Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of. Important things are usually recorded. Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started? Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did - tithing from a thankful heart and not law? It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so. Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?

Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does God ever incorporate into his will for Man, things from Man's ways, those good things which Man has come across, such as veils?
1) Nothing is seen pre-Law commanding the use of the 'clean' category of animals for sacrifice. Important things are usually recorded, but none about these. Yet, God commands Noah to take 7 of the clean animals into the Ark for future sacrifice. Does God show he plays along with human-developed sensibilities by commanding them for Noah? Without scriptural definitives it would only be speculation to say so. Did God design Man in such a way that God-given intuition would naturally lead Man to recognize the acceptability of some animals as clean and the rejection of others? This also is speculation. We do know that there is no scriptural record of commands for the use of only clean animals for sacrifice, before the giving of the Law. We do not know the origins of this 'clean or unclean animal' understanding. It thus would not be incorrect to say it is of human origin.

The origin of the differences of clean and unclean was handed down to Noah. You point out in your own post, that God told Noah to take 7 pairs of clean into the ark. According to Genesis 7:2–3, God instructed Noah to take seven pairs (or seven of each kind) of every clean animal and bird onto the ark, totaling 14 of each kind. This provided extra animals for sacrifice and food after the flood, as mentioned in Genesis 8:20. Noah, didn’t figure out by some carnal intuition that he brought an extra number of clean animals to eat and sacrifice. Noah, had already knew the difference between clean and unclean. He was instructed by God, how to build the ark, and how and why the number of animals. Animal sacrifice “clean” offered to God starts with Abel. Obviously this program was handed down to his progeny. I believe Amanah did a great job pointing out God’s law before it was codified in Moses? With Moses it was all written down. Yet, murder was still wrong according to God in Genesis, way before it was written down with Moses. As I said before, the heart of man is deceitfully wicked, who can understand it? God isn’t counting on us to use our intuition to seek out His mind. We cannot use our carnal intuition to know God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I see what you mean about the "what ifs." I guess I was wondering, if there was not already an expected custom in Corinth that respectable women wore veils—that some Christian women apparently were not upholding—would Paul have ever brought up the topic. In other words, is veiling inherent to Christianity? Or might it only be required in certain cultural contexts?

Sorry I missed this post. Where else in the Pauline epistles do we find Paul upholding Roman traditions? Which by the way were many. Most opposed the Judean customs of Paul’s day. Also why did Paul put his foot down against arguing about the subject of head coverings? Paul, never tells his readers that this was just a Corinthian custom. But, a custom held by all the churches. Are we to assume all the churches in the city of Corinth? Paul mingles his topic of head coverings with authority of the Church and the angelic. The Greek term which the New Testament employs for the English word “church’ meant a governing body. The Greek word is ekklesia, derived from ek ("out of") and kaleo ("to call"). In Hellenized Judea, the word referred to an assembly of selected citizens, like a city council coming together to deliberate, vote, and make decisions on civil policy. Should we also assume this word is being used by the Apostle because he believed the Body of Christ was the same as an HOA? While Paul was a good free born Roman citizen and understood the importance of keeping the Roman Peace in Romans 13. In the same chapter he combines his thoughts on civil duty with the commandments of Moses. Should we also consider Paul’s observation of civil duty to just be a Hellenized Roman Judean custom? Paul wasn't asking the Church to uphold the Pax Romana, but reminding them their duty as good Saints as followers of Christ. These were already views held by the Judeans as followers of Moses. Also head coverings were also not just a Roman religious, and civic custom. Many different ancient civilizations employed head coverings in the ancient world, all the way to Ancient Egypt.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Costeon, would you agree that because veil head-covering practices pre-dated Christianity, that when Paul writes about it in 1Co11.5,6 it is about this man-made custom?

No, because in 2 Peter 3:15-16 the Apostle Peter noted that the Pauline epistles were scripture. Therefore the Apostle Peter refers to the epistles of "our beloved Brother Paul" as being on the same divinely inspired level as "the other Scriptures." The Apostle Peter is stating that the Apostle Paul wrote with divine inspiration. So, Peter is warning that the ignorant, and unlearned will twist these letters just as they do "the other Scriptures," thereby destroying themselves. The Apostle Peter affirms the divine inspiration and authoritative status of Paul's writings. In the case of the first epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul tells the readers in chapter 11, that they are to follow him, as he follows Christ. Giving his position as an Apostle of Christ, he also commends the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions and instructions he delivered, which were meant to keep them aligned with the Gospel. In the 16th verse of this epistle Paul lays down the law, "but if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches." Meaning, that Paul verdict and what he just taught on headship, and head coverings were undisputable. This wasn't just a Roman Hellenistic custom of just one Greek city, but it was what was taught and believed in all the churches. It was CHURCH custom. Period. Paul's epistles are holy scripture, and they were to be followed as he followed Christ.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If so, Paul is then only asking for those in the Corinthian church to hold to, and not to rebel against what was a local custom.

