What hat do you wear? [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

alanmolstad

01-04-2015, 10:06 AM

In my experience there are two verses in the Bible that some people seem to always take out of context and quote alone, because when they do so it opens a door to strange ideas that have no real support in all the other parts of the bible.

I Cor 11:4 is one such verse.
There are some people within and without of the christian church that have latched on to this verse and used it, twisted it in a variety of ways to serve as the support for their own person views on different matters.
The verse alone , taken out of it's context, is easy to misuse, or just misunderstand.

But if we just read the verse in full context and look at the other nice little verses all around it that are talking about the very same idea, then we will come away from this with a lot less need to support wild ideas that are not talked about in other parts of the Bible.

The Bible was just talking about hair in this section.
The Bible talks about "covered' and "uncovered" heads of people.
The Bible tells us what this 'covering" is.....it does this when it clearly tells us that "long hair" was given to the girls as their head covering.
If we take this understanding back to all the other verses in this section of the text we dont really have anything weird to deal with at all.
Long hair = covering

Its that simple.

alanmolstad

01-04-2015, 10:10 AM

and....the other verse that some people tend to lift out of it's context all the time to teach weird ideas?

Genesis 6:4

Saxon

01-05-2015, 03:18 PM

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

You seem to be off when you think that the whole thing is about heads with hair. You need to take into consideration 1 Corinthians 11:3 before you conclude that it is all about hair covering a head.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

I do not think that the covering and uncovering of these heads is hair and hats. Read the section over knowing who the heads that are being discussed are and tell me if it is as simple as long hair and hats.

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 03:27 PM

It's just the hair

It even tells us that the covering is hair .

But the reason for the hair length issue is to show respect

The wife shows respect to her husband by having long hair.
The man shows respect to god by having shorter hair

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 03:29 PM

So the point is to show correct respect to both your husband and to god in the manner of your outwards appearance.
This is so no one can bring forth a charge against the church for teaching bad morals and poor respect.

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 03:58 PM

So when they looked the style of hair of these people it sent a clear statement.
Look at a girls hair and you see the role her husband has in her life.
Look at the appearance of a man and you can see the role god has in his life just as you can look at christ and see the role god has in his life

The hair length of the girl displayed the husband or father.
in other words the hair of the girl showed the husband...hair and her husband are connected...are the same

Saxon

01-05-2015, 04:42 PM

What!!! Where did you get this from! Book Chapter and Verse.

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 06:29 PM

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I p***ed them on to you."

This verse lets us know that what we are dealing with is a "tradition" of their culture.
This means that you cant hold this section to be point-by-point still as relevant as it was, (given that this is a different age with different traditions ) but general principles that are behind the tradition should still be worth our study.

1 Corinthians 11:15
"For long hair is given to her as a covering."

So now we know from this verse what this "covering" is that we have been looking at.
Its "long hair" for the girls, and thereby shorter hair for the guys.

This point is confirmed at -
1 Corinthians 11:14
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

Thus we now understand that the coverings we are dealing with are clearly "long hair" for girls and short hair for the boys.
and that means that when a girl is said to have her head "uncovered" it means to have short hair.
And is also means that when the text says that a man has his head "covered" it is actually just talking about the man having hair that is too long according to the "tradition" held at the time.

Now we look at this next question that Paul asks us to think about -
1 Corinthians 11:13
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"

The context tells us that the answer is clearly "no" to Paul's question.
So this with the verses we have already quoted tells us that for girls the "head uncovered" is the same as "short hair"

And this therefore also means that "head covered" in boys means "long hair'

Now lets move to the next part.

1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head

So now we have a good understanding of the context of "covering" and we understand what that is talking about...

1 Corinthians 11:5
"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head"

But who is this "head" that is being "dishonored" ???, because we are reading about it as if the "head" were a person that could be both honored or dishonored????

That answer is seen at -
1 Corinthians 11:3
"and the head of the woman is man"

So that now forms for us the context of what Paul is teaching, in that the "hair of the women is a direct connection to the man that is over her in authority....
Look at her hair, and see the man...Just as you look at the man's hair and see Christ.

But this is not the ending, for Paul still has to get to his point, and that is that when a girl is seen with long hair or short hair it is a direct refection of the 'man" in authority over her, be it her husband or before she married her father.

Saxon

01-05-2015, 08:03 PM

1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I p***ed them on to you.

This verse lets us know that what we are dealing with is a "tradition" of their couture.
This means that you cant hold this section to be point-by-point still as relevant as it was, (given that this is a different age with different traditions ) but general principles that are behind the tradition should still be worth our study.

The “traditions” that Paul was referring to is the gospel, the truth of God. If you care to re-read your own source, 1 Corinthians 11:2, you will see that he is referring to traditions that he had already p***ed on to the Corinthians. They were being praised for holding to the traditions just as Paul had p***ed them on to the Corinthians. What follows is something different. You are quick to read but not quick to pay attention to what the text you read is saying.

Notice the change to something new;” But I would have you know”. Paul now goes on to identify the heads that he is going to speak about in the next few verses.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

What follows is Paul commenting on how the heads mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:3 were to be treated with due respect. These heads are, quite clearly, not the ones that are stuck to the necks of human beings.

If a person reads the text for what it says, then it is still as relevant now as it was when it was written.

1 Corinthians 11:15
"For long hair is given to her as a covering."

So now we know from this verse what this "covering" is that we have been looking at.
Its "long hair" for the girls, and thereby shorter hair for the guys.

This point is confirmed at -
1 Corinthians 11:14
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

Now we look at this next question that Paul asks us to think about -
1 Corinthians 11:13
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"

The context tells us that the answer is clearly "no" to paul's question.
So this with the verses we have already quoted tells us that for girls the "head uncovered" is the same as "short hair"

And this therefore also means that "head covered" in boys means "long hair'

Now lets move to the next part.

1 Corinthians 11:6
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head

So now we have a good understanding of the context of "covering" and we understand what that is talking about...

If a woman of those days were to be seen in public with her hair cut off she would be ***umed a pros***ute or worse, thus bringing dishonor to her head, the man. Notice the words. They could be read like this:

For if a woman does not cover her head, (man) she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head (body part) shaved, then she should cover her head (body part)

In actuality Paul could care less if a woman had long hair or was as balled as a que-ball. Notice that is states “but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head”. It says “if” it is a disgrace. If it is not a disgrace, who cares?

After all the hair comments Paul states that there is no such custom, neither the churches of God. Hair is not the issue.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:5
"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head"

But who is this "had" that is being "dishonored" as if the "head" were a person that could be both honored or dishonored????

That answer is seen at -
1 Corinthians 11:3
"and the head of the woman is man"

That is exactly right and in context with 1 Corinthians 11:3.

So that now forms for us the context of what Paul is teaching, in that the "hair of the women is a direct connection to the man that is over her in authority....
Look at her hair, and see the man...Just as you look at the man's hair and see Christ.

But this is not the ending, for paul still has to get to his point, and that is that when a girl is seen with long hair or short hair it is a direct refection of the 'man" in authority over her, be it her husband or before she married her father.

This comes out in the verse -

See 1 Corinthians 11:16, we have no such custom.

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 08:14 PM

the hair length is the "tradition" that Paul is dealing with...as seen at 1 Corinthians 11:4 where it says - "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head."

Lets remember, This is not a teaching of Christ!
Paul does not quote Jesus here, this is not a central part of the Christian faith.
Rather this is a "tradition" that Paul knows will be very helpful to people and will bring a good reputation to people and to the church as a whole

But to be honest with the people he was writing to, Paul shows that he understands that not everyone will agree with this "tradition"
and as a way to toss a bit more weight behind his words, Paul here at 1 Corinthians 11:16 lists the only real "authority" he had to list.
"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."

See how Paul does not appeal to the words of Christ to support his view on the correct hair length?
See how this is not , clearly not a matter that is tied to salvation or the message the Christ gave to us,

All Paul has to support this tradition is for him to point to the other churches that follow this same tradition.
Paul could not point to Christ's words to support the tradition.

This is clearly a simple "tradition that Paul taught these people.
And we have looked at this in the comments I have posted where I show how the "covering" was the hair, and how a man that has his head "covered" is actually just talking about a man who has his hair too long according to tradition.

and this is why when Paul says that if a women does not cover her head she should have her head shaved!

Why?.....cuz its the same idea being that her hair is too short!!!!!!!

alanmolstad

01-05-2015, 08:18 PM

so in other words, Paul is building a case throughout the whole section here of "men looking like men, and women looking like women"

and that is it....

MichaellS

01-05-2015, 08:51 PM

"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."

Kinda loosens up the issue for me. Which reminds me, hope the white stuff goes easy on you. You do still drive don't you?

Saxon

01-06-2015, 02:16 PM

so in other words, Paul is building a case throughout the whole section here of "men looking like men, and women looking like women"

and that is it....

There is nothing in the text that is even suggesting your notion. The case is clearly one of respecting your head in accordance with 1Corinthians 11:3.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

MichaellS

01-07-2015, 04:08 AM

Again, I took it upon myself to see what or if there was a predominate scholarly opinion over this. What I originally thought was just a debate only over external influence – isn’t. Just over this one issue of covering in ch11v4, and only the v4 covering, I have read pages of my own hard-copy commentary and ref’d about a dozen online publications still on this one item of the “covering” in v4. Well, the news isn’t good.

Alan, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you are very much aware of how well your position stands in the field of universal opinion. I admire your determination. Even I who was willing to go along with you to a degree, if I found that your position was taking the hit of eighty or ninety percent, I could still remain there. Not now.

Do you know of others who feel this way?

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 07:26 AM

Michaells:

My connection to this whole issue stems from a long time ago.
I was a member of a church that had a very active adult Bible study program for us.
I attended many, many cl***es where this section of the Bible was discussed.
In about every case I can remember now, the thrust of the teachers understanding of this set of Bible verses was that this is all talking about the "veil".

The truth is, I cant actually remember this part of the Bible being talked about from either the Church pulpit or the cl*** room teacher or home fellowship leader that the common understanding was that Paul here was talking about a girls "veil"

because the understanding of the veil being the main subject talked about by Paul, I always next had to listen to whatever teacher was doing the teaching at the time, to how this could be made 'relevant" in our age where girls for the most part in the evangelical church do not wear a 'veil" while attending church.

The problem I had was that when I simply read the verses I saw something different!

I never once saw Paul talking about a cloth "veil", in fact I saw Paul going out of his way to make sure we understand that the covering on both the girls and the boys is their 'hair.
It seemed simple enough to see from the Text.

So when I had to sit and listen to Preachers and Teachers struggle so to twist things around and around in an effort to not make it seem like the Bible was clearly teaching that "Girls MUST wear a veil" I had to just shake my head.

