shame to make this such a point of contention when in fact it's just the "safest interpretation." IMO, the things in scripture that are the most important are very clear. There's no ambiguity in "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Why would God be ambiguous about something that affects a woman's salvation, and why did it only become important to the New Testament church? Why wasn't it important from the beginning?

From Strong's Lexicon:

2863. komao kom-ah'-o from 2864; to wear tresses of hair:--have long hair.

2864. kome kom'-ay apparently from the same as 2865; the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental, and thus differing from 2359; which properly denotes merely the scalp):--hair.

I also get a little bogged down with Jewish thought and tradition on this topic. Even orthodox Jews (women) can cut their hair as long as they cover their heads with a veil, hat or wig. It seems so odd that their Jehovah doesn't expect the same things from them as "our Jesus."

[houston]

Originally Posted by Lacey

I doubt that very seriously.

I don't.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Her uncut hair is her covering. That is God given. The "If" is not asking a question but rather saying "SINCE" it is a shame for a woman to be uncoverd. That is really what is being said.

That is your assertion, but I don't see that it's really supported. Do you have anything else to support your opinion other than just your understanding of it?

"If" is the word "Ei" and according to the lexicon means "if" or "whether." Not even close to "since" or even "because."

FTR, and I feel like I have to say this in these discussions--I'm not personally invested in cutting my own hair. I've never minded my hair being long, although there are the occasional Sundays when I get mad at it and wish I had the same pixie cut my Aunt Lola had so I could just slap on a little hat and walk out the door. That said, I just think there is so much intellectual obfuscation on this topic. I don't get why it's so important, and the "Holy Magic Hair" hullabaloo that's taught by Lee Stoneking, Ruth Rieder-Harvey and others is appallingly bad doctrine. I know you don't agree with their teachings, and I respect you for rejecting them. IMO, that stuff was fabricated in order to give women some sort of noble reason to not cut their hair, and it's manipulative. I can respect simple obedience a lot more. At this point, I think enough damage has been done by their writings that if they were denounced or retracted, women would cut their hair because the motivation would be gone. That also strikes me as selfish--as if obedience to something found in God's Word is only worth the effort if there's some big payoff at the end.

I can understand pushing for short hair on men and long hair on women. The passage actually uses those words. I just don't understand the emphasis on completely uncut. To me, it would make more sense of men were forbidden to ever wear hats in any circumstance--as that would constitute a covering--and also that they must shave their heads, because that seems to be the extreme opposite of a woman not cutting one hair or portion of hair off her head.

[Dordrecht]

Just what I thought. If I wasn't going to an Apostolic church I would be ashamed too.

What a nonsense can one find on this forum!