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.
I read & re-read this, & see that this isn't mandatory. AAMOF, the last verse plainly states if this causes contention, then "we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."
Since contention has been caused in the Op, shouldn't we do as Paul says? Instead we are causing more contention by arguing about it.
As usual, we got it totally backwards again.
Get a cup of joe, & stop & think about it.
Since contention has been caused in the Op, shouldn't we do as Paul says? Instead we are causing more contention by arguing about it.
As usual, we got it totally backwards again.
Get a cup of joe, & stop & think about it.
-
1
- Show all
"... cut and dry" haw haw ... you mean there are short back and sides to this debate what you might call fringe opinions
what you might call fringe opinions
Nice pick up. I didn't notice the pun till now.
-
1
- Show all
This is true. Not all commentaries agree. We have to educate ourselves over time and make educated decisions as to which interpretation is the better one based on sound hermeneutics.
When it comes to 1 Corinthians, I have much more confidence in the expertise of the Greek Scholar and Manuscript expert Gordon Fee than of Matthew Henry.
Gordon presents his reasons for his interpretation on this chapter in a much more convincing method than MH. Also Fees 900 page commentary on 1 Corinthians is superior to anything MH wrote on 1 Corinthians.
As a matter of fact MH did not write his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Did you know that?
If I remember correctly he wrote the OT commentary and before he completed Acts he died. A group of theologians were given access to his library and notes and from those notes and other writings he had done they wrote the rest of the NT commentary in Matthew Henry's name. Which would make these comments on 1 Corinthians suspect as to whether it was Mathew Henry's views or the group of theologians writing in his name.
At any rate we have come a long way in biblical hermeneutics and knowledge since Matthew Henry and one would greatly benefit from modern works. (Evangelical, bible believers of course)
So even if you have some commentary authors that present their case for why they believe New Testament Christian women should cover their heads in church, and others that present a different interpretation you as the reader can determine which one is doing a better job of presenting their case following the rules of hermeneutics. So far, I believe that the interpretation that it was a custom used to make a point but not intended by Paul for his readers to think he was commanding such a custom upon the churches, and that is why he made that statement.
Those that present their case for making it a rule for NT women have not done a good job of it and that is why I reject their flawed reasonings and hermeneutics of the text itself.
And your point about a commentary author applies to anyone. Just because someone believes that Paul was commanding that Church women cover their heads does not mean they are correct in their interpretation. We must do the work of bible interpretation (hermeneutics) and make our own educated decisions.
The reason I lean toward my view is because those that I have read who have presented their heremeneutical reasons did a better job of it.
Oh I should add. The very first time I read it, while in prison, with no religious background and never having heard anything about this in my life, I understood Paul to be saying not to let anyone put this custom on the women in your church. If they tried to be contentious about it, then give them this verse. I remember the first time I encountered someone who was asking me about it in prison, I pointed to this statement by Paul and they understood it clearly after that. No such custom for the churches.
So my point being that it was not a commentary but a simple reading of the English that made me understand it this way.
However, good commentaries by Greek and textual experts are valuable to me because I don't know Greek yet. And what I discover is that I agree with the reasons given from the technical explanations by people like Fee.
But this is one of those passages that is difficult with many different ideas presented by people and discovering which one is correct if any, takes diligent, patient careful study. Be open to learn things about the Greek syntax, customs of the times that might apply, the rest of the teachings of Paul that might seem contrary to your interpretations, etc. We really should not jump to conclusions. Something like this that is so questionable should never be interpreted as a sin if people aren't doing it.
Especially since it is hard to determine what "It" is that one should do.
When it comes to 1 Corinthians, I have much more confidence in the expertise of the Greek Scholar and Manuscript expert Gordon Fee than of Matthew Henry.
Gordon presents his reasons for his interpretation on this chapter in a much more convincing method than MH. Also Fees 900 page commentary on 1 Corinthians is superior to anything MH wrote on 1 Corinthians.
As a matter of fact MH did not write his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Did you know that?
If I remember correctly he wrote the OT commentary and before he completed Acts he died. A group of theologians were given access to his library and notes and from those notes and other writings he had done they wrote the rest of the NT commentary in Matthew Henry's name. Which would make these comments on 1 Corinthians suspect as to whether it was Mathew Henry's views or the group of theologians writing in his name.
At any rate we have come a long way in biblical hermeneutics and knowledge since Matthew Henry and one would greatly benefit from modern works. (Evangelical, bible believers of course)
So even if you have some commentary authors that present their case for why they believe New Testament Christian women should cover their heads in church, and others that present a different interpretation you as the reader can determine which one is doing a better job of presenting their case following the rules of hermeneutics. So far, I believe that the interpretation that it was a custom used to make a point but not intended by Paul for his readers to think he was commanding such a custom upon the churches, and that is why he made that statement.
Those that present their case for making it a rule for NT women have not done a good job of it and that is why I reject their flawed reasonings and hermeneutics of the text itself.
And your point about a commentary author applies to anyone. Just because someone believes that Paul was commanding that Church women cover their heads does not mean they are correct in their interpretation. We must do the work of bible interpretation (hermeneutics) and make our own educated decisions.
The reason I lean toward my view is because those that I have read who have presented their heremeneutical reasons did a better job of it.
Oh I should add. The very first time I read it, while in prison, with no religious background and never having heard anything about this in my life, I understood Paul to be saying not to let anyone put this custom on the women in your church. If they tried to be contentious about it, then give them this verse. I remember the first time I encountered someone who was asking me about it in prison, I pointed to this statement by Paul and they understood it clearly after that. No such custom for the churches.
So my point being that it was not a commentary but a simple reading of the English that made me understand it this way.
However, good commentaries by Greek and textual experts are valuable to me because I don't know Greek yet. And what I discover is that I agree with the reasons given from the technical explanations by people like Fee.
But this is one of those passages that is difficult with many different ideas presented by people and discovering which one is correct if any, takes diligent, patient careful study. Be open to learn things about the Greek syntax, customs of the times that might apply, the rest of the teachings of Paul that might seem contrary to your interpretations, etc. We really should not jump to conclusions. Something like this that is so questionable should never be interpreted as a sin if people aren't doing it.
Especially since it is hard to determine what "It" is that one should do.
-
1
- Show all
Thus Paul is not arguing that men must wear their hair short, or that women must have long hair, as though “nature” meant some kind of “created order.”
After all, according to the narrative in Acts (18:18) Paul had apparently worn long hair for a time in Corinth as part of a vow. But the very nature of the vow—both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again—demonstrates the “normalcy” of shorter hair on men, as is also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture. The “disgrace” lay in the very “unnaturalness” of long hair in Greco-Roman culture.
Fee, Gordon D.. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 583). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
After all, according to the narrative in Acts (18:18) Paul had apparently worn long hair for a time in Corinth as part of a vow. But the very nature of the vow—both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again—demonstrates the “normalcy” of shorter hair on men, as is also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture. The “disgrace” lay in the very “unnaturalness” of long hair in Greco-Roman culture.
Fee, Gordon D.. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 583). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Paul dealt with the issue because woman where being told / forced to wear head coverings when they wanted to pray.. He was dismissing the custom.. Yes woman long hair is a glory to them.. So why cover up a glory as if it is a shame.. Men's short hair is a glory to them and they can pray without a head covering.. Paul also had to deal with the topic of circumcision in the same way..
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You ask, "along with sodomites? " You are comparing sodomy... with a worship practice. I think that is a very, very weird thing to ask. We are talking about liturgy here. You could maybe compare it to foot washing, only more common - or, at least it used to be. And as far as how I read it, that is the normal way to read it in English, and in Greek. The way I understand it lines up with the historical understanding in Christendom, down through the centuries. But you can follow these recent egalitarian and other liberal scholars if you want. Not me.
Stepping forward with works from modern scholars that make money scratching the ears of their eager constituency, it's cliché. Such scholars were formed in the same reprobate generation, my sad generation, that brings us abortions incorporated & celebrated, feminist & gay pride, gender & sexuality spectrum, and counts dressing like the opposite sex & genital mutilation as bravery, even for children. Likewise, scholastic idiot savants mutilate the Bible ---and by prideful alchemy they trans-mutate holy scripture into doctrinal elixirs that intoxicate its addicted drinkers. This drink comes in many flavors. Scripture interpretation spectrum, you know, to go along with our gender spectrum. And it's funny when intoxicated graduates of liberal seminaries or courses of study think they understand ancient Greek better than... those that actually spoke ancient Greek - more on that below.
And here we are. Forbidden fruit bearing women bishops and transitioning priests. Gay pride blessings and weddings. Child molester priest parties and crimes . Etc. See the bad fruit. The fruit is bad because the trees are corrupt (Matt. 7:15–20). The trees are corrupt because they grow in a land, both the physical and spiritual land, that is polluted. Look around. You know it is true. And bad fruit sours stomachs, and causes diarrhea, of the mouth even. But the trees that bear good fruit, that grow in a fruitful land, they are not now, not today.
