Church Fathers Opinion of Hair

GrowingPains · #1 07-02-2009, 10:53 AM

Check out this blog that was recently posted. Here are some questions:

oldlandmark.wordpress.com

-- do these Church Fathers and early writers have any authority as evidence to what the 1st Century church believed?

-- while none of this addresses 1 Corinthians from an exegetical stand-point, can history itself help us interpret a passage (hermeneutics says it can).

-- what are your thoughts? are you curious about other early writers?

This writer doesn't stop at uncut hair (which I'm not sure where he gets from the writings), but goes on to talk about ornaments and head bands!

Before we fire back because we think it's ludicrous, please give some thoughtful feedback. Let's try to keep conversation specifically aimed at the points above (inevitably this will turn into another full-fledged hair thread, so I'm trying to preserve it as early as possible)

Thanks, everyone.

Apocrypha · #2 07-02-2009, 11:23 AM

I'll meet your article and raise you a fairly scholarly booklet.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cypr...rBeVeiled.html

GrowingPains · #3 07-02-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

I'll meet your article and raise you a fairly scholarly booklet.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cypr...rBeVeiled.html

This isn't the point of the evidence I posited though. I have many expository/exegetical studies on 1 Cor 11. I'm referring to the Church Fathers and their writings with the questions posed above.

Thanks for the link though, I'll check it out.

Apocrypha · #4 07-02-2009, 11:26 AM

http://www.traditioninaction.org/rel..._2_Goodman.htm

Apocrypha · #5 07-02-2009, 11:27 AM

http://freetocover.blogspot.com/2009...otesagain.html

Apocrypha · #6 07-02-2009, 11:28 AM

http://www.blufftonyg.com/Literature...eries/veil.asp

the church fathers all agree, cover your hair

Sam · #7 07-02-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

http://www.blufftonyg.com/Literature...eries/veil.asp

the church fathers all agree, cover your hair

That was then, this is now.

In our culture (United States) a woman is not considered immoral if her hair and/or face is visible.

TheLegalist · #8 07-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

That was then, this is now.

In our culture (United States) a woman is not considered immoral if her hair and/or face is visible.

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

Praxeas · #9 07-02-2009, 02:10 PM

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

GrowingPains · #10 07-02-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

It helps, it's not the end-all. It's one of many: historical context at the time, general history, what did it mean then, what does it mean now, etc...

RCC has been helpful with some historical verification. We use it often as a help for many of our commentaries. Not all are formally RCC, though maybe claimed as such. For example, Eusebius was a historian.