I don't believe you understand the actual Hellenic Roman custom of Corinth, or the greater Roman world. Men, were front and center when it came to civic and religious head coverings. Piety required good Romans to cover their heads in religious observances, sacrifices, giving of incense, paying offerings. As well as head coverings during political civic duties. If we are to accept that the Apostle was urging the Corinthians to be "good Romans" then he totally went off the reservation with instructing "men" to not cover their heads. In Israelism of the Bible male head coverings were employed only in mourning.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It makes sense to think this.

It only makes sense if you don't understand what was going on with the first century Roman Hellenized Judea.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul is not commanding the Corinthian church, or the Church, to wear a veil as a sign of respect to God's Order of Authority but refers to the upholding of a local custom. (Thus, Paul has addressed two separate uses of symbolism. One, respect for marriage/society's expectations by the veil; and two, respect for God's ways by the hair.) God had not ever previously commanded any such veil head covering; ie, in the OT. Had he, it would then have given Paul authority to command the Church to now do so, with the veil as the symbol.

Again, if Paul is upholding Hellenic Roman customs to be followed in the Corinthian congregation, why is he coming against men wearing the head covering? Augustus was Pontifex Maximus, a position of supreme religious authority he held for life. In all religious ceremony he had to have his head covered. Any good Roman would be expected to follow Caesar's religious piety in worship. You have the Apostle Paul (Good Roman) teaching the exact opposite. Therefore, making your argument of Paul just trying to make his Corinthian church upholding the local custom, illogical.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

-That Paul asks one, Timothy, to be circumcised for the sake of the Gospel, can be seen as Paul asking for what was not commanded of Christians to now be done in a unique circumstance.

On the contrary, the Apostle Paul’s decision to have Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, was a strategic, not soteriological. But a decision to facilitate ministry among Judeans, not as a requirement for salvation or a contradiction of Apostolic Christian doctrine. Timothy was of Judean descent on his mother's side, his uncircumcised status posed a potential barrier to entering synagogues and reaching Jewish audiences. Paul practiced Nazerite vows, and took four men with him to ritual purification. While the Temple still stood in Jerusalem all Christian Judeans, and Christian diaspora were to continue to practice the Law. The only hindrance to Timothy's circumcision wasn't Christianity but Timothy's Greek (Hellenized Judean) father. The readers of Acts are introduced to Timothy's Greek father. Because per custom of the Greek Judeans were to prevent the circumcision at birth, despite what his Jewish mother would've wanted. As a result, Paul circumcised him later to avoid offense to temple Judeans. This would allow Timothy to enter synagogues and work with Judean audiences during their missionary travels, as his uncircumcised status made him appear "unclean."

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It was done in response to a "custom" of Jews. He asked for this one-time practice, of a symbolical practice meaningful to Jews, to prevent their negative thoughts of the witnesses of Jesus. He only asked. This shows Paul as aware that the rejection of symbolical non-Christian customs may produced unwanted reactions which should be avoided for the sake of the Gospel. It could also be so with the veil.

Circumcision wasn't some "custom" like Xmas trees, or mistletoe, or Thanksgiving Turkey. It was a religious covenant between God and His people. Are we to believe, that Paul was just going through the motions and having young Timothy be circumcised falsely? Timothy was a legitimate child of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He being circumcised would make him a child of the Covenant. Circumcision was established as a foundational, everlasting sign of the Covenant between God and Abraham's descendants, not a mere lackadaisical Jewish religious custom. Timothy was a Judean, with his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice, therefore his circumcision was entered into legitimately, not just a disguise to enter into the Judean arena. Paul only taught Gentiles not to circumcise, or follow the Law of Moses, Acts 21:21, because that age was coming to an end, Matthew 5:18. But, the Judeans who were given the Covenant, were expected to keep the practice going until the end. Therefore Timothy was circumcised to be able to preach to Law observing Judeans. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, a full Gentile, because that was being demanded as a requirement for salvation (legalistic Judaizers). On the other hand, circumcising Timothy was recognizing his Abrahamic Judean right, not for legalistic justification, or soteriological purposes.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

That Paul asks saints to greet one another with a holy kiss, a then prevailing societal custom but not an OT commandment, sees Paul asking the Church to keep the customs of their societies.