No, I reject these progressive scholars and will not follow them when they deconstruct holy scripture and go against centuries old understandings, and I encourage my brothers and sisters in the Lord to do likewise. Rather, we should listen to what the church has said during times that she was not such the whore. We should listen to the likes of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering
Stepping forward with works from modern scholars that make money scratching the ears of their eager constituency, it's cliché. Such scholars were formed in the same reprobate generation, my sad generation, that brings us abortions incorporated & celebrated, feminist & gay pride, gender & sexuality spectrum, and counts dressing like the opposite sex & genital mutilation as bravery, even for children. Likewise, scholastic idiot savants mutilate the Bible ---and by prideful alchemy they trans-mutate holy scripture into doctrinal elixirs that intoxicate its addicted drinkers. This drink comes in many flavors. Scripture interpretation spectrum, you know, to go along with our gender spectrum. And it's funny when intoxicated graduates of liberal seminaries or courses of study think they understand ancient Greek better than... those that actually spoke ancient Greek - more on that below.
And here we are. Forbidden fruit bearing women bishops and transitioning priests. Gay pride blessings and weddings. Child molester priest parties and crimes . Etc. See the bad fruit. The fruit is bad because the trees are corrupt (Matt. 7:15–20). The trees are corrupt because they grow in a land, both the physical and spiritual land, that is polluted. Look around. You know it is true. And bad fruit sours stomachs, and causes diarrhea, of the mouth even. But the trees that bear good fruit, that grow in a fruitful land, they are not now, not today.
Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ Jeremiah 6:16
No, I reject these progressive scholars and will not follow them when they deconstruct holy scripture and go against centuries old understandings, and I encourage my brothers and sisters in the Lord to do likewise. Rather, we should listen to what the church has said during times that she was not such the whore. We should listen to the likes of these:
Church Father Irenaeus (c.130 - c.202), the last living connection to the Apostles, wrote Against Heresies, in Greek. He explained that the "power" or "authority" on a woman's head when praying and prophesying was a cloth veil (κάλυμμα kalumma).
Church Father Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170- c. 235) , with Greek being his native tongue, said that in church gatherings "… let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering."
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220), who spoke Greek & Latin, instructed that the head coverings should be substantial head scarves. He explains that in his days, the women of the Corinthian church from the age of puberty onwards practiced Christian head covering despite the fact that non-Christians in the region did not. They did this because of Paul's letter.
The Didascalia Apostolorum, composed around 250 AD, in Greek, claims to come from the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, and it even recommended the head covering in public.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), an early Christian theologian, wrote the Paedagogus in the year 180 AD, in Greek. In it he wrote " it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253) , in Greek, wrote, "There are angels in the midst of our assembly … we have here a two fold Church, one of men, the other of angels … And since there are angels present … women, when , they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads..."
Early Church Father John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407) , who also spoke Greek, promoted Paul's instructions.
I could keep going, but maybe you think these Greek speakers' don't understand Greek as well as we do now, LOL. Or, you may think that these are Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, and so you do not want to listen to them, because they are not Protestant. Fine. Then listen to these. Martin Luther encouraged wives to wear a veil in public worship . In the "The Lutheran Liturgy", it is written, "It is laudable custom, based upon a Scriptural injunction (1 Cor. 11:3-15), for women to wear an appropriate head covering in Church..."
John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed Churches called for head coverings in public worship.
John Knox, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, also called for women to wear head coverings to church.
John Wesley, founder of Methodist Church, explained that a woman, "especially in a religious assembly", should "keep on her veil".
Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in North America, taught that women should veil themselves in worship, because this was the practice of the early Church.
I could continue with more Protestants that actually follow what Paul wrote. But, then came the 60's. Sexual revolution. Feminism. Gay pride. Transgenderism. And they listen to the likes of Gordon Fee... and are convinced that his Greek is better, LOL. Here is some more art that I made. May the Lord shine His light upon you all, each and everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering
Are we given any reason why one is okay and the other not? It seems so arbitrary, to say one
is an offense and the other isn't, when both men's and women's hair can grow to great length.
That is to say, God could have decreed that long hair on a woman was an offense, and short
hair on a man an offense. It's not like God has hair, is it? With a Nazarite vow, as we know
through Samson, his strength was not in the length of his hair. Interesting, though, that they
were not to cut their hair. This was simply one of a few means of setting them apart. So
consecrating one's self to God actually went against what it says regarding hair length for men.
