Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Aquila]

Let's not bash any churches.

We all agree that hair should be long. We disagree on rather it must be uncut or not. That is obviously a matter of interpretation. We all agree that women should practice Christian modesty when attending worship gatherings. So cut or uncut, head covering or no head covering? Let us allow for the liberty of conscience on these issues.

But let us unite against false doctrine. Any church that teaches holy magic hair isn't a church, it
s a coven. And any organization that condones the teaching aides and abets witches.

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:

Well I guess there's not much left to say. You've managed to assume clarity in the verses where there's less actual clarity and applied subjective reasoning to the clearest verse in the passage so we're just talking past each other at this point.

Originally Posted by Aquila

. . .While they agreed that women should have long hair (they generally didn't demand uncut), they understood the point of the passage to clearly teach that a woman was to wear a head covering. . .

Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

Like Esaias, you're applying a large degree of subjective interpretation to the verses that are universally understood to be the less clear of the passage and then attempting to cast a cloud over the clearest verse.

Originally Posted by ILG

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

I didn’t say it did.

Originally Posted by ILG

It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense.

That doesn't make any sense in context to what the Bible actually says. Paul is laying out God's natural hierarchy of authority; Christ, husband, wife. A woman has a specified power through angelic protection if she remains submitted to this stated hierarchy as evidenced by her retaining a show of her feminine submission i.e. her long hair.

Now, obviously a woman can keep her hair long and still be an otherwise "clamorous woman" but in full context of what Paul is saying here, clearly the point is the overall hierarchy itself and the woman's place in that hierarchy.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Captain

Well I guess there's not much left to say. You've managed to assume clarity in the verses where there's less actual clarity and applied subjective reasoning to the clearest verse in the passage so we're just talking past each other at this point.




Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

Like Esaias, you're applying a large degree of subjective interpretation to the verses that are universally understood to be the less clear of the passage and then attempting to cast a cloud over the clearest verse.



I didn’t say it did.



That doesn't make any sense in context to what the Bible actually says. Paul is laying out God's natural hierarchy of authority; Christ, husband, wife. A woman has a specified power through angelic protection if she remains submitted to this stated hierarchy as evidenced by her retaining a show of her feminine submission i.e. her long hair.

Now, obviously a woman can keep her hair long and still be an otherwise "clamorous woman" but in full context of what Paul is saying here, clearly the point is the overall hierarchy itself and the woman's place in that hierarchy.

Wow...talk about subjective...Paul doesn't mention protection by angels not does she have power.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Captain

Your speaking with more certainty on this than can factually be backed up with any real historical evidence.

I Corinthians 14:6
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.

If a woman isn't veiled, let her be shorn (a form of humiliation for an adulteress): but if it is so shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

Refusal to wear the veil in Paul's day was to look like an immoral woman. If a Christian woman wasn't covered in public, she was worthy of being humiliated like an adulteress because such immodesty shames her head, meaning her husband. And so, since such a thing would be so shameful, women should submit to their husbands by honoring them, in the wearing of their veils.

Don't believe me? Is it proper for a woman to engage in prayer and worship in public gatherings all uncovered without her veil??? Doesn't even nature teach us that women should be covered? After all, it has given her long hair that never stops growing as a covering.

[TK Burk]

Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Kome
A1. Hair [Noun] thrix denotes the "hair," whether of beast, as of the camel's "hair" which formed the raiment of John the Baptist, Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6; or of man. Regarding the latter
(a) it is used to signify the minutest detail, as that which illustrates the exceeding care and protection bestowed by God upon His children, Matt 10:30; Luke 12:7; Luke 21:18; Acts 27:34;
(b) as the Jews swore by the "hair," the Lord used the natural inability to make one "hair" white or black, as one of the reasons for abstinence from oaths, Matt 5:36;
(c) while long "hair" is a glory to a woman (see komao), and to wear it loose or dishevelled is a dishonor, yet the woman who wiped Christ's feet with her "hair" (in place of the towel which Simon the Pharisee omitted to provide), despised the shame in her penitent devotion to the Lord (slaves were accustomed to wipe their masters' feet), Luke 7:38,44 (RV, "hair"); see also John 11:2; John 12:3;
(d) the dazzling whiteness of the head and "hair" of the Son of Man in the vision of Rev 1:14 is suggestive of the holiness and wisdom of "the Ancient of Days;"
(e) the long "hair" of the spirit-beings described as locusts in Rev 9:8 is perhaps indicative of their subjection of their satanic master (cp. 1 Cor 11:10, RV);
(f) Christian women are exhorted to refrain from adorning their "hair" for outward show, 1 Pet 3:3.