Kissing as greeting, departure, reconciliation, are Biblical custom, Genesis 27:26-27, Genesis 29:13, Genesis 31:28, Genesis 31:55, Genesis 33:4, Luke 7:38, Luke 7:45, 1 Samuel 10:1, 2 Samuel 14:33, 2 Samuel 19:39, Ruth 1:14, Psalm 2:12. Not just a Roman or Greek custom. Paul, was keeping with the Biblical Judean practice.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God expects us now to shake hands in greeting instead of this holy kiss. Or does he command either, and say we sin when we don't do either? No. Paul is only encouraging the keeping of societal customs. So with veiling.

Where do you find where the Apostle Paul says the greeting was societal?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1
2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of. Important things are usually recorded. Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started? Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did - tithing from a thankful heart and not law? It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so. Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?

Good scholarly research here Dom. You blew my thought out of the water. Tithing wasn’t exclusive to the Hebrews, and the tribes of Israel. We have records in cuneiform ( early Bronze Age ) which speaks of the practice of tithing. Abraham who was late Bronze Age would’ve already have known the practice of “the nobility tithe.” Therefore Abraham didn’t get a gut feeling, or just come up with 10% pay off to the King of Salem. Therefore Abraham would have understood proper eastern etiquette concerning spoils of war, and kings and priests. No intuitive feeling employed. Does Dom here teach, does Dom want us to believe, that human intuition does not exist? We'll need clarification from him to determine with certainty.

Intuition. My definition: A feeling held indicating a needed action or value, as if by intellect but coming about/involving means of more than just the intellect. See my example, shown later.

What has not been refuted by mentioning what you did, Dom, is the idea that Abraham did it out of gratitude. Admittedly, saying Abraham tithed out of thankfulness is largely an educated guess. No one should say he definitely did it out of thankfulness, because we don't have needed info to say so. Yet, we compare our own experience with his, causing us to think he did it as we have done it.

Nor have you given indication that the originators, the very first pagan to tithe, did it as from a command of God. Right? The very first to demand or pay a tithe made it up themselves, unless they had been commanded by God. Whether it was a form of gov't taxation or giving for a priest's upkeep, it came out of the intuition that individuals living off the benefits of a society they are in, should help pay for it. This came by intuition, unless it came by a command of God.

Are you saying this command from God existed in pagans? Would it be correct to say that the first pagan to ask for a tithe did it as commanded by God? Not likely.

Dom, aren't you saying Abraham knowingly followed pagan practices in his sojourns? He may well have followed the example of pagan tithing, but not as doing it to an idol. He borrowed from pagan ideas to do to God. He tithed to the priest of the Most High God. Though I have no evidence to show for it, I believe Abraham was intimate with what Melchizedek believed in, not living far from him. He knew his tithe went to a kosher priest.

What later was commanded of God, tithing for the Jew in covenant, could then be said to copy that which pagans learnt by intuition, unless they were commanded by God. By your research you show that God was not the originator of tithing. Had God then incorporated into his Law that which Man had learnt, as per my assertion? You have provided me with evidence by your research, to support the points I made. God designed man in His image, which man freely chose to blow off, Does Dom indicate that 'blow off' means that Man has discarded the image of God, no longer in possession of it? and become his own god. The Bible states that man is wicked, Jeremiah 17:9. Therefore “natural mind” of man only leads him to ruin, not salvation. We need to stop and define what is meant by 'natural mind' or we may eventually be seen to be talking about separate things.

Multiple things can be used for this definition. 1. Jesus used his natural mind to read that the Beginning showed Adam and Eve as one flesh, not to be separated by the will of Man, ie, not divorced. Anyone else using their own natural mind could have made the same conclusion to interpret scripture. 2. Many great scientists, some of whom are atheists, have made astounding scientific discoveries with their God-given natural mind. 3. Paul defines the natural results coming from the mind of Man as the works of the flesh. Natural mind would then define Man's sinful/carnal nature.

Is your definition among these? By 'using the natural mind' do you mean to say the mind used to interpret scripture or the mind used for curiosity or the carnal mind which always leads to sin? It’s not a natural thing to be “thankful” if it was you wouldn’t have to teach young children to say “thank you” when they receive something. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:7 that the natural mind of man is God’s enemy. That should be explanation enough to show that God isn’t depending on man to use his intuition to obey Him. I don't agree and don't disagree entirely. It is very natural for those who are condemned by a guilty conscience to be thankful for grace which subsequently teaches them, and then to also present their bodies a living sacrifice, their reasonable service. It depends on which 'natural' a person uses to refer to. The word reasonable points to that which comes from using our faculties of thought. Also involved is our heart. Thus we are motivated by our natural mind to do right, presenting our bodies, and doing so from something which is not a command. It comes from within - intuition.

