Both progressive and traditional types of Christians blatantly disobey the Bible... and this example about men and women proves it.
- Thread starter HorseSoldier
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
True. But also it has to do with hierarchy. 1/3 of the angels rebelled against the hierarchy of God and were cast down. A woman covering her head is testifying to the Angels - the Angels of light as well as the angels of darkness, the fallen ones, or demons. She marks herself to be a child of God when she covers her head as the Holy Spirit says in Paul's writing. What beautiful worship.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Quite the opposite. Since you put a red x on my post, you have made it clear that you disagree with God, not me or anyone else who interprets that passage as it should be interpreted. This is called picking and choosing what we believe, rather than believing what God says, since all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
-
1
- Show all
No. She would be silent that day. Silence can be a thing of beauty, reverence, awe.
On a similar subject, I think it is beautiful when someone does not take Communion, instead they do the gesture of crossing their arms... then the priest blesses them. This means the person has an issue of sin and does not want to receive in an unworthy manner. In that, he or she is obeying what the holy scriptures teach. It puts on display humbleness, obedience. It is rare, but when I see someone do that, to me it is very moving. And right worship.
On a similar subject, I think it is beautiful when someone does not take Communion, instead they do the gesture of crossing their arms... then the priest blesses them. This means the person has an issue of sin and does not want to receive in an unworthy manner. In that, he or she is obeying what the holy scriptures teach. It puts on display humbleness, obedience. It is rare, but when I see someone do that, to me it is very moving. And right worship.
No. You are missing something. Paul is using the natural order , our hair, to explain that creation itself reveals to us also this about head coverings that the Holy Spirit is teaching us. You should read again, starting at verse 13. Paul writes u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d, in verse 13. And, there is no custom in all the churches of God where she is uncovered , again we see that same word in verse 16.
That is what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, because they were out of line in this worship practice, as well as with the Lord's Supper.
That is what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, because they were out of line in this worship practice, as well as with the Lord's Supper.
Some have no care for art. Just like some do not care for music. I understand. To me, the point of me making the art and posting the art is worship, making sacred spaces. We do this with art, architecture, music, speech, actions... and, for some, even our posts at forums. Like someone will sing a song about our Lord for others to hear, and maybe join in, I make art. It is one of the ways I worship and point others to God.
If you pass on modern prophets, and I am no such of a thing, this should mean you accept the original ones, like Paul, who teaches us about head covering in worship. Yes, listen to him. Not me. And if you read the early church writings, and the church fathers, and even the reformed theologians, like Calvin, Wesley, Luther, etc., they agree with Paul, as they all should. Well, rather it is the Holy Spirit through Paul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering
And , yes, Wiki is often a bad source. On this subject though, Wiki did well. I think Wiki did such a good job because they enjoy making the church look bad. Wiki goes into the scripture of head coverings. Wiki points out how the majority of scholars agree on the head covering. Wiki points out how the church practiced head covering until the 1960's, until the sexual revolution and feminist pride came against the worship practice. Wiki points out the denominations that still worship this way.
Wiki does all this because it screams out loud that most of us in the west are hypocrites, as we often do not follow our own Bible... and so no one should. Abash we should stand, but rather, we call each other names, showing our immense need for Christ.
If you pass on modern prophets, and I am no such of a thing, this should mean you accept the original ones, like Paul, who teaches us about head covering in worship. Yes, listen to him. Not me. And if you read the early church writings, and the church fathers, and even the reformed theologians, like Calvin, Wesley, Luther, etc., they agree with Paul, as they all should. Well, rather it is the Holy Spirit through Paul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering
And , yes, Wiki is often a bad source. On this subject though, Wiki did well. I think Wiki did such a good job because they enjoy making the church look bad. Wiki goes into the scripture of head coverings. Wiki points out how the majority of scholars agree on the head covering. Wiki points out how the church practiced head covering until the 1960's, until the sexual revolution and feminist pride came against the worship practice. Wiki points out the denominations that still worship this way.
Wiki does all this because it screams out loud that most of us in the west are hypocrites, as we often do not follow our own Bible... and so no one should. Abash we should stand, but rather, we call each other names, showing our immense need for Christ.
-
1
- Show all
I have studied the views voiced in the books, journals, papers, and podcasts even. I even know of the ones that are "nuts" (if you have read that one, you will get the pun that pertains to semen, LOL). None of those opinions matter. We should follow holy scripture, and not deconstruct, deform, or dismiss it.
