Were head coverings just for Corinth?

[lawrenceb]

Carlos,

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (I Corinthians 11:9-10 KJV)

Short story: Fallen angels (i.e. Nephilim) found (and apparently still find) earthly women to be "attractive," hence the warning for women to remain under cover.

 

[Carlos]

So people are ignoring what you see as something which should not be ignored. Maybe this gives you a clue as what Jesus felt when in the end of the matter, even though some of those against Him clearly said, 'Man never sapke like this man', most people did not become ardent followers of God. They continued rather along the "wide way". Then again we understand in part here why Jesus wept.

Hi Amadeus,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I never got notice of your reply and assumed this thread had run it's course.

Yes...people are indeed ignoring the issue of head coverings (along with a number of other issues) and I have indeed come to realize, though to a very small degree in comparison to what Jesus went through, what it means to follow in His steps.

The visible church is absolutely FULL of people who profess to be believers but who have never surrendered themselves to God as God. They do not trust the Lord Jesus in the totality of who He is. They live for themselves. They embrace every excuse imaginable to ignore what God wants. And all along they call themselves Christians.

Many have embraced religious ritual in place of relationship with the Living God.

Regrettably the one's who have given me the most trouble are the folks who go to church, Sunday after Sunday. It's not the unbelievers but the so-called believers. Who fight tooth and nail against what God wants in this and other areas.

It's disgraceful but there is next to nothing that I can do about it. The Lord has made it clear to me that things like head coverings, the silence of women in church assembly, having multiple elders instead of this Head Pastor business, the free operation of spiritual gifts, and other such things...that these needed changes will never be accepted in established churches.

That new wine is needed.

That I am to trust Him to enable me to be a part of new wine. A framework of new believers or very young believers who will not be steeped in the traditions of modern day churchianity and who will be more open to embracing what God wants.

That is where I am focused now.

The Lord just led me to meet two apparently wonderful Christians just this last week who are not aligned hook, line, and sinker with established churches and who appear to be very open to implementing these things as the Lord sees fit.

They are out in the streets with signs for Jesus (i.e. holding signs proclaiming Jesus) and talking to people about the Gospel. I am getting with them and am hopeful that the Lord might lead us to start something new for His greater honor and glory.

I've given up trying to convince religious folks to embrace biblical truth.

What is needed is a more fundamental surrender to God before they will even be open to doing what the Bible says.

Carlos

 

[Carlos]

Hi Lawrence,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier Lawrence but I never got notice of your reply and just happened to see your response tonight as I manually came to the thread.

What you say about fallen angels being attracted to women is interesting but I don't see it as being the reason that Paul tells women to cover their heads.

First off there is no indication anywhere that covering the head of a woman will prevent fallen angels from being attracted to women (if indeed they are). I mean angels can see past a head covering can they not? If a woman puts on a head covering it does not make her invisible to the fallen angels!

Secondly notice the word "For" where it says "For this cause....". That is an important word to understanding why Paul said for women to cover their heads in context. The For means "Because of what I just said..." basically. And what preceded the "For"?

"...the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

So in other words a woman should cover her head NOT because it might stumble the fallen angels with respect to them being distracted by their beauty or something but rather because a woman is the glory of the man, because the man is not of the woman, because the woman is of the man (i.e. was created out of the man), and because the woman was created for the man.

When a woman does not wear a head covering, a symbol which openly embraces and acknowledges God's ordained order within the church when properly practiced, it goes against the grain of the created order such that it affects the angels negatively to see that open rebellion to God's order.

It is a rebelliousness that lines up with the kind of rebellion that the fallen angels engaged in when they rebelled against God's authority.

One might well conclude that it causes the angels a bit of consternation and irritation to see that rebellion surface again.

That has nothing to do with being attracted to women.

We must be careful to not superimpose on what is said things that are speculative at best and not supported by anything said in the text.

Carlos

 

[Whitestone]

I am writing an ebook (which I plan to give away freely) on head coverings and have tentatively arrived at a number of conclusions.

One of those being that the church as a whole, especially in Western nations, is WAY off in it's own conclusions on what Paul said. So much so that I sometimes wonder if rebellion in the church runs much deeper than I have previously thought.

