0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Izdaari

  • Standing Ovation? +214/-3
Re: Head covering at Church
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2016, 12:19:52 PM »
That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Are you taking the attitude that parts of the Bible we can ignore because it was instruction for "Paul's time"?

Once one starts down that road, more and more things can be ignored under the "not culturally relevant" banner...

Yes. I think that's just what it was: appropriate advice for Paul's time and culture, not especially relevant now. Paul's letters were addressed to specific Christian communities. Some of it is dealing with their particular concerns, and some of it is for all Christians fprever. This, IMHO, is in the former category.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 01:33:13 AM by Izdaari »
Big-time negotiators, false healers and woman haters
Masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition
But the enemy I see wears a cloak of decency
All non-believers and men stealers talkin' in the name of religion
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.

Izdaari

  • Standing Ovation? +214/-3
Re: Head covering at Church
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2016, 01:35:37 AM »
I need to find a raspberry beret to wear to church, and also a red Corvette to drive to church. Both in honor of Prince of course.
Big-time negotiators, false healers and woman haters
Masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition
But the enemy I see wears a cloak of decency
All non-believers and men stealers talkin' in the name of religion
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.

Walt

  • Standing Ovation? +140/-0
Re: Head covering at Church
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2016, 07:29:20 PM »
That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Are you taking the attitude that parts of the Bible we can ignore because it was instruction for "Paul's time"?

Once one starts down that road, more and more things can be ignored under the "not culturally relevant" banner...

Yes. I think that's just what it was: appropriate advice for Paul's time and culture, not especially relevant now. Paul's letters were addressed to specific Christian communities. Some of it is dealing with their particular concerns, and some of it is for all Christians fprever. This, IMHO, is in the former category.

Fair enough; that is your prerogative.

I think that God wrote the Bible for all time; that's why we find the command to "be modest", but God does not give a bunch of culture-specific items that are modest or not modest. It is for each Christian to determine by seeking God's will.

I Cor 11 is primarily about hair length, not hats.  We know so  because later in the chapter it says clearly that the woman's hair is given to her for a "covering".  Just because people have taken it to mean hats in the past doesn't mean that I am bound by their guesses.

It is clear that the Scriptural command is that a woman's hair is to be longer than a man's hair; moreover, it is to "cover" something on her head that it does not cover on a man's head.  The only things I can think of that this could apply to are (1) the ears or (2) the back of the neck; possibly both.


b4cz28

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Head covering at Church
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2018, 02:18:29 PM »
The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck
That is almost as obvious as the passage about women doing good works that gets misquoted as a dress standard...

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Sorry had to make this my first post.

It's sad that so many have been duped by liberal theology into taking this position. Lets break down these verses.

4
very man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (If hair is a cover then must a man shave his head?)
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. (Wait?!? If she already had short hair why would we need to shave it?)
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. (So let me get this straight...how can you claim that the head covering is the hair after reading this verse? No amount of theological twisting cant get you out of this one)
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. (Yet men have hair on their heads, so were covered?)
8
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (Paul is clearly using an example to back up what he is saying.)
15

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (If it were about hair lenghts then a distance would ahve been given. Its not and this is merely and example.)

b4cz28

  • Standing Ovation? +0/-0
Re: Head covering at Church
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2018, 02:26:47 PM »
Quite the roaring silence in response to this post.  I'll take the liberty of resurrecting this year-dead zombie.

Paul writes,

Whether by ignorance, carelessness, or malice, the poster cited the wrong passage, and quoted only a truncated portion.  Here is a more complete selection from 1 Cor. 11 (not 1 Cor. 1):


[This is both dubious and misleading.

It was not just women who commonly wore hats of various sorts, but men also, probably even more so than women.  And for women especially, it was a "dress-up" sort of thing.

In any case, your implication is that women wore head coverings because they were familiar with this passage, and that is what this passage teaches.  But that same reading of the passage argues AGAINST the common cultural practice of MEN of the '60s and prior.


This is shockingly dishonest of you. It was unheard of for us to see a hat in church by a man. That is a total fabrication on your part. Almost every single theologian until the turn of the century and mid century taught that women were to wear coverings. Even the early church writing we have from the fathers show us they taught this position, yet in the last fifty years you suddenly gained more insight then people one generation removed from Christ and Paul? This is great! Not to mention that if we go to the Greek it gets even more clear.