It does not matter that there has been cultural (and scientific) change, and I will back it up with the example of foot washing. We no longer do this in society. We no longer have servants that wash feet. And, we do not wear sandals in a dusty land. Yet, as a worship practice, we still occasionally wash feet. Even the Pope. I do not know if you have ever done this. If the Lord leads you to do this, obey, then I think you will understand. The practice of head covering in worship is like that. We should do it in obedience to holy scripture. If we deem it a "non-issue" and throw out the practice, it has a cascading effect, and other things will get thrown out. This is no bueno.
It does not matter that there has been cultural (and scientific) change, and I will back it up with the example of foot washing. We no longer do this in society. We no longer have servants that wash feet. And, we do not wear sandals in a dusty land. Yet, as a worship practice, we still occasionally wash feet. Even the Pope. I do not know if you have ever done this. If the Lord leads you to do this, obey, then I think you will understand. The practice of head covering in worship is like that. We should do it in obedience to holy scripture. If we deem it a "non-issue" and throw out the practice, it has a cascading effect, and other things will get thrown out. This is no bueno.
An examination of the meanings of the Greek words in the context of the passage seem to bear out the following:
Intrinsic to the idea of a 'covering' is the necessity of it "covering" the 'entire'/'whole' head.
In the context of this passage - in the 'grammar of the language' - it [apparently] includes the back of the neck.
It is a shame for a man's hair to be long enough to conceal the back of his neck.
It is a glory for a woman's hair to be long enough to conceal the back of her neck.
Hence/Thus, long hair is "bad"/"wrong" for a man but "good"/"right" for a woman.
It does not say that a woman's hair must be long. (However, it is a glory to her if it is.)
A woman's hair - IF it is long [enough to conceal the back of her neck] - is considered to be a covering. Otherwise, it is not - and, she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
The phrase 'shorn or shaven' in verse 6 is significant - meaning "having cut hair" or "having short or no hair" - due to the inclusion of both words together.
The end of verse 5 is saying that - if her hair is not long enough, it is the same as if she were bald. (with regard to the dishonor)
Verse 6 is saying that - if her hair is not long enough, then she may-as-well/should be bald - but - if it be a shame (culturally) for her to have cut hair - or, short-or-no hair - then she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
This allows for her to have cut hair - or, short-or-no hair - if it is not [culturally] a shame for her to do so - but that - if she is going to "pray or prophesy", she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
~
And, indeed - all of this is closely associated with God's authority structure and His intent that there be an obvious distinction in the appearance of men and women.
Intrinsic to the idea of a 'covering' is the necessity of it "covering" the 'entire'/'whole' head.
In the context of this passage - in the 'grammar of the language' - it [apparently] includes the back of the neck.
It is a shame for a man's hair to be long enough to conceal the back of his neck.
It is a glory for a woman's hair to be long enough to conceal the back of her neck.
Hence/Thus, long hair is "bad"/"wrong" for a man but "good"/"right" for a woman.
It does not say that a woman's hair must be long. (However, it is a glory to her if it is.)
A woman's hair - IF it is long [enough to conceal the back of her neck] - is considered to be a covering. Otherwise, it is not - and, she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
The phrase 'shorn or shaven' in verse 6 is significant - meaning "having cut hair" or "having short or no hair" - due to the inclusion of both words together.
The end of verse 5 is saying that - if her hair is not long enough, it is the same as if she were bald. (with regard to the dishonor)
Verse 6 is saying that - if her hair is not long enough, then she may-as-well/should be bald - but - if it be a shame (culturally) for her to have cut hair - or, short-or-no hair - then she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
This allows for her to have cut hair - or, short-or-no hair - if it is not [culturally] a shame for her to do so - but that - if she is going to "pray or prophesy", she should [wear a veil] so that she is covered.
~
And, indeed - all of this is closely associated with God's authority structure and His intent that there be an obvious distinction in the appearance of men and women.
-
2
- Show all
If that is a depiction of your wife it kinda looks like you did a bit of cherry picking yourself ....
... doesn't depicting an image of your wife break the first commandment?
I actually believe in following the scripture just as closely as we possibly can .... God is amazingly long suffering towards our foibles. There are times when God visits His people in revival power which can only be described in terms of majesty and awe ... at such times men and women learn to dot their i s and cross their t s
... doesn't depicting an image of your wife break the first commandment?
I actually believe in following the scripture just as closely as we possibly can .... God is amazingly long suffering towards our foibles. There are times when God visits His people in revival power which can only be described in terms of majesty and awe ... at such times men and women learn to dot their i s and cross their t s
-
1
- Show all