Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 98 of 98

Thread: What hat do you wear?

  1. #76
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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

  2. #77
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  3. #78
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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

  4. #79
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  5. #80
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    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

  6. #81
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #82
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.

  8. #83
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  9. #84
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.”

  10. #85
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  11. #86
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.

  12. #87
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  13. #88
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.

  14. #89
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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:

  15. #90
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.

  16. #91
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    “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.

  17. #92
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post
    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.

  18. #93
    Saxon
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  19. #94
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    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....

  20. #95
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by MichaellS; 02-04-2015 at 07:03 PM. Reason: Thanksgiving.

  21. #96
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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...

  22. #97
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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...
    The people behind the NIV translation.

  23. #98
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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.
    I like all that I have said on this issue here...
    I believe its very true and worth saying....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •