Part 2/2
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
.
|
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:
Quote:
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.
Saying this about Patriarchs would not deny that which was similarly practiced in others, in pagan religions. As such it was culture, not command. Why do you wish to be seen asking culture to bolster your religious viewss. Use the Word/commands - not culture. But when the Word doesn't give what you want it to say, then I understand why you would want to use anything else you can find. We have a law in the Torah about married women being forcibly
Oh, Yes! Using a word like forcibly will be really convincing as proof that somewhere there was a command of God that required the veil and the forcible removal. It would also show a priest as pre-judging her as guilty by rough treatment. Were priests not to judge fairly? Was this process not to be done to reveal her guilt or innocence? Yes.The priest would not pre-judge her but give her a fair trial, treating her fairly before she was found guilty - not roughly as if she was already guilty. And also, there is the lack of universal agreement whether 'parah' always refers to de-veiling or instead, the unbinding of the hair. Let us know when you find this invisible, non-existent command. 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.
You reference with words a prophet, but do not reveal source or identity so we can confirm for ourselves.Isa47 is written about ungodly idolatrous Jews who were to be punished for their backsliding ways, by capturers who would humiliate them. It had nothing to do with faithful Jews who religiously veiled in obedience to a command which did not exist. Similar things were done by all nations in those who had been captured. Referring to pagan war practices does not 'a command of God make'. Why such shallow searching for evidence when the Word of God, the OT, should abound with commands as something so important as God's Order of Authority and the symbol-kept showing compliance. Instead, scooping from pagan swamps. That it is necessary to go into the swamps for proof should have convinced you long ago that the proofs don't exist. What you say was required by God, wasn't. This is just grasping for straws, hoping for a limb to keep from the sinking you'll do unless you come up with something better. I won't wish you luck, because that would provide false hope for a hopeless cause.
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV)
Large portion deleted. see post 18 for what.
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?
And here I thought that you would say that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. Those who believe the vv (veil view) are good at ignoring this. And those who believe the ulv (uncut long view) are good at ignoring every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Paul wrote both sentences and both should be incorporated into our head-covering view. No verses should be ignored...but some do so. If only there was a view which could explain they were both right. Wait! There is! It's the iv (instincts view) which has been shared in AFF on a thread here: https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 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).
And? Is there an 'and' coming? Like in the creation of Eve, who was made without any veil. I'd expect that the writer would follow with a story-line beginning with "And because Eve in the Garden wasn't commanded or provided a cover so she could be seen showing due regard (according to God's Order of Authority guides), that she doesn't is explained by...."
Even after having a cover provided for her sinful nakedness, she is not seen with God providing her a veil at this same time. God does not provide her means to do something important, to show due regard to God and her man. He provides the greater cover but not the lesser. Tut tut, Lord. Are you new at your role as God, in this God-game and did you forget something, like the veil for Eve? Something important is missing!
God forgets for 4050 years. Paul is the first ever to command a veil, if he indeed is commanding a veil (he's not commanding anything). (If an explanation is ever given by another for Eve's lack in the Garden, then those with authority in AFF will pick up stones for the one presenting views which contradict theirs. But when all they have are stones, then what else can they do? They don't have the logical arguments which can convincingly show the iv wrong. You can't let an answer stay standing which reveals inconsistencies you can't cover for. You stone the one instead, taking all necessary efforts to discredit those who have no credit. This has actually happened.)
God left Eve butt-naked in the Garden, if we follow votivesoul along the path he lays. I'd rather have a path which from the git-go shows her covered. Check out the iv, whose author claims he leaves no verse ignored, no discrepancy without explanation. But then, lots of people have made similar claims. Talk is cheap, as we see in AFF often. Very, very cheap. Stones and words are very cheap.
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.
Obviously, votivesoul, you've done vast amounts of research on the topic. Doing so gives you many facts which can be applied as evidence for what you contend for - your veil view (vv) which you say is Paul's. But you know full well that another researcher will come up with facts to be applied to another view, also seemingly logical in the context of their presentation. Oftentimes then, the better the presenter/researcher, the more convincing their view.
All your evidence-presenting jumps over/ignores the fact that - the OT shows no veiling command for a starting point. (It also shows no command for uncut hair.) Why do your arguments start in the middle of the story and not at the beginning? Why is there no Beginning or OT starting-point command in that which you say Paul now commands for the NT? You do say Paul commands the veil for the Church, don't you?
Better to say this: Paul loves the Word, the OT, the only Word in his possession. He would draw any NT commands from the Book he loves. Because he has not seen veiling as a command in the Book he worships, he would not command the Church to do that which he has not seen there. He would command, if he indeed commands, that which is actually seen. A view which better fits the facts needs to be embraced; and the vv let go of. Don't scholars usually say 'read the whole Book' and 'use the whole Book to make doctrine'. The vv and the ulv ignore this principle/guideline to formulate doctrine from mostly one chapter. They have to, because the whole doesn't show support for their views.
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.
If true or not, wouldn't this be true whether for either a societal norm or for a religious tradition based on the Word? Of course. It fits both ways regardless of which head-covering view you hold.
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.
I hope you have the integrity to agree that the facts presented are mighty slim as convincing evidence. Your facts are true but slim for supporting evidence. A doctrine of such broad encompassing application, "touched" every day in a woman's life, needs better foundations than that just presented by votivesoul.
1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)
Quote:
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Now, plz votivesoul and Reader, plz slow down enough to re-read and contemplate the logic and scriptural thoughts presented by donfriesen1. Weigh them for wrong interpretation and false logic. If kosher, accept them. Reject that which is illogical or unscriptural by bad interpretation. Walk in truth as Apostolics should. Leave behind preconceived thoughts which have discrepancies or gaps, such as those shown in the vv and the ulv.
Threaded Mode