I am hurt/angered when someone lies to me. This is not just hurt to my mind. My mind tells me that others may be hurt if I lie to them. Thus, my intuitive abilities, heart and head, given to me by God, instruct me in righteousness.

But, can you point to one command of God before Sinai, where God instructs man not to lie? He had no need to. It was encoded in the image of God in Man. What Man knew by intuition was later bolstered by Law, then making sin exceedingly sinful.

Romans 7:13 But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. Does God have two categories of sin? 1. Sinful. 2. Exceedingly sinful. No.

If sin is the breaking of Law, it is, then to what law does 'sin before the law' refer to in our example about lying, since no written spoken law against lying existed before Sinai? It was, in my opinion and conclusion, (only a) sin against the image of God and not against an unwritten or unspoken law which didn't yet exist. When God gave Law at Sinai he made the sin, which had come before there was law against it, to then be 'exceedingly sinful' law, because it now was against not just the 'hidden' law of the image of God but also the new written/spoken Law. Double whammy wrong, and so, exceedingly. But this is one man's interpretation of the thoughts coming out of the word exceedingly. Why do you, Dom, think Paul speaks of exceedingly sinful if not for the reason I give? Isn't this the first time Paul uses a superlative, kath' hyperbolēn, to describe sin?

While you explain, also explain why Paul says there was 'no law', which caused God not to impute sin (which exists). Ro5.13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law If there is no law, which is Paul's conclusion, then how could there be sin because sin is the transgression of the law. Until the law sin was in the world, says Paul, and he says there is no law. Paul says there was sin in the time when he says there was no law. My conclusion: sin was against the image of God which was in Man.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

2) Abraham tithed. No command previous to the Law is recorded asking for this, which later would have prominence in Israel by command. That Abraham tithed can be attributed to what he learnt on his own as his rightful duty, by intuition, but not by command of God which we have no record of.

So, you believe that God didn't communicate with anyone in the OT? Because you believe that God speaks in braille to His followers. Abraham was just thinking all this up? Also, what is a "pagan?" Where did pagans come from? Since you are telling us that Abraham learned these things from "pagans" which incidentally, Abraham was a pagan, before he followed God. Would you also say that Gilgamesh (Bronze Age) and his story of the flood, predates the story of Noah? Would you say that the story of Noah is really just a copy of the epic of Gilgamesh? I'll wait for your answer.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Has God shown he plays along with Man's ways by commanding later that which Man's intuition has started?

So, God creates man and man created God?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Did God design Man in such a way that Man's God-given intuition would naturally lead where it did

God poured out judgement upon the world of Noah. Obviously man's intuition was wicked, and therefore became God's enemy, so much so that He wanted to destroy mankind. Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve with free will?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

tithing from a thankful heart and not law?

Ok, where in the Bible does it teach this?

I want you to bring together some scriptures which teach that man through his own carnal mind can be thankful to God.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is a natural thing to be thankful.

Romans 1 teaches the exact opposite. But, maybe you could produce some scripture which explains that the natural carnal man is thankful. So, far you are pontificating, and producing nothing to back up your claims.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is a natural thing to be thankful. It does not need a law of God to make this so.

In Romans 1:17-24, Paul points to the creation Romans 1:20, how all knew Him, but didn't want to trust Him, they were unthankful, and their carnal minds were turned over to become reprobate (darkened). They became fools and turned to idolatry. Therefore God destroyed them all. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah a "preacher of righteousness" warned the creation generation of coming judgment while living in obedience to God. For roughly 100 years, he preached repentance and built the ark, signaling to a wicked creation age the necessity of turning from sin. God didn't need the Law in everyone's pocket. God walked with grandfather Adam and grandmother Eve in the cool of the Garden of Eden. In the creation it was a time of intimate, direct fellowship between God and humanity. In this idyllic state, there was no need for a written or external legal code. All knew God, yet, free will allowed them to reject the image of God, for the image of man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Did God turn what Abraham had learned by himself as a good thing, into a command of God? How could this ever be determined?

So, God creates man and man created God? Wow.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good scholarly research here Dom. You blew my thought out of the water.

Don, that doesn't take much.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does Dom here teach, does Dom want us to believe, that human intuition does not exist? We'll need clarification from him to determine with certainty.

No human intuition involved, Abraham had an intimate relationship with God.
Genesis 17:1-22 God meets Abraham face to face. God was in full communication with Abraham in his calling to come out from Haran, Genesis 12:1-4. God tells Abraham that he would get Canaan. Genesis 13:14-17, Genesis 15, Genesis 18 the Lord meets with Abraham for lunch, and brings two angels. then in Genesis 22 God tells Abraham to sacrifice his promised child. No intuition, no sweaty palms, ringing in the ears, itchy feet, or bean dreams. Abraham was in direct communication with God. So, God told him to tithe. Now you PROVE God didn't.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What has not been refuted by mentioning what you did, Dom, is the idea that Abraham did it out of gratitude. Admittedly, saying Abraham tithed out of thankfulness is largely an educated guess.