But for purposes of this thread I am particularly interested in getting input on the following statement that represents one conclusion I have tentatively come to.

Please make sure you read this entire post before anyone gets to jumping all over me regarding my tentative conclusion. Please note in particular the number of times I have bolded the word tentative meaning that my statement of conclusion below is...well...tentative such that I am open and very desirous of hearing how it may not represent truth by God on this matter.

The one thing I do not want to do under any circumstances is publish a book with a conclusion that is faulty by the Lord.



Let me briefly explain why I have tentatively concluded the above.

Paul gave a number of reasons to support what he taught about head coverings. ALL his reasons are culturally neutral. Meaning that his reasons apply to all time and in all places due to being rooted in things like the creation order and other such things.

NONE of Paul's reasons for the practice of head coverings are connected with the culture in Corinth or any other New Testament culture at all.

Note that I said NONE.

New Testament churches universally rejected the custom of women praying to God with head uncovered. Such a thing was also rejected by most all churches until about the last 100 years.

If the above is accurate with respect to what is written then anyone who embraces a belief that the instructions on head coverings were just for Corinth would be...

Ignorant of what is written in that what is written clearly shows no cultural connection at all and lays out reasons that apply across all times and all cultures.

Deceived in embracing modern day conjecture, theory, assumption, or otherwise about the cultural relevance of head coverings only for Corinth while ignoring what is plainly written in the text.

Outright rebellious in simply ignoring what is written despite knowing what it says.

Now someone could be innocently mistaken about this but such would fall into the ignorant category since to be innocently mistaken implies an ignorance of what is written such that they could be innocent in being mistaken.

I would appreciate hearing any thoughts on how my conclusion is faulty not for the purpose of arguing but rather to allow me to scrap this conclusion if on further reflection based on input...my conclusion does not represent the heart of God on this.

Thanks.

Carlos

Amen brother

 

[amadeus2]

Hi Amadeus,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier but I never got notice of your reply and assumed this thread had run it's course.

Yes...people are indeed ignoring the issue of head coverings (along with a number of other issues) and I have indeed come to realize, though to a very small degree in comparison to what Jesus went through, what it means to follow in His steps.

Not everyone following Jesus is walking on exactly the same pathway, but their goal, hopefully, is to be one with Him. We are not walking on exactly the same pathway because we (those who are or are to be part of the Body of Christ) are not the same parts and therefore our functions (as ordered by God) are different.

The visible church is absolutely FULL of people who profess to be believers but who have never surrendered themselves to God as God. They do not trust the Lord Jesus in the totality of who He is. They live for themselves. They embrace every excuse imaginable to ignore what God wants. And all along they call themselves Christians.

All of us probably have faltered in our walk, but as was the case with King David, we must always be willing to admit our errors as soon as they are recognized (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and to repent, accepting whatever chastisement may be due to us. Unfortunately, as you indicate, some who claim the name ("Christian") move with the rich young ruler who wanted to justify himself but was unwilling to give up whatever Jesus asked of him (Matt 19:21).

Many have embraced religious ritual in place of relationship with the Living God.

Yes, it is not only the RCC that has taken on a lot of excess baggage in the form of rituals.

Regrettably the one's who have given me the most trouble are the folks who go to church, Sunday after Sunday. It's not the unbelievers but the so-called believers. Who fight tooth and nail against what God wants in this and other areas.

The unbelievers are likely to be those who are "cold", but it is the believers (or would-be believers) who are likely to be "lukewarm" (Rev 3:16).

It's disgraceful but there is next to nothing that I can do about it. The Lord has made it clear to me that things like head coverings, the silence of women in church assembly, having multiple elders instead of this Head Pastor business, the free operation of spiritual gifts, and other such things...that these needed changes will never be accepted in established churches.

No, there is nothing you can do, unless it is your calling to advise people. Even if that is your calling, God does not and does not expect us to force-feed anyone His Truth. Please note, that I am not necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with all that you believe. I am agreeing in particular with your assertion that there is altogether too much lukewarmness.

That new wine is needed.

With this I certainly agree.

That I am to trust Him to enable me to be a part of new wine. A framework of new believers or very young believers who will not be steeped in the traditions of modern day churchianity and who will be more open to embracing what God wants.