"That is just not what the verse is about." is all I kept thinking to myself.

So from time to to time, (like here for example) I try to speak up and point out to my learned brothers in the church that the verse is simply talking about hair styles, and how it reflects on ourselves and the church in general.

I really cant improve on what I have already posted on the topic as seen at post number #17 above. If after reading that post (#17) you have any questions or wish me to go over something I have written that seems unclear just let me know, for I will be happy to give it another shot.

As I have talked about also above, this section of the bible, and the way people seem to struggle to explain it reminds me a lot of another part of the bible where people also struggle to explain away something that , actually the bible does not teach in the first place.

That other part of the Bible deals with a verse in Genesis where the "Sons of God, and the Daughters of Men" marry and have children.

I have grown up listening to teachers go on and on with how this was talking about "Angels"
But the trouble is, when I read the parts of the Bible that come before that genesis 6 verse, I saw that the church teachers that believe it was talking about "angels" were taking the verse out of its context.

When i read the same verse in it's correct context I noticed that it was talking about the same groups of people that it had already been talking about in Genesis 3,4,5....its the same people!

There was no need to invent a way to get "Angels"into the story at all....

Just as there is no need to deal with the "Veil" issue in our verse here....

It's like...
It's like when the Bible tells us that when a woman prays with her head uncovered its dishonors her head.
We learn from the text that the "covering" of the girl is actually her "long hair"

But what about this "head" we are talking about?
Whats the "head"?

Well some people teach that the "head' in this verse is talking about her skull, you know the thing sticking out of a person shirt.
But that's not true at all !

The Bible tells us clearly that the "head" of the women is the "man"

But what "man" are we talking about?
Are we saying "men" is general?........NO!
We are not talking about all men on the whole earth because I got to tell you, I dont give a rip what hair length girls wear ,
So we cant be talking about "men" in general in this verse because simply put, "Men dont care"...we are not the least bit dishonored personally by the hair length of women we dont know or have any business even thinking about.

So what "man" is dishonored if a girl wears her hair incorrectly?
The answer I believe from the context is "Her husband"
The husband is the only "man" a girl's hair actually reflects good or ill upon.

What if the girl is not married yet?
Then I believe that the "man" being talking about is the "father" of the girl.
This means that when a girl was seen during this time with the wrong style of hair, (and she was wearing this wrong style openly) that this was seen as a dishonor to her father or to her husband.

That is just the way it is.
And the truth is in many ways this same thing is still true in our modern world.*

The way a girl in your church will dress and talk reflects on how her parents raised her.
And when she gets married how she dresses is a reflection on her husband.

thats just the way it is.....

This FACT OF LIFE is all Paul is talking about

* when a young girl moves out of her house and ends up a stripper, no one blames it on the relationship she had with her mom.

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 07:58 AM

Saxon

01-07-2015, 03:20 PM

and another thing...

The verses in question talk about the times when a girl will "pray' with her head uncovered.

We get so swept up in the need to understand the "covering" that we overlook one thing.

We overlook the word "pray"

QUESTION: "when does a girl pray?"

Thats the answer here, for the answer to the question about the word "pray" points us to the understanding that Paul was getting at too.
For the answer is...."All the time"

We are to "Pray without ceasing"
We are to go though the day in a constant state of prayer.

Too many times I have heard this word "pray" only connected with "going to church"..but that is wrong!

Its all the time!
pray all the time, every second of the day.

So when Paul is talking about a girl praying with hair uncovered, he is not talking about when the girl is going to church as if that was a special time and she could have her head uncovered all the other parts of the day.

Paul was talking about how the girl looks from sunrise to sunset...

1Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

I like your comment on praying but don’t leave out the men in all this as it is quite evident that Paul was also referring to the men in the same aspect. In verses 4 and 5 both the men and women are cautioned about respecting their head while praying or prophesying. The men are not to take the focus off of Christ, in other words, don’t cover Christ. The women were not to bring reproach to their men in any manner as it is the same as if she were shaven. A shaved head was, in those days and in the gentile societies, a punishment of a woman caught as a pros***ute. Leaving your man uncovered as it were would lead to him being dishonoured and a public spectacle.

This is not about how we look but how we respect our head.

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 03:26 PM

At sword cl*** now..
Will post more later tonight.

let me hear your questions!

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 03:43 PM

http://blogs.bible.org/engage/sandra_glahn/who_were_the_women_with_shaved_hair_1_cor._115

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 03:44 PM

Killing time on phone.
Will post more later but above is an interesting article, I got a chance to skim it and in a few places i do agree with it...

Saxon

01-07-2015, 08:25 PM

Read the first response under the article and then go to the first line where the article author comments on Henry's response; "Henry, I think you totally got it. Spot on." When all is said and done they are saying the same as I have been saying.

alanmolstad

01-07-2015, 10:53 PM

If you have a question concerning anything I have written and posted on the forum, just let me know and I will be happy to have a 2nd look and take another shot at it.

alanmolstad

01-08-2015, 07:19 AM

any question at all....

MichaellS

01-08-2015, 08:30 PM

, , above is an interesting article, I got a chance to skim it and in a few places i do agree with it...

What is it of this lady theologian's approach you don't agree with? Can you cite any other theologians who also share your position? From your perspective Alan, is this just a simple case of spiritual reason edging over the the bulk of conventional treatment here?

alanmolstad

01-08-2015, 09:37 PM

I just skimmed it one time as i waited for my wife to get done in the store...
I have no idea what this or that theologian is into...
If i remember correctly, I did a GOOGLE search for this topic on my phone and I think the link I posted was the 3rd or 4th hit .

I skimmed each of the things I looked at, and (again if I remember correctly) I noticed that a lot of the things I was reading were connected to the same "veil"understanding that i have run into many times before.

I think that the reason I posted the link was due to one or two lines I read that had some reference to the whole "veil" connection.

I dont know if I was in any personal agreement at all with what the link had to say?, (I rather doubt it, buts it's possible) but I felt that it might be something that a reader on this topic might find entertaining....

Now, once again, I have written a great deal on this topic, and it's about all I know on it too by the way :)

So if there is ANYTHING that I have written that you have a question about?, or would like me to go over something I said that I did not explain well enough? Just let me know and I would be happy to take another shot at it.

alanmolstad

01-08-2015, 09:55 PM

From your perspective Alan, is this just a simple case of spiritual reason edging over the the bulk of conventional treatment here?

well....Im not sure what you are asking about, but I can say this -

That when any of us lift a verse out of context we can use it to prove about anything we want to.
The verse I talked about in Genesis is one such situation where a commonly heard understanding has to rely of people opening their bible to only that one page,and only reading that one or two verses.

The other thing I talked about dealing with the head "covering" is also something that relies on people going at the verse with a predetermined finish line in mind.
When they read the verse and get to the word "covering" their mind will replace that word with another that fits better into their whole predetermined understanding of what the Bible is, (or should be) teaching there....regardless of what it says in black and white.

Let me give you yet another example of how people replace one word that appears in the Bible with another that they feel fits their theology better.
QUESTION: What does the Bible say was made first "In the beginning"?

I asked that question many times to my Young Earth teachers, and they all answered "The Light"
I tried many times to get them to open their Bible and read what it says in Genesis, but even if they did read what the bible says in black and white,they refused to believe it because it simply disagreed with what they had predetermined to be what "is", ( or in their minds "should be") taught in Genesis about the order of creation.

By the way, the Bible teaches us that the first thing that God created in the beginning was the Heavens and the earth.... :)

People seem to want to try to use the verse that talks about a "covering" for different reasons.
All I'm saying is that the clear and simplest reading of the verse will lead you to the clear and simple conclusion that here Paul was just talking about hair styles.

Paul was just attempting to save his church brothers and sisters from running afoul of customs and traditions.
Paul wanted the church to not get a bad reputation, and so was attempting to have people conform to the widely held traditions at the time concerning hair length and it's context in the society.

Now, along the way we will read about a lot of things that are tossed into the mix.
EXAMPLE:, the part of the verse that talks about a girl getting her head shaved.
People seek a way to understand this verse and so they bring in lots and lots of stories about hookers, and adultery, and all sorts of stuff that really have ZERO to do with what Paul wanted to talk to us abut here.

I'm just saying that there is no need to dump all that junk into the story as its just going to screw people up and get them mixed up as to what Paul was talking about.

The simple fact of life is, that to shave your head is the same thing as to cut the hair....it's just a tighter cut.
perhaps performed with different tools, BUT ITS THE SAME IDEA!!!

I shave every day myself, and the difference between shaving some hair and cutting some hair depends on the hair length you are dealing with and/or results you are seeking to get.

There is no need to drag the story of a hooker or adultery into it, and if you did you would confuse the point.

Once again, shaving and getting a hair cut are the same thing.....sorta, more or less.

Remember Paul himself is said to have shaved all the hair off his head one time.

Im told that when girls do the same type of vow to the Lord that Paul undertook, that they too would shave off all the hair as a sign of their serious commitment to their vows.
No need to drag a story of a hooker into understanding why Paul shaved his head, and if you were to do so it would just mess up the point of the story anyway.

Notice also that right after Paul talks about a girl shaving her head he backs-away from that idea and points out that if a girl with a shaved head is seen as a disgrace that she should wear it longer then.

once again this is clearly Paul attempting to save his sisters from adopting a hair style that might be seen as disgraceful in that society.

And that's the whole context of what Paul is aiming to achieve here.

alanmolstad

01-09-2015, 07:46 AM

Now as you know, I always try to wrap up what I have said on a topic with the invitation for anyone with a question about what i have written to come forth and ask me to go over something a 2nd time that was unclear.

I also see by the lack of guests right now on this message board that it kinda seems like except for myself no one else is posting as of late?
I dont mind that , (as you can clearly tell..LOL) but it does kinda make it seem like Im posting all the time day and night, when in reality its just once in a while on a wide variety of topics.

Be that as it may, because it does appear that Im posting a lot of stuff here I should also make it very clear to other guests that I invite you to go over anything I have written here on this forum, and if there is ANYTHING I have said that you want me to readdress?...just ask me to do so!

I would be more than happy to take another shot at a question or topic that you think I need taking a 2nd look at, or need to re-write to make more clear.

So regardless of the topic or how long ago i may have written something, if you see something odd, ask me to look at it again.

Saxon

01-09-2015, 09:50 PM

alanmolstad

01-09-2015, 11:59 PM

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If this is just about hair cutting, why is verse 3 so careful about identifying exactly what the heads are that need to be uncovered and those that need to be covered?

long hair is given to the girl as her "covering" so that her head is covered and thereby it is a good reflection on her husband.