So, your position isn't Biblical? OK.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

No one should say he definitely did it out of thankfulness, because we don't have needed info to say so. Yet, we compare our own experience with his, causing us to think he did it as we have done it.

Don, do you speak for all mankind? Or just Canadians? You say that we can't say Abraham was thankful, because the Bible doesn't say he was thankful? Yet, we're to interpret the scripture from our own experiences of being good thankful people?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Nor have you given indication that the originators, the very first pagan to tithe, did it as from a command of God.

Where do you think it came from? Or were the original pagans shiny happy people holding hands? Just so thankful to give tithes?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Right? The very first to demand or pay a tithe made it up themselves, unless they had been commanded by God.

Do you believe Adam and Eve were the first in a long lineage of progeny? Cain, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, Jabal, Tubal-cain, Naamah. What we call "pagans" didn't spring out of the ether, or outside the covenant line, but rather developed from the early post-Adamic generations. At the tower of Babel, language is confused, if you know anything about language (which I highly doubt you do) then you would know, confuse the language, you confuse the narrative. Yet, these people started to go astray during the time of Noah. A flood destroying them all couldn't stop their twisting of God's words, and God understood that man's intuition is evil from the day of his birth Genesis 8:21. Those "pagans" during the time of he Bronze Age got their stories passed down, and traditions from those before and after the flood. Those who heard from God relayed those truths, yet those "pagans" just twisted the message to suit themselves and their agendas. You know, like you do.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Multiple things can be used for this definition. 1. Jesus used his natural mind to read that the Beginning showed Adam and Eve as one flesh, not to be separated by the will of Man, ie, not divorced. Anyone else using their own natural mind could have made the same conclusion to interpret scripture. 2. Many great scientists, some of whom are atheists, have made astounding scientific discoveries with their God-given natural mind. 3. Paul defines the natural results coming from the mind of Man as the works of the flesh. Natural mind would then define Man's sinful/carnal nature.

Don, we are having a discussion concerning head coverings predating Christianity. I thought I would remind you of that since you accused me of not sticking to the main subject in the other thread. But, I digress, Don, every thread you want to change the subject to your cockamamy idea of the "carnal natural mind" being able to lead one to salvation. Bowas nailed you good, when he posted that you were just re starting another thread to make up for the closed thread. But, alas, you are predictable carnal religious guy, and therefore we must deal with you as a carnal religious guy.

Just because a scientist can discover the cure for insomnia, has no bearing on soteriology or theology. A monkey can use sign language to relay requests doesn't make it sentient to the leading of the Holy Ghost. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings are not intelligent enough to communion with God on a Spiritual level. Paul absolutely never taught that the mind of a natural carnal man can cause salvation. Again, the pygmy in a foreign jungle who never heard of Jesus Christ's Gospel. Will not by natural carnal means start writing out the Pauline epistles. Can the Holy Ghost find him? Certainly, but you over the years within your time in Pentecost, lost track of the Spiritual. You no longer believe that God is supernatural, but that man needs to follow his own leading. Am I misrepresenting you? Maybe, but all I can post about this garbage you've been shoveling is what I can deduce from its conclusions.

Romans 8:7

"That is why the mind that focuses on human nature is hostile toward God. It refuses to submit to the authority of God's Law because it is powerless to do so."

The Greek word for mind is φρόνημα which is interpreted to mean, thought, purpose, aspirations, inclination.

in·cli·na·tion
/ˌinkləˈnāSHən/
noun
1.
a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.

The Bible teaches against the notion of "intuition" leading man close to God. It actually teaches that it drives man further away from God.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world).

This is true, but see Evangelist Benincasa's post above to see where there were distinct purposes and uses of head coverings or veils, for both men and women.

It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth.

Correct. Paul called his teaching a tradition he had passed down to them.

1 Corinthians 11:2-3 (ESV),

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you...

the traditions: παραδόσεις (paradoseis)

HELP Word Studies:

3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 1325 /dídōmi, "give over") – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin: from paradidómi

Definition: a handing down or over, a tradition

Thayer's Lexicon:

a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence, equivalent to instruction, Epictetus diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plato, legg. 7, p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul's teaching, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction, 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm

So, we see Paul has handed down to the Corinthians a traditional teaching which he himself had handed down to him through a previous source (perhaps Gamaliel?).

