Both progressive and traditional types of Christians blatantly disobey the Bible... and this example about men and women proves it.

[SomeDisciple]

I like archeological evidence. Not saying this is definitive proof of anything, but he makes a point.

 

[Snacks]

Scripture states that long hair on men is against nature.

I’m bald so I have that goin’ for me. 😎

 

[Amanuensis]

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"?

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.

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Logic suggests that the custom is one of doing something, and not that of not doing something.

Also, using the rule of hermeneutics of theological context, and reading everything that Paul so passionately taught about not letting the Judaizers put Jewish customs on gentiles I have to conclude that Paul is saying here the same sort of thing.

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Using what Paul has said in other places to identify the authorial intent here would suggest that he is saying that the Churches should not be told that their women MUST cover their heads. It might be a custom, but it is not a custom of the Churches of God.

I think we have one half of a conversation and because of that people misunderstand what Paul was saying.

There are several things that Paul said that people have misunderstood and then taught something that is antithetical to everything else Paul preached and this should be a sign that a mistake in interpretation has been made.

I don't want to be too harsh as to why this happens. Sometimes people will change their minds over time as they read and study more. Sometimes people will ignore their conscience and dig in their heels with a bad interpretation because they have an agenda other than intellectual honesty. God knows the heart.

We all must do our best to hear what the Spirit is saying and with a clear conscience walk in that light. That is why I will not condemn or judge the man or woman who wants to embrace this custom of covering their heads. However I will warn them in love that if they are suggesting that another sister is sinning by not doing so then they should fear God and stop that. Let every sister be fully persuaded in her own mind.

The churches have no such law. And I said that. And I think I have the Spirit of God.

 

[Runningman]

I just don’t think Paul would instruct people imitate him and then tell people to do something he doesn’t do… such as wear a head covering. That would make Paul a hypocrite. I don’t believe Paul is a hypocrite so I’m inclined to believe he meant something else.

Really I don’t think he’s talking about literal head coverings at all.

Consider this verse:

1 Corinthians 11:7
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Paul is talking about a literal head of a man being the image and glory of God. Putting a veil over your head is, therefore, like covering up God’s literal image.

Furthermore, it isn’t just biological males who are made in God’s image; it’s the females, too. So why would a woman cover her head if it’s not right for a man to cover his head, according to Paul?

Genesis 1:27
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The problem with that is I am pretty sure God does not look like a human so Paul is not talking about actual fabric being placed over the head.

Another clue is here:

1 Corinthians 11:3
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The head of every man is not his literal head. The head of every man is actually not a head at all, but rather a person called Jesus Christ. The literal head of a woman is not a man. This is referring to authority figures I believe.

Paul is saying you shouldn’t put a covering on Jesus Christ, essentially. This isn’t even about actual fabric. I think we should rethink how we read this passage.

 

[HorseSoldier]

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.
View attachment 240956

LOL. Good one. I assure you, that picture does not depict my feeling at all. Maybe yours. NOT mine. If you stepped into the room with me, I would love you, just as I even do so now. That is NOT a credit to me. It is the Holy Spirit that empowers us to love one another. I am fairly certain that Paul and Peter did not look that way toward one another when they disagreed. And Peter eventually saw that Paul was right... just as I hope one day you come around. Maybe the Lord will grant you a dream, as He did Peter, and you will be compelled stop buying snake oil gospels, LOL.

 

[BeALamp]

I am new here. Please help me unpack this, and tell me why do you think most ignore this part of the Bible? First, here is some art I made. It's based upon my wife, wearing a head covering as she prays and prophesies.

View attachment 240825​

It looks like we all cherry-pick the Bible. Even those of us that consider ourselves to be hardcore Bible believing Christians of the traditionalist type. We like to point out how progressive Christians deconstruct, deform, or dismiss certain scriptures. It is strange that most of us western Christians do the same thing with the first part of 1 Corinthians 11.

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given [a]to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.​

The Corinth Church was out of line because they were not following the traditions that Paul previously taught them. He sent a letter reminding them that men should not cover their heads and women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. He also had instructions about the Lord's Supper. This is not about fashion nor food... but liturgy and proper worship.