I can understand head coverings for women as a means of shielding their beauty from the wickedness of men.
In that case, perhaps we should be wearing burkas, after all.
is an offense and the other isn't, when both men's and women's hair can grow to great length.
That is to say, God could have decreed that long hair on a woman was an offense, and short
hair on a man an offense. It's not like God has hair, is it? With a Nazarite vow, as we know
through Samson, his strength was not in the length of his hair. Interesting, though, that they
were not to cut their hair. This was simply one of a few means of setting them apart. So
consecrating one's self to God actually went against what it says regarding hair length for men.
I can understand head coverings for women as a means of shielding their beauty from the wickedness of men.
In that case, perhaps we should be wearing burkas, after all.
Early church writers wrote a lot of things I don't agree with. Their interpretations and ideas were all over the place. It is no surprise that some of them misunderstood this passage just as you do. It is one of those kinds of passages.
It is no surprise that many throughout church history have misunderstood it and will do so until Jesus comes again.
If you want to focus on this mission of women head covering instead of the Gospel and church planting go ahead. But I believe it will turn out to be wood, hay and stubble at the judgment seat of Christ.
Everyone has to walk in the light they receive from the Lord. I personally get a "Pharisee" vibe over this practice and it comes across like "look at me, don't I look holy in this head covering" in which my response would be "No, not at all. You look superstitious and self deluded, and possibly prideful" but I don't want to judge. God knows the heart. I will leave it to each person's own conscience like keeping sabbaths, eating certain foods, etc.
It is no surprise that many throughout church history have misunderstood it and will do so until Jesus comes again.
If you want to focus on this mission of women head covering instead of the Gospel and church planting go ahead. But I believe it will turn out to be wood, hay and stubble at the judgment seat of Christ.
Everyone has to walk in the light they receive from the Lord. I personally get a "Pharisee" vibe over this practice and it comes across like "look at me, don't I look holy in this head covering" in which my response would be "No, not at all. You look superstitious and self deluded, and possibly prideful" but I don't want to judge. God knows the heart. I will leave it to each person's own conscience like keeping sabbaths, eating certain foods, etc.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You did not explain this. It is shocking to me, that you would compare someone that follows, or does not follow, a certain liturgical practice in a worship service to someone that practices sodomy... or claim that I did so. Quote me. You can't. So, I can on conclude that you resort to dishonest tactics . Please, let none of us be that way.
At first, you claimed that the reason I do not follow a progressive interpretation relates to me not understanding Greek, as well as Glee does. So, I showed you that those that spoke the same Greek as Paul also understood it in the same way, and even wrote it down in that same Greek, that a woman should cover her head in church. Now, now you write that it is not about the Greek, it is about their ideas and how the early church fathers just misunderstood... and instead of listening to them, you listen to a modern day, progressive, money-making scholar with an agenda, like Glee, and you claim that his Greek is better and that he knows more than them.
Again, you previously indicated that I misunderstood the passage based upon my faulty understanding of English. Then, I showed you that church leaders of Protestantism, many of which spoke English, and other languages, they too understood it in the same way, that a woman should cover her head in church. Now, now you say they just misunderstood, just like the Church Fathers
If you wish to disagree with the church fathers and leaders of Protestantism, that is your choice. But it is dishonest for you to claim that everyone that follows the apostolic, traditional view is wrong, because of their bad Greek or English. You are back pedaling now, but that is what your wrote. If you choose to believe it the way you do, it is for OTHER reasons, and you should be able to see that now. Saying that the church fathers and protestant leaders are wrong, that can be your honest opinion, but saying it is about bad Greek and English, that is not honest.
Mission. I do not think you understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with new converts. This is me pointing out to my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are allowing progressive preachers, like the egalitarian Glee, to teach a different Gospel - the head coverings is the tip of the iceberg. He is not the only one. They deconstruct the scriptures with their money making, agenda driven, ear scratching scholarship and preaching. No such church should be planted, or attended. Just as Glee tears down the Gospel for his egalitarianism, so do others for gay pride, and they follow the trail that he and others have blazed. It's a bad trail.
You believe that my effort to show my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are being led astray from holy scriptures will be as wood, hay, and stubble before the judgement seat of Christ. But surely, this dishonesty about bad Greek and English that you put forward is even less than stubble, hay, or wood. It is remarkable that you actually think that all this is actually about head coverings, rather than obedience and submission to God according to the holy scriptures that have not been changed by ear scratchers.