BUT, and this is key, as you've already mentioned, the Corinthians were already well versed in Greco-Roman life and culture. Corinth was well known as being a highly metropolitan city. So, Paul didn't hand down or transmit to them a Greco-Roman tradition they were already familiar with, one they would have already been practicing.

If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public.

While true, this doesn't have sufficient explanational force for why Paul commended the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he passed down to them, as I showed above, since veiling the head was something the Corinthians would have inherited from the cultural milieu of the time, and not from Paul.

Therefore, something else must be in view. Again, as shown by Evangelist Benincasa, the Greco-Roman practice of veiling is not at all identical to the Christian practice Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 11. Something else is at play. Thematically similar, perhaps, but vastly different in actual application.

Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?

Yes, veiling the hair IS a culturally bound requirement. However, the requirement isn't bound to either the cultures of the 1st century Greco-Roman society in general, or the 1st century Corinthian society in particular.

Rather, the cultural requirement is that of the Kingdom of God. It is a part of the Church, and Her culture, as fundamental to the spiritual realities and understandings of the larger context of both Old and New Covenant Israel, i.e. the Church.

The question, then, is why? Why was this inherited tradition a part of the Church and the Kingdom of God? In my estimation, it's because of the long standing understanding, based in the Torah, of a married woman covering her hair.

Rebekah veiled herself upon meeting Isaac (Genesis 24:65). She had been betrothed to him prior, when Abraham's servant Eliezer negotiated the marriage contract with Laban and her family. But, upon meeting Isaac, as the story goes, she immediately veiled herself, then went into the tent and consummated the marriage.

Later, in Numbers 5:18, we have the Sotah Ritual, when a wife was accused of adultery by her husband, he brought her to a priest, who unveiled her hair as part of the ceremony.

Later still, in Isaiah 47:1-3, as a judgment against the virgin daughter, i.e. the people, of Babylon, a symbolic description is given of the specifics of how badly God is going to bring destruction upon them. One aspect of the description is given thusly:

"...put off your veil..."

But note the fuller context of the judgment:

2 ...put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.

Removing the veil was part and parcel of stripping oneself in public, i.e. the shame and disgrace of being naked before others. Note specifically, the word for disgrace, in Hebrew is חֶרְפָּתֵ֑ךְ (ḥerpāṯêḵ), which often refers to the pudenda, or external genitalia of a woman.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2781.htm

So, what do we have going here with all of this data?

We have a living example from the time of the Patriarchs of at least one woman veiling herself as part of her marriage ceremony. We have a law in the Torah about married women being forcibly unveiled in the Sotah Ritual, which specifically deals with sexual sin and indiscretion, which was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10), and we have a prophet telling us in poetic language that the unveiling of a woman's hair is tantamount to her being stripped bare and forced to go out publicly naked, forced, as it were, to have to show the world her pudenda or external genitalia, i.e. her vulva.

This is the understanding Paul had transmitted to him. A near contemporary of Paul, a Jewish Rabbi named Rav Sheshet, is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a) as saying:

Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

See: https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a...h=all&lang2=en

What then is the conclusion?

In 1 Corinthians 11:15, we read this:

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV)

Please note, however, that this word translated "covering" is not the same as all the other instances when it is used in this chapter. In previous instances, Paul uses some derivation of the Greek word κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptó), meaning to cover with a veil.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2619.htm

But, in verse 15, it's an entirely different word. There, the term in question is: περιβόλαιον (peribolaion). This is significant. This word is only used one other time, in Hebrews 1:12, quoting the LXX of Psalm 102:26.

Psalm 102:26 reads:

26 They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away...

"Change them like a robe" is interesting in the original Hebrew, because the word for robe: לְבוּשׁ (lebush) is used euphemistically to refer to a wife.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3830.htm

The reference is from Malachi 2:16, vis a vis, putting away a wife, i.e. removing a wife from the home as if throwing away an old, worn out garment.

We see then, that περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) can refer euphemistically to a veil that a (married) woman wears, and even to the wife herself (i.e. the wife and the veil become synonymous with each other). But it goes further than that.

As Troy Martin has shown, περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) was used in pre-Pauline Koine Greek poetic and medical literature to refer to a man's testicle, i.e. a man's external genitalia.

See: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-con...covering-1.pdf

These things all being the case, what is Paul conveying to the Corinthian Church, and by extension, to the Christian world at large, all the way up to today?

Effectively, a (married) woman's hair is understood to be regarded as part of her external genitalia and being able to see it unveiled constitutes something akin to being guilty of adultery, in the sense that a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage, and so, her hair, as understood to be a part of her external genitalia, becomes her husband's external genitalia, and the Torah forbids the uncovering or either's nakedness as a sin (See Leviticus 18).

