Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Esaias]

The command to greet one another with a holy kiss/kiss of charity is a general command, and thus obligatory through all ages and cultures. However, the particular manner of performing the greeting (literally, "embrace") will vary with the culture. Just as the head covering doctrine is a general command and thus obligatory in all ages and places, yet the particular style of head covering is variable.

Again, just as singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a general command and obligatory today, but the particular style (melodies, rhythms, tunes, and specific lyrics) will vary from culture to culture, locale to locale, and era to era.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Most of the groups that I am aware of that don the veil are Hispanic groups. I always thought they were transitioning from Catholicism.

The only Hispanic group (oneness pentecostal) that I know of who practice head covering for women is the Asamblea Apostolica de la Fe (Apostolic Assembly). Many black apostolics practice head covering, as do many others throughout the world. It is not a "transitioning from catholicism" as the RCC don't really require headcoverings anymore, although many traditionalists retain the practice.

[votivesoul]

Two wonderful, but commonly unknown factoids:

The Koine Greek word used by Paul for "long" as in long hair, is where we get the word "comet".

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comet?s=t

In ancient Greek and Latin, the words for a comet, both literally translate to "hairy stars" (aster cometes and stella cometa, respectively).

Here is a computer simulated depiction of Halley's Comet created for a National Geographic Special:



http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...halleys-comet/

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Of course I do. Don't you?

Oh wait, you mean a smack on the face with one's mouth/lips?

That is not the only meaning of kiss...

A kiss is a kiss... as eastern cultures still embrace the practice.

Even Mexicans kiss each other on the face.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

A kiss is a kiss... as eastern cultures still embrace the practice.

Even Mexicans kiss each other on the face.

What do Eskimos do?

Paul did not define the manner in which a kiss is to be performed, except that it must be "holy". Russians kiss on the cheeks, some don't even actually make contact, more of a near-cheek brush-by, but some do a full on the lips kiss.

Some cultures greet by kissing the hand, and sometimes its not even a lips-to-hand kiss.

The particular manner of greeting someone with a kiss is culture and relation dependent. A simple hug with one's cheek near the other's qualifies.

In Roman society there were various types of kisses, regulated by Imperial law, used as greetings. Paul simply said it was, for Christians, to be holy.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul did not define the manner in which a kiss is to be performed, except that it must be "holy". Russians kiss on the cheeks, some don't even actually make contact, more of a near-cheek brush-by, but some do a full on the lips kiss.

Like the Trump family. It's always about Russia with those people.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed by the entire Church of God

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

God bless,

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jerome? He interpreted the Latin Vulgate.

Do you know how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:15? He uses nutriat not the varmint that people put in Gumbo, but the Latin word which we get the English nutrition? The Latin nutriat means to nourish, grow, to nurse a baby. English speakers get tangled (no pun intended) because we see the word "long" and therefore create a discussion concerning what is "long?" The Spanish Bible interpretations especially the Reina Valera use the word "crecer" which simply means to GROW. So, 1 Corinthians 11:15 simply means that if a woman grows her hair it is a glory unto her showing her submission.

That easy.

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The polemic is originally against the woman who cuts here hair.

1st Corinthians 11:15 follows the idea concerning nature. He sure isn't talking about spiders and snakes. The Greek word for nature is pointing to the creation in the Garden. Plato used the word to describe the primordial world. Here we see it employed by the Roman Judean Shaul Paulous. Showing that if man allowed his hair to grow that he would wear the sign of the submissive, instead but if a woman has long hair, it is to her glory?

1st Corinthians 11:15

For growing hair instead of a covering is given to her.
of the woman who wore it as a glory.

Jerome understood this passage to mean that a woman's growing hair was her covering glory. Therefore he employed the Latin word which we use today as nurture.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul commanded women to be covered and men uncovered. This is obligatory today for the following reasons:

1. Paul was an apostle, inspired by God, to pen 1 Cor 11. It's Bible, therefore expresses the will of God. It is not merely an historical account of what someone did or said, but is a teaching (doctrine) of an apostle, therefore it is apostolic, Biblical doctrine, and istherefore still valid today.

2. Paul gave 5 distinct reasons in support of his doctrine: Headship, glory, angels, nature, and the universal apostolic practice. None of those reasons are "cultural" (except that they belong to the culture of the apostolic church), none of those reasons are "local" or unique to Corinth, Greece, the ancient near east, the Roman Empire, or the first century. The reasons are rooted in creation, the created order, nature, and the universal practice of the church. Therefore, the head covering doctrine of the Bible is still valid today.

3. The five reasons are related, but distinct. Therefore, if any one reason still exists, then the practice demanded by the apostle is still obligatory. Regardless of what one may argue about the reason from nature, or the current lack of unity throughout the churches, angels still exist, the head of the man is still Christ and the head of the woman is still the man, the man is still the glory of God and the woman is still the glory of the man. Therefore, the apostolic doctrine of head covering is still valid today.

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys!

All of which have been endlessly debated before.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

All of which have been endlessly debated before.

Then next time, try linking the conversation to save time instead of wasting time insulting ILG as though she is hated here.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Then next time, try linking the conversation to save time instead of wasting time insulting ILG as though she is hated here.

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."