So, to you, a woman covering her head in church looks:
1. Superstitious - It would be that for someone that does not actually believe in Angels, seeing as how that word means "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings". Paul did write, in verse 10, that the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
2. Self deluded - Seeing how that means "failure to recognize reality", I guess you would think that if you do not actually believe in the supernatural.
3. Prideful - That is your worst idea. In fact, it is actually the OPPOSITE of what you wrote... because a woman covering her head in church is the opposite of pride, for she is openly demonstrating that she is submitting to the hierarchy of God, and testifies even to the Angels. Do you really see that as "prideful" ?
I think you should use different eyes. And, I agree that you should not judge, certainly not with those eyes.
You wrote that it personally gives you a pharisee vibe. It should give you no more a pharisee vibe than the accompanying instructions for the Lord's Supper. He gave those instructions immediately after the instructions about the head covering. Do those instructions give you that pharisee vibe too , or just the things about gender?
One thing that you are right about, God does know the heart.
At first, you claimed that the reason I do not follow a progressive interpretation relates to me not understanding Greek, as well as Glee does. So, I showed you that those that spoke the same Greek as Paul also understood it in the same way, and even wrote it down in that same Greek, that a woman should cover her head in church. Now, now you write that it is not about the Greek, it is about their ideas and how the early church fathers just misunderstood... and instead of listening to them, you listen to a modern day, progressive, money-making scholar with an agenda, like Glee, and you claim that his Greek is better and that he knows more than them.
Again, you previously indicated that I misunderstood the passage based upon my faulty understanding of English. Then, I showed you that church leaders of Protestantism, many of which spoke English, and other languages, they too understood it in the same way, that a woman should cover her head in church. Now, now you say they just misunderstood, just like the Church Fathers
If you wish to disagree with the church fathers and leaders of Protestantism, that is your choice. But it is dishonest for you to claim that everyone that follows the apostolic, traditional view is wrong, because of their bad Greek or English. You are back pedaling now, but that is what your wrote. If you choose to believe it the way you do, it is for OTHER reasons, and you should be able to see that now. Saying that the church fathers and protestant leaders are wrong, that can be your honest opinion, but saying it is about bad Greek and English, that is not honest.
Mission. I do not think you understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with new converts. This is me pointing out to my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are allowing progressive preachers, like the egalitarian Glee, to teach a different Gospel - the head coverings is the tip of the iceberg. He is not the only one. They deconstruct the scriptures with their money making, agenda driven, ear scratching scholarship and preaching. No such church should be planted, or attended. Just as Glee tears down the Gospel for his egalitarianism, so do others for gay pride, and they follow the trail that he and others have blazed. It's a bad trail.
You believe that my effort to show my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are being led astray from holy scriptures will be as wood, hay, and stubble before the judgement seat of Christ. But surely, this dishonesty about bad Greek and English that you put forward is even less than stubble, hay, or wood. It is remarkable that you actually think that all this is actually about head coverings, rather than obedience and submission to God according to the holy scriptures that have not been changed by ear scratchers.
So, to you, a woman covering her head in church looks:
1. Superstitious - It would be that for someone that does not actually believe in Angels, seeing as how that word means "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings". Paul did write, in verse 10, that the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels
2. Self deluded - Seeing how that means "failure to recognize reality", I guess you would think that if you do not actually believe in the supernatural.
3. Prideful - That is your worst idea. In fact, it is actually the OPPOSITE of what you wrote... because a woman covering her head in church is the opposite of pride, for she is openly demonstrating that she is submitting to the hierarchy of God, and testifies even to the Angels. Do you really see that as "prideful" ?
I think you should use different eyes. And, I agree that you should not judge, certainly not with those eyes.
You wrote that it personally gives you a pharisee vibe. It should give you no more a pharisee vibe than the accompanying instructions for the Lord's Supper. He gave those instructions immediately after the instructions about the head covering. Do those instructions give you that pharisee vibe too , or just the things about gender?
One thing that you are right about, God does know the heart.
-
1
- Show all
2 Tim 2:23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
I have succinctly expressed my views. I am not interested in arguing about this, or foot washing either. I don't believe Jesus was telling the disciples to observe foot washing as a religious act either. My guess is that you probably do.
I believe you have misunderstood the authors intention and like many others have gone beyond the point he was trying to make.
I am perfectly fine letting you believe how you wish. You will have to let me believe as I do. God will sort it out.
One thing is certain, Jesus does not want me in a "right fight" with a stranger on the internet.
I have succinctly expressed my views. I am not interested in arguing about this, or foot washing either. I don't believe Jesus was telling the disciples to observe foot washing as a religious act either. My guess is that you probably do.