This is the tradition the Corinthians had passed to them by Paul, that he himself inherited, which we now today, have codified to us in the 11th chapter of his epistle to them.

A (married) woman who prays or prophesies in church during public worship, but whose hair isn't veiled is doing so as if both she and her husband were naked.

So, for her to be veiled in every instance except in her home during private life is the cultural expectation of the Kingdom of God. It goes far beyond the Greco-Roman milieu of the 1st century. It harkens all the way back to the Patriarchs, is upheld through the Torah into the Prophets all the way to the time of Christ and the New Covenant Church, even being recognized by other Jewish rabbis near the same time, forward to 2026 and beyond.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is your definition among these? By 'using the natural mind' do you mean to say the mind used to interpret scripture or the mind used for curiosity or the carnal mind which always leads to sin?

If the natural mind is an enemy of God? Then how can one interpret scripture through carnality? Do you have a verse or two which states, "with the flesh I can be led into all truth?" Don, what's the use of the Holy Ghost? Peter through his carnality was rebuked by Jesus. But, when Peter spoke as moved by the Holy Ghost, Peter was commended with the words, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Therefore when the Apostle Peter wrote his second epistle he knew first hand, "above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Ghost, and they spoke from God."

If man studies the scripture through carnal academic means he will only get a carnal academic view of Jesus Christ. The carnal mind created 45,000 different denominations, all with their offshoots and cults. I stick with the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Once a denomination does away with the spiritual, it becomes dryer than a mummy's pocket.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I don't agree and don't disagree entirely. It is very natural for those who are condemned by a guilty conscience to be thankful for grace which subsequently teaches them, and then to also present their bodies a living sacrifice, their reasonable service.

No way! Some criminal who robbed an old lady and got released on bail, may be shouting happy. But that is far from receiving the Holy Ghost, which is joy unspeakable and full of glory! Don, do you have the Holy Ghost? Do you speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance? to be immersed in the Holy Ghost until it flows out like life giving water! Is a far cry from a State Trooper letting you go with just a warning when he needed to give you a ticket. Good God in Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It depends on which 'natural' a person uses to refer to. The word reasonable points to that which comes from using our faculties of thought. Also involved is our heart. Thus we are motivated by our natural mind to do right, presenting our bodies, and doing so from something which is not a command. It comes from within - intuition.

Don, that is never taught in the volume of the Book. You are teaching another gospel which there isn't another. The carnal man cannot please God. Romans 8:8-9 says it plainly, that if you are walking by your intuition you are not walking in the realm of the Spirit, and therefore you are not of God. Remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ alive in them do not belong to Him at all.

[donfriesen1]

PART 1/2

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

Part 1/2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon
I was reading 1 Cor 11 recently and was thinking about the issue of head coverings, and something came to mind: head coverings predated the arrival of Christianity in Corinth (and everywhere else in the Greco-Roman world).

This is true, but see Evangelist Benincasa's post above to see where there were distinct purposes and uses of head coverings or veils, for both men and women.

Quote:
It was not a new teaching that Paul brought to Corinth.

Correct. Paul called his teaching a tradition he had passed down to them. No OT command for head-covering is found which would have developed into a religious tradition. Can this statement be disproved? If it was a tradition (tradition and custom have such great similarities in their definitions that they often are used inter-changeably. Does Paul, in 1Co11? NO.) then it was of human origin, not religious. Paul usually bases his ideas on the OT, the only Word of God he has. He would not teach for NT doctrine things not having their origins in the only Word he loves. Therefore, his opening comments in 1Co11 can not be referring to a religious tradition of veiling. Can this be proved wrong? Showing the origin of a tradition by way of command would show this thought wrong.

1 Corinthians 11:2-3 (ESV),

Quote:
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you...

the traditions: παραδόσεις (paradoseis)

Quote:
HELP Word Studies:

3862 parádosis (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 1325 /dídōmi, "give over") – properly, give (hand over) from close-beside, referring to tradition as passed on from one generation to the next.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin: from paradidómi

Definition: a handing down or over, a tradition

Thayer's Lexicon:

a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence, equivalent to instruction, Epictetus diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plato, legg. 7, p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul's teaching, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; in plural of the particular injunctions of Paul's instruction, 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3862.htm

So, we see Paul has handed down to the Corinthians a traditional teaching which he himself had handed down to him through a previous source (perhaps Gamaliel?). I don't agree.

BUT, and this is key, as you've already mentioned, the Corinthians were already well versed in Greco-Roman life and culture. Corinth was well known as being a highly metropolitan city. So, Paul didn't hand down or transmit to them a Greco-Roman tradition they were already familiar with, one they would have already been practicing. Are you familiar with the counter-cultural revolution which was challenging the norm of those days? If other facts of history are used to help determine what Paul says to the Co, then this needs to be in the mix also.