For when you look at her covering on her head you see the respect she has for her husband.

Thus the connection between her husband and what her own head looks like with its hair covering.
Looking at one you are looking at the other.....thats how connected this matter was to these people...."inseparable"

Thus there is no confusion as to why the covering is important to Paul, and why Paul is talking to his church abut this matter.

Yes all Paul is doing is offering advice that might be called "parental" in that this is just talking about girl's hair styles and their context.

Yet this is a fact of life that people will judge you on this matter in their culture and so its best for everyone to be on the same page and understand that its not just your husband (the girl's head) that is dishonored but also the whole Christian faith in general too.

That is the reason Paul lists the other churches when he talks about this tradition.
|Paul was dropping the hint that this matter with the Corinthian church is being watched closely by the all other churches ...

Saxon

01-10-2015, 01:58 AM

MichaellS

01-10-2015, 07:15 AM

Just how does this answer the question? What does a woman's hair have to do with covering her husband? What does a man's hair have to do with not covering Christ?

If this is just about hair cutting, why is verse 3 so careful about identifying exactly what the heads are that need to be uncovered and those that need to be covered?

Hello Saxon, nice to meet you.

Sometimes I think my head came with a very thick covering, and not with hair, lol. I had a more than usual difficult time trying to get my arms around this.

As much as I tried seeing it as Alan does, as it appears, his more of a gender treatment of love and honor, I think Alan was clear as you know, he doesn’t believe this is concerning the “teachings of Christ” which by far was the biggest hurdle he presented me with. I applaud whatever effort of reasoning he contributes. But back to this not being the teachings of Christ, as I recall, whenever such an occasion came (which was seldom), Paul took the liberty to offer his own personal opinion in the word of God, he plainly told the reader he was about to:

“But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (I Cor 7:6)

But this is what I meant by “conventional treatment” Alan. Academia carries a broad sweeping and fairly unified opinion of this that is in no small amount contrary to your hair only position. But this is where I stop shy of you Saxon, even when I am more inclined to agree with you. As I previously mentioned, to me, I Cor 11:16 indicates people’s convictions will vary on this, and sometimes intensely:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.”

I understand, you and I differ over this one Alan, and against myself, probably a lot more people do than I am aware. But this shouldn’t be. We ought to be of the same mind even in the Church collection of diversity.

Have I ever thought a certain truth was so telling to me there was no way possible for it to be otherwise? Yes, of course. Haven’t you Saxon? Question is, what amount of risk am I willing to subject that revelation to being verifiable or not:

“Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory." (Proverbs 11:14)

So if I got this right, it comes down to an opinion of either natural or spiritual honor/dishonor? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Mike.

alanmolstad

01-10-2015, 10:19 AM

Just how does this answer the question? What does a woman's hair have to do with covering her husband?

Here is my answer to your question:

I am an American.
As such whenever I hear someone talking about 9/11 I have a mental image of what they are talking about.....(The twin towers falling)
So strong is the connection in my mind between the numbers "9/11" that the moment I hear them I automatically think of the Towers.

So to me, the numbers "9/11" mean the same thing as the attack on the Twin Towers....
The two totally different ideas ( one just a set or numbers and the other a terrorist attack) are now permanently merged in my mind to be talking about the same single thing.

or.....

The image of the flag being raised at the top of a hill on an island in the South Pacific during World War Two.

When you think of that flag what does it mean to you?

To me the flag means our victorious fighting men...it means "America" to me.

But the flag is not a man....the flag is just a bunch of colored cloth, and its not a whole country.
yet to my mind the sight of the flag being raised over that battlefield is permanently connected to the idea of our victory, our country.

So......in the same way we now return to our topic here dealing with Paul's teachings on the importance of maintaining proper hair styles in their culture given the context that such hair styles may carry.

Long hair on a girl was seen in their culture as being respectful to the man that was her authority...(her husband or father)
The length of the hair was seen as a sign of a girl's uprightness and respect.

So in other words, just as looking at the flag or hearing the numbers 9/11 are permanently connected to other things that they immediately bring to mind, so to would looking at the length of a girl's hair bring to mind her respect to her husband.

The girl's "Hair" and her "husband" are connected...they are the same "thing" in that they are inseparable.

And "that" is why the Bible tells us too that girls should always "cover" their head, as in doing so it will show the world that they are displaying proper respect to their husbands.

Now that is the thrust of Paul's traditional understanding we get on the girl's side, and it's the same concept when dealing with the boy's too!

Shorter hair was the traditional way boy's kept their hair cut.
Shorter hair was a sign that a boy was not attempting to look like a girl, and that was seen as showing respect for the differences between man and women.
And the differences were important because of the idea that the differences are because GOD designed us to be different!

This is why Paul was saying that when a man prayed with his head 'covered" (and remember we already learned that the "covering" was long hair) that this would be seen as showing disrespect to god , for the man was going against God's design for men and women to be different......for the differences were by God's design.

That is why by looking at the length of a man's hair you saw his respect for the lord.
Hair length and his respect for god were the same thing...they had become inseparable!

This is why Paul used the argument that a "man" is the "head" of the women....for looking at her head was the same as looking at her husband....her head and her husband are the same thing, the two totally different things had merged into the same idea....the same thing.

And....therefore...
Paul then also says that the "head" of the man is Christ"
its the same arguement that paul makes use of when dealing with the girls, in that when you look at the hair on the head of the man you see the man's respect for Jesus.
The hair on his head, is the same as his respect for Christ....so Christ is his head in that the two different things are now merged into the same idea...the same 'thing'

This is why the head of Christ also is God.....for the two things are merged into the same idea...the same thing.
When you look at Christ and you remember his death that the father sent him into the world to die, then you cant help but think of the Lord God when you look at Christ....

Looking at one points to the other....

alanmolstad

01-10-2015, 10:29 AM

So if I got this right, it comes down to an opinion of either natural or spiritual honor/dishonor? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Mike.
Mike, I was with you until I got to this last sentence....then i lost your meaning and Im not sure what you are asking me?

I dont understand the 'natural or spiritual honor/dishonor" part of your question......

and.
When i point out that Paul is not going over something that Jesus said, its just how it is.
Paul is not quoting Jesus in his argument.
Paul does not quote other Disciples too.

But Paul does build his argument on some very sound principles that are based on Scripture.

Yet, at the end of this section when Paul is wrapping up his argument he does not close with some sort of Commandment or quotation.
What Paul finally falls back on is the fact that what he is saying is also what all the other churches under his authority practice.

This is why I always try to point out that because this is not something that the Lord taught on during his life, we cant hold it to be so critical as it would be equal with a teaching like the "resurrection" or the "trinity" or "Salvation"

Its a side-issue that Paul felt the need to preach on, and considering the trouble this same church had gotten into over the question of the Gifts of the Spirit and Speaking in Tongues, i can easily believe that things had gotten out of hand on this question of how the hair styles on sisters within that church were bringing condemnation down on them from all quarters.

I believe that the reason Paul felt the need to spend so much time on this one topic was a clear sign that "S__t had hit the fan"

MichaellS

01-10-2015, 11:14 AM

Mike, I was with you until I got to this last sentence....then i lost your meaning and Im not sure what you are asking me?

I dont understand the 'natural or spiritual honor/dishonor" part of your question......

and.
When i point out that Paul is not going over something that Jesus said, its just how it is.
Paul is not quoting Jesus in his argument.
Paul does not quote other Disciples too.

But Paul does build his argument on some very sound principles that are based on Scripture.

Yet, at the end of this section when Paul is wrapping up his argument he does not close with some sort of Commandment or quotation.
What Paul does fall back on is the fact that what he is saying is also what all the other churches under his authority practice.

This is why I always try to point out that because this is not something that the Lord taught on during his life, we cant hold it to be so critical as it would be equal with a teaching like the "resurrection" or the "trinity" or "Salvation"

Its a side-issue that Paul felt the need to preach on, and considering the trouble this same church had gotten into over the question of the Gifts of the Spirit and Speaking in Tongues, i can easily believe that things had gotten out of hand on this question of how the hair styles on sisters within that church were bringing condemnation down on them from all quarters.

I believe that the reason Paul felt the need to spend so much time on this one topic was a clear sign that "S__t had hit the fan"

Sure Alan, referring back to the second paragraph, yours is more of a “gender treatment of love and honor”, thereby “natural”. And you have made it in the simplest terms as something that was “clear” coming from Paul.

Whereas Saxon is attempting to tell us the covering or not is directly connected to one’s honoring Christ or not, thereby “spiritual”. And he probably wants the references shown there of that connection to be his point of being clear.

If I misjudged everything you have said with this ***ertion, my apologies. He may want to correct me as well. I still don’t feel I am seeing as clearly as I would hope on this. That may be due to the lack of countering verse for verse. Frankly, I don’t see that feasible here. But I’ll re-read yours and may change, and if I’m not mistaken, there are additional considerations in that last comment of yours.

alanmolstad

01-10-2015, 11:20 AM

. But I’ll re-read yours and may change, and if I’m not mistaken, there are additional considerations in that last comment of yours.

Im still re-editing it!

Funny how when i write something one way, and then a bit later come back and read it again i find that it does not flow the way i want...)(*&(*&%*$&$#%$#&

Saxon

01-11-2015, 08:36 PM

Hello Saxon, nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too Mike.

Sometimes I think my head came with a very thick covering, and not with hair, lol. I had a more than usual difficult time trying to get my arms around this.

As much as I tried seeing it as Alan does, as it appears, his more of a gender treatment of love and honor, I think Alan was clear as you know, he doesn’t believe this is concerning the “teachings of Christ” which by far was the biggest hurdle he presented me with. I applaud whatever effort of reasoning he contributes. But back to this not being the teachings of Christ, as I recall, whenever such an occasion came (which was seldom), Paul took the liberty to offer his own personal opinion in the word of God, he plainly told the reader he was about to:

I find that most of the New Testament, as it is written, is not the “teaching of Christ” as if the authors were directly quoting Christ as in the Gospels. It is fairly clear that Jesus is no being quoted in a direct manner but it is also clear all that was written was God breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. At the time of the writing, the only scripture was the Old Testament. Eventually the writings of the Apostles was also considered as scripture (See 2 Peter 3:16). I firmly believe that the cannon of scripture is now closed with nothing more to be added.

The Old Testament and Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:16 make Alan’s statement about teachings of Christ unreasonable. If we are only to follow the “teachings of Christ”, all that was needed for the Bible would be only what is written in red of a red letter edition.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

“But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (I Cor 7:6)
But this is what I meant by “conventional treatment” Alan. Academia carries a broad sweeping and fairly unified opinion of this that is in no small amount contrary to your hair only position. But this is where I stop shy of you Saxon, even when I am more inclined to agree with you. As I previously mentioned, to me, I Cor 11:16 indicates people’s convictions will vary on this, and sometimes intensely:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.”