In verse 16, it is written that the churches of God do not have a custom of a woman praying with her head u-n-c-o-v-e-r-e-d. So for centuries after Paul's letter women covered their heads in church... all the way until the sexual revolution and the feminist movement starting in the 1960's. Now, only certain denominations follow the instructions. Most Western churches ignore these holy scriptures. The people I talk to about this mostly have never heard of it. Or, they pretend that the scriptures mean other things, like it is about women having long hair, or that the letter was ONLY for the Corinthians, or it was a cultural thing of that time, or some other untrue thing. They skip that part of the scripture and only give attention to the part about the Lord's Supper.

Here is a pretty good article that explains the background and history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_head_covering

You might think that it is not a big deal if a guy wears a ball cap in church or if a woman does not cover her head. But head covering is not something Paul briefly touched on casually with a single sentence, like the "holy kiss" or "drink a little wine to help your stomach". See how Paul elaborated on the theology of it. The fact that Paul wrote that all the churches practiced this means that it is not merely an instruction unique to the area of Corinth. ADDITIONALLY, and more importantly, the fact that he connected this practice with creation, the natural order, and the Angels makes it a universality. After all, Angels are every time and place. THIS IS NO SMALL THING. A man not covering his head and a woman covering her head, this is an act of worship that shows that we are submitted to God.

It seems that we have now set aside holy scripture, mainly for feminist pride. And this distortion or deconstruction of holy scripture for an agenda has made the way for gay pride to do the same thing. Do we accept the writings of Paul, or just the parts we like? So, was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul? If we listen to Paul when it comes to the gifts of the spirit, the Lord's Supper, and on and on, why not about head coverings?

And the next thing you know, many Christians will cherry-pick the words of Christ, and ignore His definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). Wait, that is already happening....

It is my belief that the Traditions spoken of are just that; Traditions Not God's Law. The 10 Laws carved in stone cover things like morality and behaviour.

 

[peldom10]

I’d like to engage, but I suspect the op is a bomb thrower, who splits after tossing a bomb, and doesn’t address the various points made.

I also think it’s much about how he wanted everyone to see his artwork.

On the subject itself, we have freedom in Christ, if someone thinks it’s sin for a woman to pray uncovered, that’s on them.

The very interesting, and completely ignored nugget in the text is the part about “because of the angels”.

Why would an angel care if a woman’s head was covered while praying to God?

You surprise me with that basic question.
The Bible positions clearly on the issue.

Why isn't that acceptable to you as conclusion?

 

[peldom10]

It is my belief that the Traditions spoken of are just that; Traditions Not God's Law. The 10 Laws carved in stone cover things like morality and behaviour.

Why not seek answers from the Bible? Isn't that the purpose of scriptures?

 

[BeALamp]

Why not seek answers from the Bible? Isn't that the purpose of scriptures?

Ummm... that's where I got my beliefs/opinion from

 

[Dino246]

Ummm... that's where I got my beliefs/opinion from

That’s the problem: people who are willing to force their views on others (through shame and denigration) are quick to claim theirs are the only “right” interpretations. The two go hand in hand. They can’t accept that those with whom they disagree could possibly have biblically based or sound views.

 

[HorseSoldier]

That’s the problem: people who are willing to force their views on others (through shame and denigration) are quick to claim theirs are the only “right” interpretations. The two go hand in hand. They can’t accept that those with whom they disagree could possibly have biblically based or sound views.

And then the" problem", as you describe it, circles back upon itself.

Brother, and certainly you see the hypocrisy. I will use your word "denigrate", because it seems a little less subjective than the feeling of "shame": traditionalists denigrate progressives - progressives denigrate traditionalists. The answer as to who started it is in the very names. This, this happens in this very thread.

And, you may dislike my reference to a snake oil gospel. It is an apt reference. The evidence is all around. If someone has money issues, they may be easily attracted to the prosperity gospel. And, we have egalitarianism, black liberation theology, queer theology, etc. In all these places, the Gospel is a MINOR ingredient in the elixir being sold for that a person's ailment and pain. Even though the medical establishment is sometimes wrong, it is better than this voodoo.

Maybe a better reference would be a wild, wild west gospel, LOL.