The main difficulty in delivering your message is obtaining that audience that will at least read or listen. Many of those of whom you speak will probably never be on any Christian forum.

The Lord just led me to meet two apparently wonderful Christians just this last week who are not aligned hook, line, and sinker with established churches and who appear to be very open to implementing these things as the Lord sees fit.

They are out in the streets with signs for Jesus (i.e. holding signs proclaiming Jesus) and talking to people about the Gospel. I am getting with them and am hopeful that the Lord might lead us to start something new for His greater honor and glory.

This is good, but some will be among the unbelievers who have almost no options readily available other than the traditional options offered by so many assemblies.

I've given up trying to convince religious folks to embrace biblical truth.

What is needed is a more fundamental surrender to God before they will even be open to doing what the Bible says.

Carlos

On this last, all you can do is what you are doing as well as praying. Ultimately, only God gives an increase to anyone.

 

[Whitestone]

Dear brother Carlos,
Greetings and salutations in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I bear witness of your perfect presentation, to your excellent witness of all you've shared in this thread.
It is a world full of armchair 'christians' who dilute the word of God with apathy and lukewarmness, only accepting the word up until it doesn't fit with one's comfort zone. Many are offended at the Word, because it hits them right between the eyes. You have illustrated the point perfectly with your interchange here. Many who haven't commented have read what you've presented and I'm sure some are chewing their lip in consideration. Maybe some will choose to die to their selves and fully embrace the word because of this, that would be wonderful. We all sow and water here and there, in the end, the fruit is manifest, then they are your reward in Christ Peace to you and keep up the good fight of Faith!
Whitestone

 

[lawrenceb]

The Bible uses several different terms to describe the Nephilim and provides us with a considerable amount of useful information on the subject. Unfortunately, numerous contemporary leaders as diverse as Hank Hanegraaff (the so-called "Bible Answerman") and Brother Stair ("The Last Day Prophet") have denied the literal rendering of the text and explained it away by other means. One group says the "sons of god" are really only the descendants of Adam's good son Seth, or they teach it is impossible to have a genetic mixture of angels and men. However, that is not what the Apostles or the early church fathers taught.

In the early Christian era, several wrtiters repeatedly confirmed the historicity of the Nephilim account. For instance, the famed Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the first century, recounted the battle with the giants in Canaan. Josephus says these descendants of the Nephilim "... had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing." The widely respected historian even adds that the bones of these giants "are still shown to this very day." (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 5, Ch 2 vs 3; The New Complete Works of Josephus, Translated by William Whiston, Commentary by Paul L. Maier, Kregel Books.)

Many other ancient Hebrew works that are considered quite trustworthy also testify concerning the truth about the Nephilim. The well-known book of Enoch speaks extensively about the Nephilim giants. However, the most trustworthy source is the Bible itself; and surprisingly, there is even a New Testament reference by no less an authority than the Apostle Paul.

The learned Apostle, when instructing the Corinthians concerning how women were to cover their hair lest they tempt others, said this was important "because of the angels." (I Cor 11:10).

This indicates that in the early church, one of the reasons women were told not to adorn themselves in a flashy manner was the concern that the angels might be tempted again to pursue them. In short, the Nephilim episode was, at least in the Apostolic age, widely known.

Genesis tells us these "Nephilim" (rendered as "Giants" in the King James Version) sired children that became "mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Gen 6:4). This important verse tells us these powerful men were quite famous, so the knowledge of these angelic hybrid humans was common. Many ancient pagan legends have similar tales of how the "gods" mixed with the beautiful daughters of Adam. For instance, the popular Grecian mythology has Zeus forced to put down a great rebellion at the hands of the Titans, who were the product of the sky-god Uranus and Gaia of the earth.

As incredible as it may sound, some of these supernatural individuals may be Greek echoes of real entities that are described in Genesis in the Nephilim episode. The Greek Titan names include Cronos and Atlas, who may, in fact, represent actual historical figures. Indeed, we are currently witnessing a renaissance of supernaturally powerful mythical characters such as Hercules and Xena. At least some of these legends are most likely distorted echoes of genuine ancient personalities.