What we need to find out about 1Corinthians 11:16 is what is this, that, “we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.” I do believe that it is the cutting of hair and the wearing of “hats” that there is no practice of these supposed rules. In 1Corinthians 11:6 this is a statement of a woman being uncovered. This is not speaking of the heads that were mentioned in 1Corinthians 11:3 so it is a body part. What it seems to be saying is that if a woman doesn’t want to wear a “hat” let her be shorn too. The only caution is “if it be a shame” then she should wear a “hat”. Paul doesn’t care if she has long hair, short hair or no hair, as long as she covers her head, her man/husband. This is totally about respect of the heads as referenced in 1Corinthians 11:3.

1Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

I understand, you and I differ over this one Alan, and against myself, probably a lot more people do than I am aware. But this shouldn’t be. We ought to be of the same mind even in the Church collection of diversity.

Have I ever thought a certain truth was so telling to me there was no way possible for it to be otherwise? Yes, of course. Haven’t you Saxon? Question is, what amount of risk am I willing to subject that revelation to being verifiable or not:

“Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory." (Proverbs 11:14)
So if I got this right, it comes down to an opinion of either natural or spiritual honor/dishonor? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Mike.

What I believe is to me always 100% correct. If I didn’t believe that then I have no business believing it. This does not mean that I am 100% correct. We can and do delude ourselves quite easily. We have to have a conviction of belief. We need to take a firm stand because if we don’t stand for anything we will fall for anything.

What we need to keep in mind is that in reality we do not know everything. We also need to know that there are people that we disagree with, but their opinion is just as important as our own. The reason that I press people for clear and precise answers is that I want to know the truth and if it turns out that the truth is not what I currently believe I have to be willing to change my mind. I have to be convinced with confirmation from the Bible. I believe that God will not be as hard on a person who is convinced of a false teaching as he would be with a person who follows the truth because it is the easier thing to do.

Saxon

01-11-2015, 08:49 PM

Here is my answer to your question:

I am an American.
As such whenever I hear someone talking about 9/11 I have a mental image of what they are talking about.....(The twin towers falling)
So strong is the connection in my mind between the numbers "9/11" that the moment I hear them I automatically think of the Towers.

So to me, the numbers "9/11" mean the same thing as the attack on the Twin Towers....
The two totally different ideas ( one just a set or numbers and the other a terrorist attack) are now permanently merged in my mind to be talking about the same single thing.

Before the destruction of the towers 9/11 was simply a date and then in many countries 911 became the universal emergency phone number. To come up with what is the quickest thing to your memory is CONTEXT.

What I believe about the covering of the heads in 1Corinthians 11:3 is that the context is not hair styles but respect to the heads as set out in 1Corinthians 11:3.

In 1Corinthians 11:6 this is a statement of a woman being uncovered. This is not speaking of the heads that were mentioned in 1Corinthians 11:3 so it is a body part. What it seems to be saying is that if a woman doesn’t want to wear a “hat” let her be shorn too. The only caution is “if it be a shame” then she should wear a “hat”. Paul doesn’t care if she has long hair, short hair or no hair, as long as she covers her head, her man/husband. This is totally about respect of the heads as referenced in 1Corinthians 11:3.

1Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

alanmolstad

01-12-2015, 02:10 AM

see, I dont believe that the verses are dealing with "hats" in even the slightest way.....

I dont see any listed, I dont see a hint about them dropped, I dont see them as being involved with this at all.

All I see is a very clear and simple definition given that a girls long hair was given to her as a covering.....

Saxon

01-12-2015, 02:56 PM

alanmolstad

01-12-2015, 03:04 PM

Then deal with the comments on hair. Your avoidance is so obvious.

In 1 Corinthians 11:6 this is a statement of a woman being uncovered. This is not speaking of the heads that were mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:3 so it is a body part. What it seems to be saying is that if a woman doesn't want to wear a “hat” let her be shorn too. The only caution is “if it be a shame” then she should wear a “hat”. Paul doesn't care if she has long hair, short hair or no hair, as long as she covers her head, her man/husband. This is totally about respect of the heads as referenced in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

its not talking about any hats....
Not at all...

Not even in the slightest way...

The Bible is very clear what this 'covering" is that a girl is to have..."Long hair"

If you simply read the whole set of verses in question with the understanding that the word "covering" or "covered" is just taking about the girl's "long hair" there is no need to add the idea of a "hat" or a veil, or a baseball cap, or a bike helmet to the text.....

"long hair" works fine, and its the only thing Paul wanted us to be thinking about.

alanmolstad

01-12-2015, 03:11 PM

Paul then talks about that if a girl has her head uncovered, (and remember we already know that the girl's covering is her "long hair" so this is talking about a girl that has cut her hair very short) that she should shave her head.

Some people try to take this as a snide remark by Paul.
Some people claim that Paul here is p***ing down a sentence onto the girls, as if he has judged them and now has the power to sentence them to something...
Some people are saying Paul wants us to force a girl with short hair to look like she has committed adultery, or was like a pros***ute
,
But that is WRONG!

That whole line of thinking is based on poor scholarship!

Such teachings that we sometimes hear from Christian Bible teachers run counter to what Paul was clearly attempting to do....
for Paul is attempting to help girls "IMPROVE" the way they appear to the general society...

Paul is not joking around about making our church sisters and daughters look like hookers!

That is clearly not what Paul wants at all...Paul is not for one moment saying, "Make them look like pros***utes!"

After all Paul knew that girls sometimes shave their heads when they perform the same vow that Paul also undertook.
Thats why he brings it up here!
Paul knew about this from personal experience!

So when Paul suggests that girls shave their heads, he is simply talking about the socially acceptable context that a girl is allowed to wear short hair....

But then Paul also backs-away from even his suggestion when he warns that if where you live it is disrespectful for a girl to have a shaved head then she should just wear her hair long and be "covered"

At all times Paul is attempting to help girls present themselves as being pure and respectful, so that they do not bring shame down on themselves and thereby the church too.

alanmolstad

01-12-2015, 03:34 PM

Remember, if after reading the above post, or any of the comments i have written on this topic you see an issue?., please feel free to ask me to address what i have written that is unclear...

alanmolstad

01-14-2015, 08:35 AM

No more issues?
All wrapped up here with this topic?

MichaellS

01-15-2015, 03:12 AM

No more issues?
All wrapped up here with this topic?

I suppose I have pretty much made my mind up about this. That rest on a few weaknesses of the hair only proposal.

In I Corinthians 11, we have this grouping of verses describing what the covering is, hair only:

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Yes, the above is dealing with hair only. While this body of text starts off with hair only but ends with whatsoever will work for a covering.

5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also 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 cover her head.

Why?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

We therefore cannot uphold Galatians 3:28 if a “disgraceful” older woman who is experiencing acute female baldness attends. We would have to see to it that this woman be excommunicated or something similar if we lived by the hair only proposal.

How could this be otherwise?

Mike.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 05:27 AM

I went over your post carefully looking for any reference to a "hat" in the scriptures?, or a bike helmet?, or of anything made of cloth to cover the head?. or of straw?...or of plastic?...or of metal?....

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 05:39 AM

Lets look at the same scripture you have quoted that you suggest is pointing to something else becides the "long hair" that I keep telling you this is only about.

Now first, this is what you list for verses that are dealing with hair only -

"In I Corinthians 11, we have this grouping of verses describing what the covering is, hair only:

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Before we go to the next part, Im going to just highlight the parts that we seem to both see as only referring to hair.
Now as we know, the Text tells us clearly that "long Hair" was given to the girls as a "covering" and with that in mind, (long hair = covered head) lets look for things that are talking about these hair 'coverings"

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

So by now we can clearly see that there is simply no other way to understand what paul is talking about here...
Long hair, be it on a man OR a women....is the "covering" that paul is talking about.

Paul has carefully and simply defined for us what he means by the use of the terms "head uncovered" and "covering" and what tells us he means is all about a person's "hair"

Thats it.....Just the hair.

Simply put its - LONG HAIR = COVERING

Hair and nothing but hair is a person's covering according to Paul.

Now lets move on to the next part that needs to be checked out...

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 05:45 AM

Yes, the above is dealing with hair only. While this body of text starts off with hair only but ends with whatsoever will work for a covering.

Whatever will work eh?
That's taught in the Bible?.....whatever works?

Lets look and find out -

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 05:52 AM

5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also 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 cover her head.

Now lets read that same section again, and lets make sure as we go along that we define any terms that we have just seen Paul carefully define for us.

5But every woman who has her head uncovered (uncovered = short hair) while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.(shaved = uncovered = short hair)

6For if a woman does not cover her head, (cover her head = long hair) let her also have her hair cut off (hair cut off = uncovered = short hair);

but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off (hair cut off= uncovered = short hair) or her head shaved(shaved = short hair = uncovered), let her cover her head. (cover her head = long hair)

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 06:01 AM

disciple

01-15-2015, 12:28 PM

as you can clearly see above.....this whole section of Scripture is Only dealing with the topic of hair, and its length.

There is not a single line to suggest its talking about hats, or veils, or bike helmets, or cloth wraps, or straw, or plastic baseball caps, or metal, or anything else !

Just hair.

I think there is also a historical context here. To the Corinthian society, a woman was seen as submissive and modest and feminine when she was covered in public ***embly. Removing that covering in public ***embly was a sign that she was making a statement. Women who did that were falling into one of two categories generally, for the most part. No. 1, they were feminists making a protest. We know in those days that feminists did two things in that culture--discarded their covering and shaved their hair short like a man. They were thus making a statement about their wanting to be equal to men. Feminists threw away their veils. No.2 they were pros***utes, obviously they wanted to be seen.
In verse 5, "A woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." In fact, at the end of verse 5 and verse 6, he says, "She might as well go ahead and shave herself bald for that matter." In other words, if she's going to be shameful about it, she might as well go the whole route and look like a protester, because the women in that day who were protesting in the feminist movement had clipped their hair short like a man. The point he is making is this, "Look, in your society, God wants the distinction clear. Men are men, and they are in authority. Women are women, and they are in submission. If your society has a custom that makes this clear, then you abide by that custom." That's the long and short of it. (pun intended).

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 12:57 PM

" In fact, at the end of verse 5 and verse 6, he says, "She might as well go ahead and shave herself bald for that matter."

In other words, if she's going to be shameful about it, she might as well go the whole route and look like a protester, because the women in that day who were protesting in the feminist movement had clipped their hair short like a man.

This is where I disagree with a lot of people.

You know that whole "cut your hair and look like a protester"idea?.....its wrong.