Our remedy is Christ, and they will know we are His followers by our love for one another. And that we cannot do in our flesh - only by the power of the Holy Spirit... not theological snake oil elixirs.

 

[peldom10]

Ummm... that's where I got my beliefs/opinion from

...."traditions spoken of"......................does not conclude from the Bible. But, from man as folklore.

 

[Dino246]

And then the" problem", as you describe it, circles back upon itself.

Brother, and certainly you see the hypocrisy. I will use your word "denigrate", because it seems a little less subjective than the feeling of "shame": traditionalists denigrate progressives - progressives denigrate traditionalists. The answer as to who started it is in the very names. This, this happens in this very thread.

I can see how certain views different from my own are based on Scripture. I rarely encounter others who can see how my views, when different from theirs, are also based on Scripture. I don't denigrate others for holding different views. I might, however, call out their bad attitudes, hypocrisy, or illogic.

And, you may dislike my reference to a snake oil gospel. It is an apt reference. The evidence is all around. If someone has money issues, they may be easily attracted to the prosperity gospel. And, we have egalitarianism, black liberation theology, queer theology, etc

It's rather interesting (and not in a good way) that you lump these views together. The denigration is oozing.

 

[HorseSoldier]

And, you may dislike my reference to a snake oil gospel. It is an apt reference. The evidence is all around. If someone has money issues, they may be easily attracted to the prosperity gospel. And, we have egalitarianism, black liberation theology, queer theology, etc.

What I wrote was oozing with indignation, you say? Maybe a little. LOL.

Sadly though, ignorance does.

Yawn. I disagree with your interpretation. You are arrogant to think that yours is the only valid interpretation. Then again, despite your reasonably good knowledge of Scripture, you bleed arrogance, as though all that learning has merely inflated your ego instead of transforming your heart.

And your comments, also oozing with indignation... yet a little more personal.

That’s the problem: people who are willing to force their views on others (through shame and denigration) are quick to claim theirs are the only “right” interpretations. The two go hand in hand. They can’t accept that those with whom they disagree could possibly have biblically based or sound views.

Your quote above, I very well could have written the same thing to you. Stop pretending you are on the high road.

What settles this? Glee? Do the Church Fathers and the creeds mean nothing to you?

I can see how certain views different from my own are based on Scripture. I rarely encounter others who can see how my views, when different from theirs, are also based on Scripture. I don't denigrate others for holding different views. I might, however, call out their bad attitudes, hypocrisy, or illogic.

Come now. You do a bit more than that.

It's rather interesting (and not in a good way) that you lump these views together. The denigration is oozing.

Yes. It is interesting.

Head coverings. We both know the disagreement is not about fashion. It is about eliminating the liturgical worship practice because of the MEANING behind it, and the worldly culture rails against it. In fact, don't stop with 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Put on a pink hat, and ALSO deconstruct 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-5 , Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 3: 1-6. Get rid of all of them, even Peter's. Along with the OT references to headship and gender distinctions. Use all the tricks. Subjective context. Subjective history. Subjective Greek, and Hebrew, translation. And claim the Church Fathers did not know what they were talking about. Oh, wait, that has already been done .

Targeted deconstruction, for an agenda. Obedience, submission to the Holy Scriptures? No way, they say. Not here. Change it. Get Glee & the other ear scratchers on the job, LOL.

And GAY PRIDE has it's own list, in addition to this one, of Holy Scriptures to deconstruct. Peas in a pod, in the since that they all deconstruct Holy Scriptures in the same manner, for their agenda. And there are other peas. Or, maybe I should refer to them as tares in a pod. No. I am not an Angel. Our Lord did say that only the Angels can sort that out, in the end.

But, maybe I can warn. And pray. I pray that you, me, and each and every brother and sister here, and everywhere, will be as the wheat taken into the Master's Barn and not be burned in the fire. Please, Lord. We beseech You.

 

[Amanuensis]

Head coverings. We both know the disagreement is not about fashion. It is about eliminating the liturgical worship practice because of the MEANING behind it, and the worldly culture rails against it. In fact, don't stop with 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Put on a pink hat, and ALSO deconstruct 1 Corinthians 14:31-38, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, 1 Timothy 3:1-5 , Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 3: 1-6. Get rid of all of them, even Peter's. Along with the OT references to headship and gender distinctions. Use all the tricks. Subjective context. Subjective history. Subjective Greek, and Hebrew, translation. And claim the Church Fathers did not know what they were talking about. Oh, wait, that has already been done .