In the end of the primary Greek epic, the Titans are banned by Zeus (the father god figure) to Tartarus, which is the Greek version of the lowest form of the underworld. This Greek word is translated as Hell in Peter's writings, so the Greek "echo" of the Biblical Nephilim story has the offenders cast into Tartarus -- the identical place in which the Bible says the Nephilim are currently bound.

There is another rather odd prophetic connection between the Grek "myth" of the Titans and the Scriptural account. While we know the Greek word Titan actually comes from the Arabic word Shaitan -- which in turn comes from the Hebrew word Satan -- few realize the contemporary prophetic connection. How ironic that now, in the last days, the number one movie of all time is about a famous boat, named after the Devil, that sank -- The Titanic. This demonstrates The Titanic[/u] is an appropriate metaphor for the demon infested nation of America -- who seems to think that she is above the judgment of God.

Of course, the main reason all of this is so prophetically significant is the fact that the terrible episode of the fallen ones is the primary Scriptural account of conditions that were prevalent in the days of Noah. Indeed, this is the only significant story describing the way things were just before the judgment of the great flood. When asked what world conditions would be like just before His second coming, Jesus Christ said "... as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matt 24:37). Because the "days of Noah" were largely characterized by the evil leadership of the fallen ones, this is powerful evidence that we are about to see the re-appearance of the Rephaim.

 

[Whitestone]

The Bible uses several different terms to describe the Nephilim and provides us with a considerable amount of useful information on the subject. Unfortunately, numerous contemporary leaders as diverse as Hank Hanegraaff (the so-called "Bible Answerman") and Brother Stair ("The Last Day Prophet") have denied the literal rendering of the text and explained it away by other means. One group says the "sons of god" are really only the descendants of Adam's good son Seth, or they teach it is impossible to have a genetic mixture of angels and men. However, that is not what the Apostles or the early church fathers taught.

In the early Christian era, several wrtiters repeatedly confirmed the historicity of the Nephilim account. For instance, the famed Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the first century, recounted the battle with the giants in Canaan. Josephus says these descendants of the Nephilim "... had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing." The widely respected historian even adds that the bones of these giants "are still shown to this very day." (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 5, Ch 2 vs 3; The New Complete Works of Josephus, Translated by William Whiston, Commentary by Paul L. Maier, Kregel Books.)

Many other ancient Hebrew works that are considered quite trustworthy also testify concerning the truth about the Nephilim. The well-known book of Enoch speaks extensively about the Nephilim giants. However, the most trustworthy source is the Bible itself; and surprisingly, there is even a New Testament reference by no less an authority than the Apostle Paul.

The learned Apostle, when instructing the Corinthians concerning how women were to cover their hair lest they tempt others, said this was important "because of the angels." (I Cor 11:10).

This indicates that in the early church, one of the reasons women were told not to adorn themselves in a flashy manner was the concern that the angels might be tempted again to pursue them. In short, the Nephilim episode was, at least in the Apostolic age, widely known.

Genesis tells us these "Nephilim" (rendered as "Giants" in the King James Version) sired children that became "mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Gen 6:4). This important verse tells us these powerful men were quite famous, so the knowledge of these angelic hybrid humans was common. Many ancient pagan legends have similar tales of how the "gods" mixed with the beautiful daughters of Adam. For instance, the popular Grecian mythology has Zeus forced to put down a great rebellion at the hands of the Titans, who were the product of the sky-god Uranus and Gaia of the earth.

As incredible as it may sound, some of these supernatural individuals may be Greek echoes of real entities that are described in Genesis in the Nephilim episode. The Greek Titan names include Cronos and Atlas, who may, in fact, represent actual historical figures. Indeed, we are currently witnessing a renaissance of supernaturally powerful mythical characters such as Hercules and Xena. At least some of these legends are most likely distorted echoes of genuine ancient personalities.

In the end of the primary Greek epic, the Titans are banned by Zeus (the father god figure) to Tartarus, which is the Greek version of the lowest form of the underworld. This Greek word is translated as Hell in Peter's writings, so the Greek "echo" of the Biblical Nephilim story has the offenders cast into Tartarus -- the identical place in which the Bible says the Nephilim are currently bound.