Its bad scholarship, and was invented and p***ed on in commentaries by lazy teachers, invented to answer questions about Paul's wording that people did not know how to understand.

I totally reject the idea that Paul was making a snide remark....
i reject the idea that Paul was suggesting that if you shave your head you will look like a hooker or a feminist.

I reject that idea because its wrong...
Wrong for what Paul was attempting to say.

The problem is that so many people when they come at this verse with a preconceived idea that connects "shaved head = hooker" or "shaved head = protester", that when they read what Paul is saying they automatically fill in the blanks and end up teaching things Paul was miles and miles away from teaching.

All Im saying is that if you don't make the idea of a women shaving her own head as a bad thing to happen...if you don't automatically think Paul must be talking about "hookers", ...THEN.....

Then you see something different, something beautiful....and something directly connected to Paul's own personal life.

Paul is talking to the church at Corinth about shaving of the head, because
(pay attention to this next part)|

Because that is what he did in Corinth!!!

When Paul was at Corinth he took a vow that was well-known to people at that time, and one of the things he did in connection to that vow was to shave his head!
(see ACTS 18:18)

this vow was likely the most spiritually moving part of Paul's whole life.
And let me tell, from personal experience, you never forget shaving your head!
Paul never forgot that is for sure!

This is why Paul suggests it as a way for girls to appear differently to people......But appear how?

appear to be feminist?......NO!

appear to be hookers?.......NO!

appear to be women caught in adultery?.......NOOOOOOOO!

QUESTION: how would a women appear if they were part of the church community and had a shaved head?.......
ANSWER: They would appear the same way Paul appeared to the same church community at Corinth that he is addressing in this letter...

They would appear to have taken a most holy vow to the Lord!!!

Paul shaved his head so that when the Elders and Leaders of the Jewish church looked at him and saw his shaved head, they would automatically understand it to mean he had taken a very religious vow onto the Lord.

Paul suggests this same action to girls.

This fits nicely with the whole effort that Paul is making in this letter to bring out the best in people.
To urge them to a more Christ-like life.

Paul is not suggesting for even one second that these women at Corinth make themselves appear as hookers....Not even in jest would Paul do such a thing!

The teachers and bible commentators that suggest such understandings are all in error.
When I hear people quoting such commentators i just think that they are the victim of poor scholarship and are trusting their study of the Bible to lazy teachers.

Paul undertook that vow as a means to appear to not be teaching against the Jews, Go read what he did and why in ACTS...that's why he did it>

Paul here suggests the girls that have decided to wear their hair too short for their society that they also follow in his own footsteps, and perhaps shave their heads as a way to be seen as following the path he has walked in not wanting to appear going against the Jewish traditions.

He is not asking the girls to do anything that he himself did not do in very similar circumstances.

disciple

01-15-2015, 01:45 PM

Alan,

I appreciate your zeal, but I disagree with your conclusion. I enjoyed your post.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 01:54 PM

Alan,

I appreciate your zeal, but I disagree with your conclusion. I enjoyed your post.

thanks for taking the time...thanks for the ear..

just try to read it sometime and not connect the idea of a girl shaving her head as being something that is bad.

I think if you free yourself from that preconception that you may also start to see the point Im making.

If Paul's suggestion about a girl shaving her head was aimed at making that girl appear more "holy" to the society, (as i believe it was) then it changes the whole idea you may have about what Paul is saying.

it also may change your idea of what Paul was like as a guy too!

I know when this topic came up when I attended Bible School, several of the girls in my cl*** considered paul to be kind of an A$$ with how they understood his suggestion about shaving a girls head.

"Just let him try that with me" one girl said to the cl***.

My answer is that Paul was not saying what so many people think he was saying!

Im saying that Paul was simply suggesting something that if followed would have helped a girl appear to be even more Holy and devout to others.

Paul was not suggesting girls might as well look like hookers!

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 02:08 PM

I enjoyed your post.
I hoped you did!

The truth is, I walked around the house a few times with my laptop, speaking out loud what I was writing to you in an effort to make the words of the post flow as best I could..
I really want my words to be easy to read....

The understanding and believing part?, that is up to the reader..

But it's my *** to make my words easy to read....and I tried my best to do so for you...

MichaellS

01-15-2015, 06:32 PM

Whatever will work eh?
That's taught in the Bible?.....whatever works?

Lets look and find out -

I just did. The option for a woman's long hair has been removed by my point. Therefore she also needs cover. If you don't wish to agree with that, that's fine, just show me how it is inadmissible.

Btw, your writing is quite clear and your point I do understand. That is to say that the bulk of the text describes hair as a covering, right? No, of course not, it is presently contended by you as not bulk but the entirety of this p***age for your position, and that no mention of anything else exist for a covering, right? But this is where everyone parts ways. It is those refs like verse six that stands out as differing from hair.

"but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

Back to the point of my question, how are some women going to cover their heads with hair if they no longer can grow any? Are they cast out? Too old to avoid the disgrace? Are they barred from attending the will of God in this matter? All I have done here is capitalize on the loss of hair that is completely out of the woman's control in some cases who ALSO needs to follow what has been described.

Again, if you don't think my point is admissible, or your points somehow supercede mine, that's fine, please say with what specifically?

Mike.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:25 PM

[SIZE=3]
That is to say that the bulk of the text describes hair as a covering, right?

No, of course not, it is presently contended by you as not bulk but the entirety of this p***age for your position, and that no mention of anything else exist for a covering, right?

But this is where everyone parts ways.

So I understand better, what are you talking about in the underlined part?

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:30 PM

"but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

Im reading and posting as i go along.

I came to this part and I want to add...
I believe Paul is just saying that if looking like you just undertook a very holy and religious vow in your society might actually make you look bad, then dont look like that.

Shaving your head as a women meant in that historical society that you have undertook a very holy and religious vow,,,(Paul knew this because he undertook the same type of vow and also shaved his head..see ACTS 18:18)

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:35 PM

[SIZE=3]
Back to the point of my question, how are some women going to cover their heads with hair if they no longer can grow any?

The text does not talk about the issue....therefore any answer i come up with is just a guess and is not based on scripture...

I would just point out that the scripture is very clear that the ONLY covering we are talking about is "long Hair"....but the "amount" of that hair is not listed...only it's length.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:45 PM

[SIZE=3]how are some women going to cover their heads with hair if they no longer can grow any?
The question is not addressed in the text, so i can only guess.

The guess I have is that we are talking only about the "length" of a girl's hair...never its thickness or quan***y...
This seems to allow for all kinds of individuals with different amounts of hair...

The issue Paul has is not in the amount of hair and its traditional meaning in their society, but in its length and the context it carried in society.

long hair is given to the girls as a covering...not necessary thick hair.
long hair only grows via intention...you have to want to grow your hair long.

thin hair is up to god and genetics...and as such is not discussed or criticized in the Bible.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:49 PM

[SIZE=3]Are they cast out? Too old to avoid the disgrace? Are they barred from attending the will of God in this matter?

Paul never once even suggests such an evil thing happen to our sisters in the church.

Paul is simply going out of his way to advise ways for our sisters to look more holy and devout.

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:54 PM

Again, if you don't think my point is admissible, or your points somehow supercede mine, that's fine, please say with what specifically?

Mike.

Im only saying that my point of view is the only correct point of view.
Im saying that all the teachers and Bible commentators that say that when Paul suggested shaving a girls head as a sign they were bad girls , are actually lazy bible scholars, and are teaching **** that they made up, and their reasons for doing so are weak, and are mostly based on other cities in other parts of the world, and not based on the christian community at Corinth at this time.

.......

Im saying that a girl that shaved her head was seen as a holy and devoted person, who had taken the very same vow that Paul took.

Im saying that the reason Paul even talks about shaving the head of a girl with shorter hair is because he did that to himself for the very same reason....."looking devout" to others...

alanmolstad

01-15-2015, 09:57 PM

MichaellS
If I have overlooked a question, or if there is something I have posted you have a question about or would like to have a 2nd look at?...just ask me to do so...

i will be happy to address anything, any question, and concern you have over what i have posted

MichaellS

01-16-2015, 04:07 AM

That’s all from me dear brother. Interesting!

Saxon

01-16-2015, 03:15 PM

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Alan seems to want to ignore verse 3. What I would like to know is how does a man, cover Christ by cutting his hair and how does a woman cover her man/husband by growing her hair? When you totally ignore the key verse that directly informs the reader just what the heads are you will always come up with legalistic hair cutting and growing. This is still and always has been about showing respect to your head as listed in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Verse 3 mentions nothing about the woman being covered, so it is clear that we are about to hear something that is somewhat different. It is explaining that hair is not the issue. If the woman is not covered, with a veil or some head covering, then let her be shorn or shaved. The only caution is “if it be a shame”. The remedy is not to grow more hair, as that remedy contradicts the freedom to be shorn or shaved. A veil would fix the problem. God wants us to be acceptable in our present society so we can serve God without besmirching what is considered decent to that society unless it is in violation to the will of God. God does not look at the outward appearance as man does but he looks on the inward part that only he can see.

alanmolstad

01-16-2015, 03:39 PM

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Alan seems to want to ignore verse 3. What I would like to know is how does a man, cover Christ by cutting his hair and how does a woman cover her man/husband by growing her hair? When you totally ignore the key verse that directly informs the reader just what the heads are you will always come up with legalistic hair cutting and growing. This is still and always has been about showing respect to your head as listed in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Verse 3 mentions nothing about the woman being covered, so it is clear that we are about to hear something that is somewhat different. It is explaining that hair is not the issue. If the woman is not covered, with a veil or some head covering, then let her be shorn or shaved. The only caution is “if it be a shame”. The remedy is not to grow more hair, as that remedy contradicts the freedom to be shorn or shaved. A veil would fix the problem. God wants us to be acceptable in our present society so we can serve God without besmirching what is considered decent to that society unless it is in violation to the will of God. God does not look at the outward appearance as man does but he looks on the inward part that only he can see.

when you look at the girl, you see her relationship in how she looks.
Thatis why looking ather headis the samething as looking at her husband.

The two ideas are the same, they are welded to each other.

Look at her hair= see her husband....and so....the length of her hair = her relationship with her husband.