Quote:
If Christianity had never existed, there would have still been an expectation—a requirement—in the Greco-Roman world that modest women would wear head coverings in public.

While true, this doesn't have sufficient explanational force (this is especially true when giving it regard would contradict the view you want to prop up. Just saying. But...go on.) for why Paul commended the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he passed down to them, as I showed above, since veiling the head was something the Corinthians would have inherited from the cultural milieu of the time, and not from Paul.

Therefore, something else must be in view. Again, as shown by Evangelist Benincasa, the Greco-Roman practice of veiling is not at all identical to the Christian practice Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 11. Well....certainly! Almost impossible for anyone to disagree. Dom writes about men veiling, and you about women veiling. Something else is at play. Thematically similar, perhaps, but vastly different in actual application. Agreed, thematically similarity is a possibility if the subject is women, but only if it can be shown that Paul is distinctly referencing a command from God for veiling, which cannot be found. This command does not exist in the only Book Paul reads for religious instruction. Those who say that Paul references 'a command of God for veiling in 1Co11', use a lot of reading between the lines erroneously to do so.

Paul does not use a distinct religious word (in veiling for God) but uses the everyday word all Co/Greek used almost daily, of human origin. Words of daily practices are usually invented for the sake of convenience. The word google is a recent invention. If no OT command of God existed for a distinct obedience-command, then no distinct word would come into use for it (either in Greek or Hebrew). That none appeared shows that the Jew had not received a command for its practice. This word did not appear for the Greek who are miles from loving the Word/God, but a word/words did for that which was of human origin - veiling.

Something else is at play. What is in play is a desire to make Paul appear to say something he would not say. His words have long ago been misconstrued, leading to a long held view which is hard to let go of, because it has so long been considered gospel and woven into Christian culture as truth.

It should be seen that Paul speaks in 1Co11 of the use of two separate symbols. One, the symbol many nations in the ancient world recognized - the veil. It symbolized commitment to the marriage covenant. Two, the symbol of respect a woman had to her man's desires for a pretty woman. He likes the beauty of long hair. If she wishes to diss her man (as in a counter-cultural revolution) then she may deny in actions that which he likes. If she does what he likes, she shows regard to God's order of authority doing so. The opposite if she does not.

Quote:
Some would argue that this fact shows that Paul's teaching on this matter is culturally bound and not required in all cultures. For proponents of head coverings in all cultures, how would you respond to that argument?

Yes, veiling the hair IS a culturally bound requirement. However, the requirement isn't bound to either the cultures of the 1st century Greco-Roman society in general, or the 1st century Corinthian society in particular. True.

Rather, the cultural requirement is that of the Kingdom of God. But not. Pauls says we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Do you wish to contradict Paul? It is a part of the Church, and Her culture, as fundamental to the spiritual realities and understandings of the larger context of both Old and New Covenant Israel, i.e. the Church. If this is so, then just saying so does not make a theological argument. Without the exegesis and scripture to back it, 'saying so' is only an opinion.

That no command for the veil is seen in the OT shows any references, to the veil there, are to a man-made culture. God does not command the keeping of culture as 'sinning if you don't', but does ask saints for compliance to culture norms so as not to insult cultural norms which negatively affect societal views of the Church/church.

The question, then, is why? Why was this inherited tradition a part of the Church and the Kingdom of God? In my estimation, it's because of the long standing understanding, based in the Torah, of a married woman covering her hair.

Rebekah veiled herself upon meeting Isaac (Genesis 24:65). She had been betrothed to him prior, when Abraham's servant Eliezer negotiated the marriage contract with Laban and her family. But, upon meeting Isaac, as the story goes, she immediately veiled herself, then went into the tent and consummated the marriage. Errr...Rebecca had connection with the Torah which was perhaps 450 years from existence? I think not. She had connection to the cultures of Mesopotamia, the idolatrous religions which later showed up in Jacob's tents, in idols brought there by her relative, Rachel. But do try again in efforts to show the OT commandments as the source for veiling. You've already convinced yourself of this and you may be able to convince other people who also are convinced by facts without substance. Do better, you who is rich in knowledge and experience.

Later, in Numbers 5:18, we have the Sotah Ritual, when a wife was accused of adultery by her husband, he brought her to a priest, who unveiled her hair as part of the ceremony. No one should deny that this really happened in Israel. But seeing it does not yet point to a command where God required all Jews to veil. All this shows is what a priest does in the Sotah ritual, but nothing beyond. But do keep trying. You may yet find what you want, to convince others.

Part 2/2 to follow.