Note: Goat's hair was used in tentmaking, as, e.g., in the case of Paul's occupation, Acts 18:3; the haircloth of Cilicia, his native province, was noted, being known in commerce as cilicium.


A2. Hair [Noun] kome is used only of "human hair," but not in the NT of the ornamental. The word is found in 1 Cor 11:15, where the context shows that the "covering" provided in the long "hair" of the woman is as a veil, a sign of subjection to authority, as indicated in the headships spoken of in 1 Cor 11:1-10.

See also : kome

B1. Hair [Verb] komao signifies "to let the hair grow long, to wear long hair," a glory to a woman, a dishonor to a man (as taught by nature), 1 Cor 11:14,15.


C1. Hair [Adjective] trichinos akin to thrix, signifies "hairy, made of hair," Rev 6:12, lit., "hairy sackcloth." Cp. SACKCLOTH.

Result 2- Bag
glossokomon
ballantion
1. Bag glossokomon from glossa, "a tongue," and komeo, "to tend," was, firstly, "a case" in which to keep the mouthpiece of wind instruments; secondly, "a small box" for any purpose, but especially a "casket or purse," to keep money in. It is used of the "bag" which Judas carried, John 12:6; John 13:29; in the Sept. of 2 Chron 24:8,10, used of the "box" appointed by King Joash for offerings for the repair of the Temple.


2. Bag ballantion from ballo, "to cast," "a money-box or purse," is found in Luke's Gospel, four times, Luke 10:4; Luke 12:33 (AV, "bag"); Luke 22:35,36. See PURSE.

Note: Zone, "a gridle or belt," also served as "a purse for money," Matt 10:9; Mark 6:8. See GIRDLE.

Result 3- Town
komopolis
kome
1. Town komopolis denotes "a country town," Mark 1:38, "a large village" usually without walls.


2. Town kome "a village," or "country town without walls." The RV always renders this "village" or "villages," AV, "town" or "towns," Matt 10:11; Mark 8:23,26 (twice), Mark 8:27; Luke 5:17; Luke 9:6,12; John 7:42; John 11:1,30. See VILLAGE.

See also : kome

Result 4- Village
kome "a village," or "country town," primarily as distinct from a walled town, occurs in the Gospels; elsewhere only in Acts 8:25. The difference between polis, "a city," and kome, is maintained in the NT, as in Josephus. Among the Greeks the point of the distinction was not that of size or fortification, but of constitution and land. In the OT the city and the village are regularly distinguished. The Mishna makes the three distinctions, a large city, a city, and a village. The RV always substitutes "village(-s)" for AV, "town(-s)," Matt 10:11; Mark 8:23,26,27; Luke 5:17; Luke 9:6,12; John 7:42; John 11:1,30. See TOWN.

[Evang.Benincasa]

κομήτης , ου, ὁ, (κομάω)

A.wearing long hair, of the Persians, Orac. ap.Hdt.6.19; of dissolute men, Pherecr.14, Ar.Nu.348, 1101, etc.; ὁ ἐν Σάμῳ κ., prov. variously expld., Duris 62 J., etc.; also, simply, with hair on the head, opp. φαλακρός, Pl.R.454c, cf. Grg.524c; “κ. τὰ σκέλη” Luc.Bacch.2.
2. metaph., κ. ἰός a feathered arrow, S.Tr. 567; κ. λειμών a grassy meadow, E.Hipp.210 (anap.); “θύρσος κισσῷ κομήτης” Id.Ba.1055.
II. κομήτης, with or without ἀστήρ, ὁ, comet, Arist.Mete.343b5, Epicur.Ep.2p.52U., etc.
III. = τιθύμαλλος χαρακίας, Dsc.4.164.1.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...y%3Dkomh%2Fths

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

This is what I was taught by a UPC pastor-that you can't have a doctrine unless there are two or three witnesses in scripture. This is why they don't use Matt 28:19 as valid.

What book of the New Testament did your pastor write?

Like I said, what if you are wrong?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

It doesn't even say uncut hair.

The Greek Judeans, Jerome, and Reina-Valera tell you it is growing hair, not a specific length. It is growing, therefore if you CUT it, you cease the growing process. Simple?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

This is why I started a thread about a fishing story.

sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sounds like you were spiritually abused by false doctrine.

Sounds like all she once learned from the UP is recalled through a Mandela Effect? She must only contain her debates and arguments within the confines of the UPCI, and their ex-members.