Saxon

01-16-2015, 05:13 PM

You are still ignoring 1 Corinthians 11:3. Why are the heads so clearly stated??

alanmolstad

01-16-2015, 05:30 PM

Saxon

01-16-2015, 06:29 PM

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, (When you look at the head of the man you can see his relationship with Christ, The correct hair length shows you what place the man has for Christ in his heart, The two ideas, the hair on the man's head and his relationship with his Lord are welded into the same thing ...That is what it says "The head of the man is Christ")

When has hair length replaced faith? You can’t tell a person’s relationship with Christ by the length of their hair. We can tell a person’s relationship to Christ by the love they have for one another. (See 1 John 4:7)

You need to show me in the Bible where it says the correct hair length shows you what place the man has for Christ in his heart. It doesn’t.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

and the head of the woman is man,[a] (when you look at the head of the women you see the man, you look at her hair and see the relationship to her husband, there is no separation between looking at her head and seeing her relationship with her husband, the two ideas are welded into one...That is why it says "The head of the woman is man")

That is not what it says. The heads are indicating leaders. When you look at a woman’s head with all here hair you don’t see her man. You don’t even know most of the women that you see let alone by looking at her head with her hair who her man is.

and the head of Christ is God. (when you look at Christ you see God, when you look at Christ you see the relationship the Son has to the father...seeing one points to the other....no separation)

That is because you are speaking about ONE God. That is a closer relationship than the one flesh relationship of a man and his wife. Not one of your explanations is solid scripture. There is no scripture that I can see you using. You seem to rely on opinions of so called “Bible Scholars”. Alan, your comments lack scriptural backing.

MichaellS

01-17-2015, 07:00 AM

You seem to rely on opinions of so called “Bible Scholars”.

Curious on this Saxon, where did he say, link or forward such reliance? Earlier on, I did spend some effort asking Alan to retrieve at least some portion in the world of academia that supports his position. But if I'm not mistaken he maintains so many have wrongly interpreted this p***age, and I suppose that includes the world of formal training. I myself have run that down to some degree and have serious reservations for the amount Alan could generate from them, that quite nearly all scholars wouldn't throw-in with Alan's view.

If anyone could, please, prove me wrong.

Mike

Saxon

01-17-2015, 08:47 AM

Curious on this Saxon, where did he say, link or forward such reliance? Earlier on, I did spend some effort asking Alan to retrieve at least some portion in the world of academia that supports his position. But if I'm not mistaken he maintains so many have wrongly interpreted this p***age, and I suppose that includes the world of formal training. I myself have run that down to some degree and have serious reservations for the amount Alan could generate from them, that quite nearly all scholars wouldn't throw-in with Alan's view.

If anyone could, please, prove me wrong.

Alan did use a link but when I read it, for the most part, it was in agreement with me. He has never quoted any extra-biblical source that supports his version of this issue.

When he quotes the Bible he always ignores 1 Corinthians 11:3, which is the key to understanding the whole topic as far as I am concerned. What he is saying makes no sense because 1 Corinthians 11:3 defines the head that is to be covered or uncovered and it is clearly not the human body part.

The hair issue that Paul uses is used as an example of how a woman “covers” her man/husband. The covering is not placing something on your head, man or body part, it is making sure that the woman’s behavior is not bringing reproach to her man/husband. The man, keeping his head (Christ) uncovered is a man being sure that Christ is revealed in his praying and prophesying. Hair is not the issue at all.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

MichaellS

01-17-2015, 10:13 AM

1 Corinthians 11:3 defines the head that is to be covered or uncovered and it is clearly not the human body part.

The hair issue that Paul uses is used as an example of how a woman “covers” her man/husband. The covering is not placing something on your head, man or body part, it is making sure that the woman’s behavior is not bringing reproach to her man/husband.

It is in comments like this that unravels my ability to reap a satisfactory understanding. First you say it is not the “body part”. I suppose that means hair.

Then you say it is “not placing something on your head” but the other meaning you provide. With that I don’t feel anything wrong with using the double implication, yours and also something placed.

Aside from this Saxon, your use of 11:3’s “head of”, “head of”, “head of” direction of respectfulness I think I can concur. But my haziness picks up here again as I thought Alan did too, , I mean, at least he doesn’t deny the ultimate respect towards Christ as head of the man.

Mike

Saxon

01-17-2015, 01:42 PM

It is in comments like this that unravels my ability to reap a satisfactory understanding. First you say it is not the “body part”. I suppose that means hair.

1 Corinthians 11:3 defines the head that is to be covered or uncovered and it is clearly not the human body part. The head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head, Christ, covered, dishonors his head, Christ. Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head, man, uncovered dishonors her head, man.

I you keep it in the context of verse 3, there is no body part being covered or uncovered. There is also no body part doing the covering or uncovering.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Then you say it is “not placing something on your head” but the other meaning you provide. With that I don’t feel anything wrong with using the double implication, yours and also something placed.

Aside from this Saxon, your use of 11:3’s “head of”, “head of”, “head of” direction of respectfulness I think I can concur. But my haziness picks up here again as I thought Alan did too, , I mean, at least he doesn’t deny the ultimate respect towards Christ as head of the man.

You are correct, Alan does not deny the ultimate respect towards Christ as head of the man. He, unfortunately, says that but drops it and goes on with his unbiblical and unrelated explanation not realizing that the hair that is mentioned is used as an example of how a woman can uncover, or expose her man to ridicule. As I said before, Paul could care less if the woman had long hair, short hair or no hair, as long as there is no reproach on her man. The issue is the respect you display toward the head as revealed in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

MichaellS

01-17-2015, 04:43 PM

Thanks for all the response and clarification.

A couple of things here.

On the menial order of things, are you sure Paul could “care less”?

I understand your point of conveying “reproach” or “disgrace”, but to the point of dismissing v14:

“Does not the very nature of things teach you, , that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (ICor 11:14:15)

Back to the item of predominant consensus, I noticed you went strangely silent. I’m sure most all of us here have had our share of reading formal opinion. Those thousands of scholars behind all those pages of commentary we often hear vilified (myself as well) from the pulpit to pew isn’t quite as refreshing to me as it once was. But then how could it? I too was steeped in un-biblical denominationism, thereby commentary was bias, the table of dialog was bias and communion with the brethren was un-biblically bias.

If you ask me, the effort shown from the non-liberal Church has treated Jesus’ wish to the Father, “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:11) with the lowest of all independent priorities. How has it faired? Since the times of the Apostles, far above as the most successful endeavor the Church has set out to do.

Since I shook myself free of that un-biblical bondage of dis-unity, I have been able to more easily read the labors of some fabulous minds of sound doctrine without overwhelming doubt. I am confident you are free of this as well.

Mike

Saxon

01-17-2015, 06:42 PM

Thanks for all the response and clarification.

A couple of things here.

On the menial order of things, are you sure Paul could “care less”?

Paul and Silas were asked, what must I do to be saved? The answer was simple and to the point, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. (See Acts 16:30 and 31) There was no mention of having long, short or any hair. Paul could care less about hair.

Again, 1 Corinthians 11:6, if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. Paul was not making a condemning remark, as the woman was not to be covered in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:3, so the only caution was if it be a shame, then she should cover her head, body part. Paul could care less about hair.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

I understand your point of conveying “reproach” or “disgrace”, but to the point of dismissing v14:

“Does not the very nature of things teach you, , that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (ICor 11:14:15)

Paul is still referring to a woman covering her head, man/husband. He asks is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? In certain places it did not matter, in others it was a shame but in the church there is no such custom. The statement is but if a woman have long hair. You even brought this up yourself, what if she doesn’t have long hair? Hair is a non-issue.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Back to the item of predominant consensus, I noticed you went strangely silent. I’m sure most all of us here have had our share of reading formal opinion. Those thousands of scholars behind all those pages of commentary we often hear vilified (myself as well) from the pulpit to pew isn’t quite as refreshing to me as it once was. But then how could it? I too was steeped in un-biblical denominationism, thereby commentary was bias, the table of dialog was bias and communion with the brethren was un-biblically bias.

I am of the opinion that the church fathers and our Bible scholars were and still are writing their opinions of what scripture is saying. The only thing we have to go on as to if their opinion is correct is to compare it to what scripture says. If the expressed opinion agrees with scripture then you are free to agree with them. The authors of the books of the Bible were not stating opinion so we have to agree with them always even if the fore mentioned writers do not. Are we not to check the scriptures to see if these things are so?

If you ask me, the effort shown from the non-liberal Church has treated Jesus’ wish to the Father, “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:11) with the lowest of all independent priorities. How has it faired? Since the times of the Apostles, far above as the most successful endeavor the Church has set out to do.

Since I shook myself free of that un-biblical bondage of dis-unity, I have been able to more easily read the labors of some fabulous minds of sound doctrine without overwhelming doubt. I am confident you are free of this as well.

There is unity in Christ as all those that are in Christ agree that Jesus is Lord. All the rest will come together when we meet him face to face.

MichaellS

01-17-2015, 08:12 PM

Paul and Silas were asked, what must I do to be saved? The answer was simple and to the point, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. (See Acts 16:30 and 31) There was no mention of having long, short or any hair. Paul could care less about hair.

Some day, you'll have to tell me how to link chronological respect for Christ with the message of salvation. Sax, I do esteem your contributing thoughts, but I might have to excuse myself from this one. For the link of salvation to the head of man, which is Christ is automatic without external work or comment.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

I am of the opinion that the church fathers and our Bible scholars were and still are writing their opinions of what scripture is saying. The only thing we have to go on as to if their opinion is correct is to compare it to what scripture says. If the expressed opinion agrees with scripture then you are free to agree with them. The authors of the books of the Bible were not stating opinion so we have to agree with them always even if the fore mentioned writers do not. Are we not to check the scriptures to see if these things are so?

Yes, and this just might be reason to check what translator gave the greater percentage of change to v15. My, the difference in a missing question mark. Several have, and several don’t. No wonder people get bogged down with conflicting definitions.

Mike.

Saxon

01-18-2015, 08:33 AM

Some day, you'll have to tell me how to link chronological respect for Christ with the message of salvation. Sax, I do esteem your contributing thoughts, but I might have to excuse myself from this one. For the link of salvation to the head of man, which is Christ is automatic without external work or comment.

You had asked if Paul could care less about hair. My response is to bring up the most important question that a person could ask, what must I do to be saved? Paul was a participant in the answering of the question and did not mention having the correct length of hair. Or anything else except that a person needs to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now if hair was going to be an important factor in serving Christ that would have been the time to mention it.

Yes, and this just might be reason to check what translator gave the greater percentage of change to v15. My, the difference in a missing question mark. Several have, and several don’t. No wonder people get bogged down with conflicting definitions.

It would be great if I were to be totally fluent in the original languages that the Bible was written in. That would also have its problems with others that are fluent in the same languages because agreement is so hard to come by in whatever you do. It is my opinion that we have to trust that God will lead us into all truth by his Holy Spirit in spite of our persistence in believing that we know best. The face to face meeting will settle it all and we can then laugh at our own ignorance of the subject that we “knew” that we had 100% right.

