http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...f_the_hats.php
Printable View
Greetings Trig,
Nicely written satire, but isn't an atheistic hat still a hat?
No. It isn't. This is, in fact, the point.
TRiG.:)
I dont understand the point?
I don't either Alan. Those in the article's comment line who think they did understand comes off as a little sketchy. Look at these three:
#4 But did they wear their hats to chur…oh, ha ha I see what you did there. Very nicely done, sir!
#9 Yep. The religious are as mad as hatters.
#12 Oh, I get it. You’re talking about religion.A good alternate ending to your parable could be your realization of the Catholic Church’s supreme providence over so much of Earth, and how the Catholic Church’s leader is identified by a large pointy hat
If there is a crystal clear revelation the best one I could ever hope to achieve would be under #3 Just how does these guys get away with consistent and deliberate "dishonored" head-covered Church prayer(I Cor 11:4) ? Got me.
I Cor 11:4
Is talking about hair.
The length of hair...
I also didn't know this, that it appears to be a debated matter. You have a legitimate claim. We can see the stage of this being set between a split of treatments the translations have given with such as “has something on his head”, or others flowing the use of word meaning right into the next verses referencing “hair”, specifically.
While I count that a possibility, I am not wholly convinced it is a universal one. Vs 14’s “long hair” is interrupted by verse six if shaved, cover it. Still, whether or not a man has a certain length of hair sounds as it might be the one and only thing discussed, to reveal the image of God.
The scholars and theologians handling the Greek, they are all over the place. As Dr. Martin used to say they are back in their “ivory towers” unable to agree since it may affect their status.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/11-4.htm
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
What!!! Where did you get this from! Book Chapter and Verse.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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:Quote:
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...
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.
That is exactly right and in context with 1 Corinthians 11:3.Quote:
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"
See 1 Corinthians 11:16, we have no such custom.Quote:
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 -
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!!!!!!!
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.Quote:
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....
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.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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 11:4 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.
At sword cl*** now..
Will post more later tonight.
let me hear your questions!
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...
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.
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.
any question at all....
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?
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.
well....Im not sure what you are asking about, but I can say this -Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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 ...
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.Quote:
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?
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 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:Quote:
“But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (I Cor 7:6)
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.Quote:
“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.”
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:
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.Quote:
“Where there is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is victory." (Proverbs 11:14)
Mike.
Quote:
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....
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?Quote:
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"