Targeted deconstruction, for an agenda. Obedience, submission to the Holy Scriptures? No way, they say. Not here. Change it. Get Glee & the other ear scratchers on the job, LOL.

And GAY PRIDE has it's own list, in addition to this one, of Holy Scriptures to deconstruct. Peas in a pod, in the since that they all deconstruct Holy Scriptures in the same manner, for their agenda. And there are other peas. Or, maybe I should refer to them as tares in a pod. No. I am not an Angel. Our Lord did say that only the Angels can sort that out, in the end.

But, maybe I can warn. And pray. I pray that you, me, and each and every brother and sister here, and everywhere, will be as the wheat taken into the Master's Barn and not be burned in the fire. Please, Lord. We beseech You.

You got all that from this?....

2Now I praise youA because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditionsa just as I deliveredb them to you. 3But I want you to know that Christ is the heada of every man, and the man is the head of the woman,a b and God is the head of Christ.c 4Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonorsa his head. 5Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved.a 6For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered.

7A man should not cover his head, because he is the imagea and glory of God.b So too, woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.a 9Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.a

13Judgea for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teacha you that if a man has long hair it is a disgraceb to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?a For her hair is given to herA as a covering. 16If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no otherA custom, nor do the churches of God.

 

[joecoten]

Well, we Christians may often get it wrong, by we have ourselves an amazing Father who loves us just the way we are...with all our warts and wrinkles! That, I am blatantly blatant about.
You should get off your high horse and join us!

 

[HorseSoldier]

You got all that from this?....

2Now I praise youA because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditionsa just as I deliveredb them to you. 3But I want you to know that Christ is the heada of every man, and the man is the head of the woman,a b and God is the head of Christ.c 4Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonorsa his head. 5Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved.a 6For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered.

7A man should not cover his head, because he is the imagea and glory of God.b So too, woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.a 9Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.a

13Judgea for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teacha you that if a man has long hair it is a disgraceb to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?a For her hair is given to herA as a covering. 16If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no otherA custom, nor do the churches of God.

Well, no. Much , much more than just this one passage.

Well, we Christians may often get it wrong, by we have ourselves an amazing Father who loves us just the way we are...with all our warts and wrinkles! That, I am blatantly blatant about.
You should get off your high horse and join us!

Amen and amen.

And about the horse, nice play on the name. My horse is not very high, maybe more like a colt, LOL.

 

[soberxp]

A beautiful painting.
I am glad that I am man.
If a woman only prays, she needs to cover her head. It's no big deal, because prayer should found a invisible place to others. It's like Abraham's faith.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Paul also teaches this.

"But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!" - Galatians 5:15

I do not wish to bite or devour anyone by what I write here. Get your attention, challenge, and even warn... yes, but not bite. If I have bitten anyone, please forgive me.

 

[Amanuensis]

Paul also teaches this.

"But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!" - Galatians 5:15

I do not wish to bite or devour anyone by what I write here. Get your attention, challenge, and even warn... yes, but not bite. If I have bitten anyone, please forgive me.

View attachment 241101

That is a very good response and I appreciate your sincere desire to understand scriptures that have a history of differences of interpretation among Christians world wide throughout the history of the church.

I believe that it is is edifying to exegete the text in 1 Corinthians 11 using rules of hermeneutics and with a sincere unbiased attempt to discover authorial intent.

It is edifying in CC to do so. We can all become very familiar with the text by doing so. This will help us think about things from the text we have not noticed before.

It stops being edifying and the objective of discovering authorial intent loses focus when we start talking about the motives of those who disagree with us. Making accusations about the sincerity of the motives of those who present another possible meaning that the author intended is not one of the rules of hermeneutics and does nothing for discovering the authorial intent. But it is a habit that is hard to break.

We should be able to leave a discussion open without hurling fireballs of judgment upon the heads of all those who disagree with us. That is a sure sign that we don't know how to exegete. LOL