MichaellS

01-19-2015, 03:38 AM

You had asked if Paul could care less about hair. My response is to bring up the most important question that a person could ask, what must I do to be saved? Paul was a participant in the answering of the question and did not mention having the correct length of hair. Or anything else except that a person needs to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Now if hair was going to be an important factor in serving Christ that would have been the time to mention it.

You’re bringing up the “most important question” I will agree is a commendable effort to bring up eternal awareness’s. But this still isn’t reason to detract from Paul’s comment “her glory” and instead to imply he really meant “care less”.

It would be great if I were to be totally fluent in the original languages that the Bible was written in. That would also have its problems with others that are fluent in the same languages because agreement is so hard to come by in whatever you do.

Right! It may be hard to come by, but not impossible to reduce significantly. I am a firm believer that this can also be drawn from the collection of many scholars. As I said in comment #80, since I shook myself free of that un-biblical bondage of dis-unity, I have been able to more easily read the labors of some very good input. So the only sound method to retain the highest form of purity with NT ancient Greek is to distance dis-unity scholar-wide.

“Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory." (Proverbs 11:14)

My own Greek workbook from the local Christian college’s preface includes the same direction, but I didn't take the course, I thought the use of four, not "many" influential theologians we're too few. The comment on replication of other theologians from that preface:

“To replicate the work of others appears unnecessary. Therefore, it may seem the that this textbook is little more than an expression of arrogance on the part of the author, or at best the replication of many other distinguished theologians.”

Saxon

01-20-2015, 09:47 PM

You’re bringing up the “most important question” I will agree is a commendable effort to bring up eternal awareness’s. But this still isn’t reason to detract from Paul’s comment “her glory” and instead to imply he really meant “care less”.

1 Corinthians 11:15 is not referring to the heads that are uncovered or covered in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Regarding hair in this context, Paul could care less. 1 Corinthians 11:6 is indicating that if a woman is not covered then let her also be shorn or shaved. Again, the only caution, if it be a shame, let her be covered. Not the same covering to the head as described in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul could care less about hair. Hair is not a requirement to be saved. Hair is not a requirement to serve God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hair is not the issue with the heads of 1 Corinthians 11:3

1 Corinthians 11:15 is a clear statement that means what it says. It is used with the rest of the verses to demonstrate what it means for a woman to cover her man/husband in the context of verses 3 and 5

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

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

MichaellS

01-20-2015, 10:30 PM

1 Corinthians 11:15 is not referring to the heads that are uncovered or covered in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Regarding hair in this context, Paul could care less. 1 Corinthians 11:6 is indicating that if a woman is not covered then let her also be shorn or shaved. Again, the only caution, if it be a shame, let her be covered. Not the same covering to the head as described in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul could care less about hair. Hair is not a requirement to be saved. Hair is not a requirement to serve God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hair is not the issue with the heads of 1 Corinthians 11:3

1 Corinthians 11:15 is a clear statement that means what it says. It is used with the rest of the verses to demonstrate what it means for a woman to cover her man/husband in the context of verses 3 and 5

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

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

All the way with you here Saxon, shy of care less and this item of, , however do you get being saved or not out of the context of honor/dishonor, praying and prophesying?

Even though you cited v15, I don’t see your counter to my last point. I can still appropriately repeat myself, this isn’t reason to detract from Paul’s comment “her glory” and instead to imply he really meant “care less”. Of course on your point we can agree, it has no bearing on salvation, but it still doesn’t detract. Are you insisting it does? It can’t if it isn’t related.

Saxon

01-21-2015, 04:53 AM

Even though you cited v15, I don’t see your counter to my last point. I can still appropriately repeat myself, this isn’t reason to detract from Paul’s comment “her glory” and instead to imply he really meant “care less”. Of course on your point we can agree, it has no bearing on salvation, but it still doesn’t detract. Are you insisting it does? It can’t if it isn’t related.

Verse 15 isn’t in the same context as verses 3, 4 and 5. The “careless” is about hair covering or uncovering in verses 3, 4 and 5. Where he is concerned with hair then there is concern about hair. Verse 6 and beyond is about how a woman covers her man/husband and the hair is an example and a play on words with head in verse 3 and head, body part.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

MichaellS

01-22-2015, 06:09 PM

Verse 15 isn’t in the same context as verses 3, 4 and 5. The “careless” is about hair covering or uncovering in verses 3, 4 and 5.

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe it is as simple as you say Saxon. It isn't a separated meaning between V5 and V6. When V5 mentions "dishonoureth" and the continues further information surrounding covering in V6 starting off with "For if" and "shame" we see a continuation and clearly interrelated. Likewise, ,

V7 "For a"
V8 "For man"
V9 "for indeed"
V10 "Therefore"
V11 "However, in the Lord"
V12 "For as the woman"
V13 "Judge for yourselves"
V14 "Does not even nature"
V15 "but if a woman"
V16 "But if"

The whole matter may be an escape to conform to what is not being discussed here. I thought it would interesting to see how you arrived at that conclusion, but honestly Sax, I'm not quite as impressed as I once was.

Bless you.

Saxon

01-22-2015, 11:29 PM

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe it is as simple as you say Saxon. It isn't a separated meaning between V5 and V6. When V5 mentions "dishonoureth" and the continues further information surrounding covering in V6 starting off with "For if" and "shame" we see a continuation and clearly interrelated. Likewise, ,

V7 "For a"
V8 "For man"
V9 "for indeed"
V10 "Therefore"
V11 "However, in the Lord"
V12 "For as the woman"
V13 "Judge for yourselves"
V14 "Does not even nature"
V15 "but if a woman"
V16 "But if"

The whole matter may be an escape to conform to what is not being discussed here. I thought it would interesting to see how you arrived at that conclusion, but honestly Sax, I'm not quite as impressed as I once was.

Bless you.

To be honest, I hope that I am not boring you to distraction on this. I have explained this clearly over and over again. I can understand that you are not gaining the understanding that I have hoped because I do not explain it as well as it can be done. I will try again and hope that you don’t shrivel up with despair as I do tend to want to express it to you so you can understand why I am saying what I am saying about the hair thing. I am not saying that you have to agree with me but I hope you can understand what I am getting at.

As you know, I take 1 Corinthians 11:3 to be the key verse on the topic. It is the Key verse as it is the verse that clearly stated that the heads that are of importance are beings, Christ, Man and God. This is clearly not the body part, head.

1 Corinthians 11:4 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) Every man praying or prophesying, having Christ covered, dishonoureth Christ. What could be the idea of covering Christ, man’s head, when a man is praying or prophesying? I do not believe that it would be a man having long hair. It is more like the idea of a prideful man showing himself to be seeking praise and honour for his ability to be praying or prophesying in the midst of the congregation. Christ, the head, is covered by that man’s pride. To have Christ, his head, uncovered the man praying or prophesying would be sure to humble himself by openly praising Christ, his head.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her man/husband uncovered dishonoureth her man/husband: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. This idea of the woman uncovering her man/husband is as described, the same as if she was shaved. If a woman was caught in adultery or pros***ution, her head, body part was shaved. This was to identify her, to her shame, that she was an adulteress or a pros***ute. Having her head, body part shaved would leave her man/husband uncovered and open to the shame of being married to an adulteress or a pros***ute.

1 Corinthians 11:6 is speaking of a woman not being covered and departs from verse 3 because verse 3 does not mention a woman as a head or if she should be covered or uncovered. Verse 6 does relate to verse 5 as it is a continuation of the explanation of how a woman uncovers her head, man/husband. If a woman doesn’t wear a vail then let her be shorn. If she wants to go without a vail she can also be shorn. The problem only arises if to be shaved or shorn is a shame such as identifying as an adulteress or a pros***ute. If it is a shame then let her wear a vail.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) For a man indeed ought not to cover Christ, forasmuch as Christ is the image and glory of God: (See Hebrews 1:3) but the woman is the glory of the man. The man’s head, Christ, is not covered because Christ is the image and glory of God. The man/husband should be covered by the woman because she is the glory of the man.

The rest of the verses that you have listed are speaking of the nature of men and women in order to show the reason for the woman to cover her head, man/husband. As I see it and hopefully explained, there is no reason to think that this has anything to do with the length of a man or woman’s hair.

I do hope that I am not wearing you out on this subject.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For 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.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

MichaellS

01-24-2015, 08:14 PM

To be honest, I hope that I am not boring you to distraction on this. I have explained this clearly over and over again. I can understand that you are not gaining the understanding that I have hoped because I do not explain it as well as it can be done. I will try again and hope that you don’t shrivel up with despair as I do tend to want to express it to you so you can understand why I am saying what I am saying about the hair thing. I am not saying that you have to agree with me but I hope you can understand what I am getting at.

As you know, I take 1 Corinthians 11:3 to be the key verse on the topic. It is the Key verse as it is the verse that clearly stated that the heads that are of importance are beings, Christ, Man and God. This is clearly not the body part, head.

Yes, the head of woman, of man, of Christ, God as stated, the order of subjection in the most fundamental of meanings.

Corinthians 11:4 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) Every man praying or prophesying, having Christ covered, dishonoureth Christ. What could be the idea of covering Christ, man’s head, when a man is praying or prophesying? I do not believe that it would be a man having long hair. It is more like the idea of a prideful man showing himself to be seeking praise and honour for his ability to be praying or prophesying in the midst of the congregation. Christ, the head, is covered by that man’s pride. To have Christ, his head, uncovered the man praying or prophesying would be sure to humble himself by openly praising Christ, his head.

“Alternate” reading? See, this is what I believe you are doing here. It appears to be an overemphasizing of the headship seen in V3 on your part so you can more easily separate, not accommodate the Apostle’s elaboration concerning that headship. Your difficulty in inserting extra-biblical meaning of “pride” is neither disproved nor stated or implied at all. There is only one reason:

V7”For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God”

The same applies to the rest of your comments here which are correct, but short of that which I previously said, an interrelation with V3.

1 Corinthians 11:5 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her man/husband uncovered dishonoureth her man/husband: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. This idea of the woman uncovering her man/husband is as described, the same as if she was shaved. If a woman was caught in adultery or pros***ution, her head, body part was shaved. This was to identify her, to her shame, that she was an adulteress or a pros***ute. Having her head, body part shaved would leave her man/husband uncovered and open to the shame of being married to an adulteress or a pros***ute.

1 Corinthians 11:6 is speaking of a woman not being covered and departs from verse 3 because verse 3 does not mention a woman as a head or if she should be covered or uncovered. Verse 6 does relate to verse 5 as it is a continuation of the explanation of how a woman uncovers her head, man/husband. If a woman doesn’t wear a vail then let her be shorn. If she wants to go without a vail she can also be shorn. The problem only arises if to be shaved or shorn is a shame such as identifying as an adulteress or a pros***ute. If it is a shame then let her wear a vail.