There is another rather odd prophetic connection between the Grek "myth" of the Titans and the Scriptural account. While we know the Greek word Titan actually comes from the Arabic word Shaitan -- which in turn comes from the Hebrew word Satan -- few realize the contemporary prophetic connection. How ironic that now, in the last days, the number one movie of all time is about a famous boat, named after the Devil, that sank -- The Titanic. This demonstrates The Titanic[/u] is an appropriate metaphor for the demon infested nation of America -- who seems to think that she is above the judgment of God.

Of course, the main reason all of this is so prophetically significant is the fact that the terrible episode of the fallen ones is the primary Scriptural account of conditions that were prevalent in the days of Noah. Indeed, this is the only significant story describing the way things were just before the judgment of the great flood. When asked what world conditions would be like just before His second coming, Jesus Christ said "... as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matt 24:37). Because the "days of Noah" were largely characterized by the evil leadership of the fallen ones, this is powerful evidence that we are about to see the re-appearance of the Rephaim.

Pure nonsense.

 

[Carlos]

Hi Lawrence,

What you say is interesting Lawrence but the connection between any so-called Nephilim and any supposed attraction to women on their part and head coverings is...well...pure speculation.

The text makes NO such connection.

Any such connection is by virtue of that...conjecture.

You state...(I have bolded what I want to draw attention to)...

The learned Apostle, when instructing the Corinthians concerning how women were to cover their hair lest they tempt others, said this was important "because of the angels."

I have no problem with calling the Apostle...learned. He was.

I have no problem in saying that he was instructing the Corinthians concerning how women were to cover their hair. He was most certainly doing that!

Nor do I have a problem with saying that in part (though not exclusively so) that it was important that they do so "because of the angels".

But when you say that all this was "lest they tempt others" (presumably by their beauty based on your previous statements)...THAT I have a problem with.

Please show me where in the text, as written, it says anything about the need to cover up to avoid tempting anyone whatsoever (be that angels or men).

If nothing in the text says that...do you agree that such is speculative at best and that as such, not something we should stand on as being absolutely true?

Your thoughts?

Carlos

PS. By the way...I figured out why I was not getting notice of replies. They were all going into my SPAM folder LOL. Sorry about any implication that there was something wrong with this forum.

 

[lawrenceb]

Please show me where in the text, as written, it says anything about the need to cover up to avoid tempting anyone whatsoever (be that angels or men).

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Behold, thou [art] fair, my love; behold, thou [art] fair; thou [hast] doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair [is] as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me: thy hair [is] as a flock of goats that appear from Gilead.

Thine head upon thee [is] like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king [is] held in the galleries.

The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: [thy] breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou [wast] naked and bare.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

While they behold [the wife's] chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

 

[Carlos]

Hi Lawrence,

As I suspected and know to be the case...you cannot show me one verse in the whole of chapter 11 that says that women should cover up to avoid distracting the angels or even other men by their beauty.

What you have done, which is typical of false doctrinal beliefs, is bring in all kinds of other verses which show clearly that...well...that women are attractive and desirable in that sense. But you take these other verses that clearly show this and superimpose their thought on the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 and voila! You have the belief that you are trying to show.

But such a belief is a product of your own thinking.

Correct biblical interpretation doesn't work that way Lawrence. We can't pick and chose what we are going to superimpose on a given set of verses based on other verses. We must let all verses say whatever it is they are saying without conjecture, without assumption, without superimposing anything on them at all.

I am not saying that we do not take other verses into account. But what other verses say must be blended with the verses we are looking at in an objective manner without assuming anything.

The bible clearly says that women are attractive. It clearly says that women must be submissive. It clearly says that women bear children. It clearly says that women were made for man and are a helpmate to him. It clearly says this or that. It says all kinds of things about women. But we do not take any one of these truths and superimpose them on 1 Corinthians 11 to come out with an interpretation that is not supported directly by the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 itself!

I mean you are certainly free to believe whatever you want Lawrence but I tire of discussing things with people who won't take verses at face value and let them fall where they might without subjective reason (as opposed to being objective) twisting what the verses say all over the place.

If you are willing to take what 1 Corinthians 11 says at face value Lawrence...great. We can continue our discussion and perhaps see some fruit from it. But otherwise...there is no sense me continuing to discuss this with you as we will get nowhere.