I believe you have misunderstood the authors intention and like many others have gone beyond the point he was trying to make.
I am perfectly fine letting you believe how you wish. You will have to let me believe as I do. God will sort it out.
One thing is certain, Jesus does not want me in a "right fight" with a stranger on the internet.
This is a tough issue because if we understand it one way we might not do something God wants us to do, and if we understand it another way we might expect people to do something God doesn't expect them to do- which is also bad. Whatever the right answer is, I feel strongly that dismissing the issue is not the correct answer.
I hope you realize that those who dissent from your opinion understand this verse as an answer to Paul's question "is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?" where "women praying to God uncovered" would be the custom the church does not have. So, just re-posting this verse isn't going to be persuasive.
Somebody might say, "Paul said 'judge in yourselves:' ", which is true- but that particular phrase is used in other cases where it really means more like "reason for yourselves", or "think it through" where there is only one objectively correct way of thinking about something.
I definitely agree that the writings of the "church fathers" as they are called now, are unreliable. And I find the protestant reformationists writings to be even more unreliable, or worse.
I think (what is supposedly) Tertullian's writing "veiling of virgins" on this subject is very persuasive. Tertullian seems to have been very good at dismantling silly, illogical arguments. I don't get the sense that his writings were 'inspired', but there is sound logic for the most part.
One issue I have- Tertullian says that he fellowshipped with the Corinth Church, but I do wonder if the Church at Corinth really lasted past the Battle of Corinth, where it was taken by Romans in 146. According to wikipedia, at least, which we are using as a "preliminary source" in this case says-
The Romans had moved swiftly since the war's beginning a few weeks earlier; they had destroyed the main Achaean force at Scarpheia, conquered Boeotia and then proceeded to Corinth itself. Despite the Roman successes, the Achaeans refused to surrender and gathered a final army for the defense of the League's capital of Corinth, where they engaged the Romans in battle. In a few hours of fighting, the Achaeans were soundly routed, with their troops killed, captured, or put to flight. After a few day's waiting, the Romans entered the city, and, on the orders of Mummius, set it on fire, killed all the men and enslaved all the women and children, after which the rest of Greece was subjugated by Rome.
If this is true, then the Church either relocated, or was routed by the Romans. (or martyred)
I hope you realize that those who dissent from your opinion understand this verse as an answer to Paul's question "is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?" where "women praying to God uncovered" would be the custom the church does not have. So, just re-posting this verse isn't going to be persuasive.
Somebody might say, "Paul said 'judge in yourselves:' ", which is true- but that particular phrase is used in other cases where it really means more like "reason for yourselves", or "think it through" where there is only one objectively correct way of thinking about something.
I definitely agree that the writings of the "church fathers" as they are called now, are unreliable. And I find the protestant reformationists writings to be even more unreliable, or worse.
I think (what is supposedly) Tertullian's writing "veiling of virgins" on this subject is very persuasive. Tertullian seems to have been very good at dismantling silly, illogical arguments. I don't get the sense that his writings were 'inspired', but there is sound logic for the most part.
One issue I have- Tertullian says that he fellowshipped with the Corinth Church, but I do wonder if the Church at Corinth really lasted past the Battle of Corinth, where it was taken by Romans in 146. According to wikipedia, at least, which we are using as a "preliminary source" in this case says-
The Romans had moved swiftly since the war's beginning a few weeks earlier; they had destroyed the main Achaean force at Scarpheia, conquered Boeotia and then proceeded to Corinth itself. Despite the Roman successes, the Achaeans refused to surrender and gathered a final army for the defense of the League's capital of Corinth, where they engaged the Romans in battle. In a few hours of fighting, the Achaeans were soundly routed, with their troops killed, captured, or put to flight. After a few day's waiting, the Romans entered the city, and, on the orders of Mummius, set it on fire, killed all the men and enslaved all the women and children, after which the rest of Greece was subjugated by Rome.
If this is true, then the Church either relocated, or was routed by the Romans. (or martyred)
Whoa, my bad. Battle of Corinth is 146 BC. Already Roman controlled by the Apostolic times; however-
There is still the issue of the Roman persecutions preceding the time of Tertullian- his writings are a couple of generations removed from Paul, so- essentially the question is, is this the same "Corinthian Church"?
There is still the issue of the Roman persecutions preceding the time of Tertullian- his writings are a couple of generations removed from Paul, so- essentially the question is, is this the same "Corinthian Church"?