Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
From our perspective, you are missing something here.
A man is not uncovered by removing hair, but rather by not wearing an actual veil. Hair is not an issue here, but just supportive of the veil argument Paul is making. Uncovering the head is not removing hair for either man nor woman. It is removing the veil.
It is only mentioned as NATURE'S EXAMPLE of a covering. that is why Pau lasks, "Does not even nature itself teach you?" The teaching is about the veil.
Paul said the angels teach us, and cretive order teaches. So does nature. Natural long hair is only an example. Since the appearance of long natural hair on a man is shameful, this is a hint from nature that a man ought not wear a veil.
This is something only done during prayer and prophesying telling us it cannot be hair, otherwise if it was hair, it would be said for ALL TIME. COVER is a verb. A woman cannot do any action for times of prayer or prophesying to cover her head if it is spekaing about hair. But if it is a veil, as we say it is, then it all makes sense.
|
So am I correct in saying that you don't preach against long hair on men because that's not the issue, or what?
Just trying to feel out some things I've missed in previous conversations.
And how do you feel overall about the article? This was sent to me and I have not perused the other links, and I have no idea who the author is.
I'm getting ready for a nap, as I have to work 13 hours tonight. If I don't get back before work, I'll be here in the morning for a little while.