Carlos

 

[Whitestone]

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Behold, thou [art] fair, my love; behold, thou [art] fair; thou [hast] doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair [is] as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me: thy hair [is] as a flock of goats that appear from Gilead.

Thine head upon thee [is] like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king [is] held in the galleries.

The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: [thy] breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou [wast] naked and bare.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

While they behold [the wife's] chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Excellent post and good answer. Yes the women are to be modest.

Thanks for not including all that nephalim theories

Peace in Christ

 

[Whitestone]

Hi Lawrence,

As I suspected and know to be the case...you cannot show me one verse in the whole of chapter 11 that says that women should cover up to avoid distracting the angels or even other men by their beauty.

What you have done, which is typical of false doctrinal beliefs, is bring in all kinds of other verses which show clearly that...well...that women are attractive and desirable in that sense. But you take these other verses that clearly show this and superimpose their thought on the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 and voila! You have the belief that you are trying to show.

But such a belief is a product of your own thinking.

Correct biblical interpretation doesn't work that way Lawrence. We can't pick and chose what we are going to superimpose on a given set of verses based on other verses. We must let all verses say whatever it is they are saying without conjecture, without assumption, without superimposing anything on them at all.

I am not saying that we do not take other verses into account. But what other verses say must be blended with the verses we are looking at in an objective manner without assuming anything.

The bible clearly says that women are attractive. It clearly says that women must be submissive. It clearly says that women bear children. It clearly says that women were made for man and are a helpmate to him. It clearly says this or that. It says all kinds of things about women. But we do not take any one of these truths and superimpose them on 1 Corinthians 11 to come out with an interpretation that is not supported directly by the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 itself!

I mean you are certainly free to believe whatever you want Lawrence but I tire of discussing things with people who won't take verses at face value and let them fall where they might without subjective reason (as opposed to being objective) twisting what the verses say all over the place.

If you are willing to take what 1 Corinthians 11 says at face value Lawrence...great. We can continue our discussion and perhaps see some fruit from it. But otherwise...there is no sense me continuing to discuss this with you as we will get nowhere.

Carlos

I believe lawrence was showing the obvious connection of these two verses;
(1Ti 2:9)
in like manner also the women, in becoming apparel, with modesty and sobriety to adorn themselves, not in braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or garments of great price,


(1Co 11:10)
because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers;

The problem with lawrence's interpretation is that he is thrown by the word "angels" as in the KJV. The "Messengers" are simply those who speak the gospel, the messengers of the New Covenant Gospel in Christ's Blood.

As has happened so often down through time, with the descendents of Adam (sons of God) lusting after women, they became led astray.
Look at all the women that Solomon allowed himself to be drawn away from the Lord over.

Paul is Paul, writing about women having power on their head, to cover it, so as to not only show submission to their husband, but to also be modest to not draw attention to their femininity, by which the messengers (men preaching the gospel) will not be distraced toward.

This has always been simple and true. 1 Cor 11 doesn't stand alone, no scriptures stand alone. All fits perfectly hand in hand. In fact, once a person begins to ignore other scriptures, pretty soon none will make sense.

Peace

 

[Strypes]

This thread is up to four pages and not a single woman has responded.. until now.

Jesus had long hair.. by our present day standards. Actually it was shoulder length which in the days of the first century, was average.

(take a moment to consider the Shroud of Turin).

A man with "long" hair like to his waist or longer would be putting himself in danger during times of war as an enemy could grab him by his long locks and bring him to his knees. He could also get it caught in a tree whist out riding a horse etc. and hang himself by his locks.

We won't even discuss Sampson.




The passage in question....

1 Corinthians 11 (English Standard Version)


1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Head Coverings
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man 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 was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Y'all contentious men need to realize that the matter is not "carved in stone".

Y'all men with wives should be so loving and Godly towards your woman and ask her nicely to wear a scarf so as to honor you and I am sure she would comply to honor you..

you demand it ... good luck with that. (spoken/typed with sarcasm)



Now as for the single woman, widow, divorced because her husband committed adultery, etc ... our hair is our glory.. and our covering.


Jesus is our kinsman redeemer and how dare you try to put any of us under a yoke of traditionalist legalism.



As for being "quiet".....

Reminds me of a song...