1 Corinthians 11:7 (alternate reading because of the heads of verse 3) For a man indeed ought not to cover Christ, forasmuch as Christ is the image and glory of God: (See Hebrews 1:3) but the woman is the glory of the man. The man’s head, Christ, is not covered because Christ is the image and glory of God. The man/husband should be covered by the woman because she is the glory of the man.

The rest of the verses that you have listed are speaking of the nature of men and women in order to show the reason for the woman to cover her head, man/husband. As I see it and hopefully explained, there is no reason to think that this has anything to do with the length of a man or woman’s hair.

I do hope that I am not wearing you out on this subject.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For 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.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Possibly, this is a bit like a couple that went to the bank to withdraw a large stack of unbound singles from the teller. A large line of intensely curious onlookers behind sees the woman attempting to manhandle the many bills, but because she didn’t bring a purse, everyone becomes embarr***ed with her. Of course, you-know-who was able to catch and carry every one of them with ease, recomposing all anxiety (shame).

Now we can see that the Bank (Head) wasn’t at fault for the missing purse (covering), but it would have been handy advice to apply beforehand, or accommodate shall we say. Neither is the purse to be confused with the bank, but knows who may not be following instructions for the greater good.

My point is as with this p***age, non-par***ioned.

Saxon

01-27-2015, 10:53 AM

“Alternate” reading? See, this is what I believe you are doing here. It appears to be an overemphasizing of the headship seen in V3 on your part so you can more easily separate, not accommodate the Apostle’s elaboration concerning that headship. Your difficulty in inserting extra-biblical meaning of “pride” is neither disproved nor stated or implied at all. There is only one reason:
V7”For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God”
The same applies to the rest of your comments here which are correct, but short of that which I previously said, an interrelation with V3.

Paul wrote it and I am reading it. This is not an “overemphasizing” of the headship, it is pointing out what is being overlooked as to what heads are to be covered and uncovered. If verse 3 was to be remembered while looking at the rest of the verses that are related to covering of heads then the whole idea of hair length as the covering or uncovering would not even be coming to the forefront.

The pride factor is not so far-fetched either. (See Proverbs 16:18) If a man was to place himself in front of Christ and cover him he would be covering his head. Growing long hair on your head, body part is not going to cover Christ, your head. Man’s head, body part, is not the image and glory of God, Christ is. (See Hebrews 1:2 and 3) The whole commentary is about the head as described in verse 3.

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.

Possibly, this is a bit like a couple that went to the bank to withdraw a large stack of unbound singles from the teller. A large line of intensely curious onlookers behind sees the woman attempting to manhandle the many bills, but because she didn’t bring a purse, everyone becomes embarr***ed with her. Of course, you-know-who was able to catch and carry every one of them with ease, recomposing all anxiety (shame).

Now we can see that the Bank (Head) wasn’t at fault for the missing purse (covering), but it would have been handy advice to apply beforehand, or accommodate shall we say. Neither is the purse to be confused with the bank, but knows who may not be following instructions for the greater good.

My point is as with this p***age, non-par***ioned.

The head, Christ, man and God are not, in this case, responsible to maintain the covering or uncovering. The man is responsible to keep Christ uncovered and the woman is responsible to keep the man/husband covered. The covering of these heads of verse 3 is not the hair on the heads (body part) of the man or the woman in verses 4 and 5.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

MichaellS

01-27-2015, 08:47 PM

If verse 3 was to be remembered while looking at the rest of the verses that are related to covering of heads then the whole idea of hair length as the covering or uncovering would not even be coming to the forefront.

Hello my friend. But if the rest is not redacted with V3, they are meaningless and presents an invitation for vague entry. If we don’t recognize that this was never meant to make a fresh context from V3 to 4, this too is pointless.

The pride factor is not so far-fetched either. (See Proverbs 16:18) If a man was to place himself in front of Christ and cover him he would be covering his head. Growing long hair on your head, body part is not going to cover Christ, your head. Man’s head, body part, is not the image and glory of God, Christ is. (See Hebrews 1:2 and 3) The whole commentary is about the head as described in verse 3.
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Imposing the thought of Christ only without the navigation of the other might be a clue for us to reconsider.

“Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

The head, Christ, man and God are not, in this case, responsible to maintain the covering or uncovering.

The results of an undetermined Church (V13 “Judge for yourselves”). Very loose and very old Sax. The who and what is and isn’t was covered in the second paragraph of the missing purse.

The man is responsible to keep Christ uncovered and the woman is responsible to keep the man/husband covered.

The results of a determined Church. Broken meanings here from the previous sentence. If you’re making a point, please clarify.

The covering of these heads of verse 3 is not the hair on the heads (body part) of the man or the woman in verses 4 and 5.

Agreed, and now this is my signal to curtail this. This one sentence spells futility for the soundness I thought to voice throughout, and any confidence that this will end productively is now at a premium.

Thanks for your temperate and very patient responses.

Saxon

01-28-2015, 05:37 PM

Redact (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redacted)
1: to put in writing : frame
2: to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release; broadly
3: to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release

Hello my friend. But if the rest is not redacted with V3, they are meaningless and presents an invitation for vague entry. If we don’t recognize that this was never meant to make a fresh context from V3 to 4, this too is pointless.

I am so sorry, the term “redacted” leaves me totally blank.

I am sure that this is to be in the same context as I have been indicating from the start. Verses 3, 4 and 5 are all in the same context. Verse 3states that the heads are persons, not body parts. The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. If we read no further, just the third and fourth verse, it is certain that the head of man that is not to be covered is Christ. If this is not so, verse 3 is a waste of space.

Verse 5 is the same with the exception that the woman uncovering her head, man/husband is compared to a woman that has her head, body part shaved. This head shaving was, in that part of the world, a punishment inflicted on those women if they were caught in adultery or pros***ution.

Verse 6 is explaining how a shaved head, body part, can lead to the woman’s head, man/husband being uncovered. The woman is not covered in verse 3, so it is the head, body part that is not covered. If she doesn’t want her head, body part, to be covered Paul says allow her to be shorn also. His next comment is, if it be a shame let her be covered (using a vail). I have said using a vail because the woman is not covered in verse 3 so it is the head, body part that is being referred to.

Verse 7 is saying that the man should not cover his head, Christ. I say Christ because it is Christ that is the image and glory of God, not a man’s head, body part. (See Hebrews 1:3) The Woman is the glory of the man/husband, so the woman should cover the man/husband because she, the woman, is the glory of the man/husband. There is no hair length involved with the actual covering or uncovering of the heads as described in verse 3 of 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But 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.
1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For 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.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Imposing the thought of Christ only without the navigation of the other might be a clue for us to reconsider.

“Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare Heb 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

James 3:9 is not saying “image and likeness”. It is only one, depending on the version you look at. One will say image (See CJB, JUB MSG) and another will say likeness (See AVS AMP and many more) The KJV says “similitude”.

Colossians 1:15 is definitely stating Christ is the image of God. We have no problem there.

Hebrews 1:3 is stating that Christ is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, according to your quote is correct in the notice of "the impress". This means an exact image, like the wax seal is the exact image of the seal ring pressed on the wax. Man is nowhere near that kind of exactness. Christ is in this verse, both God’s image and glory as is the head in 1 Corinthians 11:7. There is no reason to think that it is any thing or person other than Christ.

James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Agreed, and now this is my signal to curtail this. This one sentence spells futility for the soundness I thought to voice throughout, and any confidence that this will end productively is now at a premium.

Thanks for your temperate and very patient responses.

It has been good to converse with you and maybe we will find each other on a different subject.

alanmolstad

02-02-2015, 02:05 PM

Curious on this Saxon, where did he say, link or forward such reliance? Earlier on, I did spend some effort asking Alan to retrieve at least some portion in the world of academia that supports his position. But if I'm not mistaken he maintains so many have wrongly interpreted this p***age, and I suppose that includes the world of formal training. I myself have run that down to some degree and have serious reservations for the amount Alan could generate from them, that quite nearly all scholars wouldn't throw-in with Alan's view.

If anyone could, please, prove me wrong.

Mike
hey, is this topic still ging on?

i have been a bit distracted with an issue with a Mormon guest needing a good talking to by the Mods here, and also with our Super Bowl party we held last night...so i had no clue you guys were still adding posts to this topic.

I also read the post I quoted above and I dont remember at all what I was asked to google and find for you?

If I remember correctly what we were talking about, My point is that there is no way to get the word "covering" to mean anything except "hair' in this section of the Bible.

now this topic did come up while I attended Bible school, and I know that I was able back then to find Bible scholars who supported my views.as i was not making this stuff up but rather i was just reading what they were saying and testing it to make sure it was correct.

I guess I could GOOGLE the topic to see whats out there?

But back to what i was talking about-

The veil idea was what i objected to....
I believe the people that read this part of the bible to be only talking about women must wear a veil are wrong....

MichaellS

02-02-2015, 09:11 PM

hey, is this topic still ging on?

i have been a bit distracted with an issue with a Mormon guest needing a good talking to by the Mods here, and also with our Super Bowl party we held last night...so i had no clue you guys were still adding posts to this topic.

I also read the post I quoted above and I dont remember at all what I was asked to google and find for you?

If I remember correctly what we were talking about, My point is that there is no way to get the word "covering" to mean anything except "hair' in this section of the Bible.

now this topic did come up while I attended Bible school, and I know that I was able back then to find Bible scholars who supported my views.as i was not making this stuff up but rather i was just reading what they were saying and testing it to make sure it was correct.

I guess I could GOOGLE the topic to see whats out there?

But back to what i was talking about-

The veil idea was what i objected to....
I believe the people that read this part of the bible to be only talking about women must wear a veil are wrong....

Frankly, with what you and Saxon have added to me, I have pretty much run things down for myself. I’m also fairly sure you know what Saxon’s position is. He too is a good commenter.

Interesting on the scholars! As for googling, I do that sparingly when I need additional info. But between my own hard copies of commentary and online sources, seriously, I think the hundreds of trained people behind these commentaries have been unfairly ranked.

There are several bible helps out there on the web, but I have become a fan of the one located here. (http://biblehub.com/) It is very versatile, multiple commentary and fast once you get the hang of it.

I’ll continue going through the listings of posts around the board and see if anything unction’s me.

alanmolstad

02-02-2015, 10:50 PM

I did a google search, and this was the first hit I got..

http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/11.htm

If you read the short "footnote" section at the bottom you can see that the editor of this footnote does think on this issue in agreement with what I have been saying...

MichaellS

02-03-2015, 04:31 AM

alanmolstad

09-04-2017, 03:02 PM