Talk Jesus | Christian Forums - Fire (Shut up in my Bones)

 

[Whitestone]

This thread is up to four pages and not a single woman has responded.. until now.

Jesus had long hair.. by our present day standards. Actually it was shoulder length which in the days of the first century, was average.

(take a moment to consider the Shroud of Turin).

A man with "long" hair like to his waist or longer would be putting himself in danger during times of war as an enemy could grab him by his long locks and bring him to his knees. He could also get it caught in a tree whist out riding a horse etc. and hang himself by his locks.

We won't even discuss Sampson.




The passage in question....



Y'all contentious men need to realize that the matter is not "carved in stone".

Y'all men with wives should be so loving and Godly towards your woman and ask her nicely to wear a scarf so as to honor you and I am sure she would comply to honor you..

you demand it ... good luck with that. (spoken/typed with sarcasm)



Now as for the single woman, widow, divorced because her husband committed adultery, etc ... our hair is our glory.. and our covering.


Jesus is our kinsman redeemer and how dare you try to put any of us under a yoke of traditionalist legalism.



As for being "quiet".....

Reminds me of a song...

Talk Jesus | Christian Forums - Fire (Shut up in my Bones)

Jesus would not have had long hair. No one in the Roman empire had long hair. Where did you get that idea? The shroud of turin is not a reliable sorce I hope you know. It is a forbidden icon contrary to what God ever allowed.

(1Co 11:14)
doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

Peace in Christ

 

[Strypes]

Jesus would not have had long hair. No one in the Roman empire had long hair. Where did you get that idea? The shroud of turin is not a reliable sorce I hope you know. It is a forbidden icon contrary to what God ever allowed.

(1Co 11:14)
doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

Peace in Christ

Jesus was not a Roman..

Paul, on the other hand, was a Roman citizen and his opinions were probably influenced by that.

As I previously stated, Very long hair could be dangerous to a man but shoulder length hair was common in that era.

The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in history. The 13th-14th century carbon date has been scrutinized and has been found lacking. The section that was tested in 1988 was from a corner that had been rewoven. There was cotton discovered from a repair to the cloth. The main shroud is linen. Go to youtube, there are many documentaries on it. Educate yourself. You may find that ignorance is also unbecoming of a man.

It seems that you have chosen an irrelevant tangent as your reply to my post.


I see you have not disputed the fact that a woman's hair is her glory and her covering or that Jesus is our kinsman redeemer.

 

[Whitestone]

Jesus was not a Roman..

Paul, on the other hand, was a Roman citizen and his opinions were probably influenced by that.

As I previously stated, Very long hair could be dangerous to a man but shoulder length hair was common in that era.

The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in history. The 13th-14th century carbon date has been scrutinized and has been found lacking. The section that was tested in 1988 was from a corner that had been rewoven. There was cotton discovered from a repair to the cloth. The main shroud is linen. Go to youtube, there are many documentaries on it. Educate yourself. You may find that ignorance is also unbecoming of a man.

It seems that you have chosen an irrelevant tangent as your reply to my post.


I see you have not disputed the fact that a woman's hair is her glory and her covering or that Jesus is our kinsman redeemer.

I chose to respond to the long hair on Jesus comment. I hope that is ok in the rules lol. It isn't irrelevant of course as it is direct response to what you said.
You are telling men here that they are being contentious over this topic. I haven't seen anything yet to warrant that statement. Nor have I seen anyone "demanding" anything as you state. Are you sure of the manner of spirit where you are coming from?

Concerning long hair of that era, Google it. It is a fallacy from the start. NO, as I've stated, long hair was NOT common for the jews or anyone else in that era. And the shroud of turin is nonsense. It is a catholic icon. It is a fraud. I've looked deeply into the herringbone weaved shroud and the negative image it is claimed to contain and seen all the pictures and read all the books. Don't believe it, and don't rely on it to alledge a fact that is unscriptural. That is my advice.

Concerning short hair again, even the RC teaches Jesus had short hair, I just now googled it to see what the consensus is. Where do you get your information? I asked that earlier. Just saying it again means nothing. Every man under ROMAN RULE (INCLUDING THE JEWS) had short hair. The jews certainly had no one with long hair with only two exceptions EVER and they are both in the O.T. Sampson and Absalom. And look what happened to them both because of their hair!! Their culture was not "long hair". Google it lol.

As far as a woman's hair being her head covering, yes it was. Yes it is. But that in no wise contradicts what spirit a woman of God is of in coverning her head in church. The woman who does so is a Holy Woman who shows forth the authority of the messengers of the Gospel. It also displays a maturity of understanding of a woman's (exalted) place in being representative of the church in bringing forth the man-child by which she is saved. She knows that her husband is her head.
All of us in conglomerate form the Bride of Christ aka the New Jerusalem aka the Church. When we are filled with the incorruptible seed of Christ our Husband, we become pregnant and travail in pain and tribulation to bring forth the son of God in our bodies. A woman who emulates this understanding in meekness is a prize indeed.
All this is why a woman would cover her head in deference and submission to her husband just as we all do toward Christ as our Husband. It is a Holy Thing. And that doesn't mean for her to just have hair lol. If I was a woman I would wear a covering because I love Jesus and I love the Word and I would submit to my husband and show it forth with a hat or scarf! Only pride would prevent such a holy presentation
And yes, Jesus Christ is our kinsman redeemer. That is why John the baptist said he was unworthy to unlatch the shoe latches on Jesus' feet. What is there to dispute? lol

Peace

 

[Strypes]

I chose to respond to the long hair on Jesus comment. I hope that is ok in the rules lol. It isn't irrelevant of course as it is direct response to what you said.
You are telling men here that they are being contentious over this topic. I haven't seen anything yet to warrant that statement. Nor have I seen anyone "demanding" anything as you state. Are you sure of the manner of spirit where you are coming from?

Concerning long hair of that era, Google it. It is a fallacy from the start. NO, as I've stated, long hair was NOT common for the jews or anyone else in that era. And the shroud of turin is nonsense. It is a catholic icon. It is a fraud. I've looked deeply into the herringbone weaved shroud and the negative image it is claimed to contain and seen all the pictures and read all the books. Don't believe it, and don't rely on it to alledge a fact that is unscriptural. That is my advice.

Concerning short hair again, even the RC teaches Jesus had short hair, I just now googled it to see what the consensus is. Where do you get your information? I asked that earlier. Just saying it again means nothing. Every man under ROMAN RULE (INCLUDING THE JEWS) had short hair. The jews certainly had no one with long hair with only two exceptions EVER and they are both in the O.T. Sampson and Absalom. And look what happened to them both because of their hair!! Their culture was not "long hair". Google it lol.

As far as a woman's hair being her head covering, yes it was. Yes it is. But that in no wise contradicts what spirit a woman of God is of in coverning her head in church. The woman who does so is a Holy Woman who shows forth the authority of the messengers of the Gospel. It also displays a maturity of understanding of a woman's (exalted) place in being representative of the church in bringing forth the man-child by which she is saved. She knows that her husband is her head.
All of us in conglomerate form the Bride of Christ aka the New Jerusalem aka the Church. When we are filled with the incorruptible seed of Christ our Husband, we become pregnant and travail in pain and tribulation to bring forth the son of God in our bodies. A woman who emulates this understanding in meekness is a prize indeed.
All this is why a woman would cover her head in deference and submission to her husband just as we all do toward Christ as our Husband. It is a Holy Thing. And that doesn't mean for her to just have hair lol. If I was a woman I would wear a covering because I love Jesus and I love the Word and I would submit to my husband and show it forth with a hat or scarf! Only pride would prevent such a holy presentation
And yes, Jesus Christ is our kinsman redeemer. That is why John the baptist said he was unworthy to unlatch the shoe latches on Jesus' feet. What is there to dispute? lol

Peace

So now you make a personal attack regarding my spirit ... Sheep with blood on his teeth....hum...

As for taking my statement regarding a man demanding his woman to wear a scarf out of context to imply I was accusing the men that responded to this thread had demanded something, that is just shameless.

What the Shroud of Turin asserts is that Jesus Rose from the Dead and that event is what left the image on the Shroud.

I choose not to respond to the remainder of your post as you have made up your mind to try to place a yoke on women that God never intended us to endure. If you have a wife, I will be praying for her.

 

[Strypes]

*off topic*

Luke 3
15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

: )

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

What's a female?