Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

)

....Part2/3


With this understanding in tow, we can now begin to interpret Isaiah 47:1-3 properly.

Verse 1 has these parallels: virgin daughter of Babylon with daughter of the Chaldeans, and sit down in the dust with sit on the ground without a throne.

Essentially, Biblical Hebrew poetry often restates and recasts the immediately preceding concepts, using close but still different language. So, Isaiah trades virgin daughter of Babylon for daughter of the Chaldeans, and dust for ground.

Understanding this is key to the proper interpretation of the next two verses.

Look at the following:

1.) Put off your veil
2.) Strip off you robe
3.) Uncover your legs
4.) Your nakedness shall be uncovered
5.) Your disgrace shall be seen

Understanding these concepts as restated parallels of one another, we can finally get to a Biblical definition, according to the inspired prophet:

A woman is considered naked, that is, her pudenda is seen when? There are numerous references to nakedness which we today would not describe as naked. David was accused of dancing before the Lord naked. It was a relative term. He was in his undergarments. If someone comes into a room in underwear we say 'get some clothes on' even when they have some clothes on - underwear. But when anyone wants something to be true they then might go around the block ten times the long way, to prove it. This is especially true when they have little or nothing else to prove that the OT commanded the veil - like seeing a command would settle it.

When her veil is removed, her robe is stripped off, and her legs are uncovered. Or, Isaiah is indicating three levels of disgrace, from least to greatest. Yes, right there, in v3 the word shame appears. A&E hid because of shame which came from being naked.

Prophetically, when a woman has her veil removed, i.e. the cloth or garment designed to cover her hair, she is considered naked. Does this verse alone, only one verse, provide a definition?

This the Biblical definition. Not a willy-nilly, culturally and geographicaly dependent definition, but an inspired and God-breathed definition in the Holy Scriptures. A man and woman in public should be covered by the equivalent of a kethoneth , and in addition, a woman should have her head veiled by a covering. Not because of any instinct or intuition (still paying attention, Don?) I'm still here. because Adam and Eve have shown us human instinct and intuition doesn't suffice. Right. Though whatever they had for moral code-making was good enough for 2500 yrs of use without Law, God thought that written/spoken law he later added was not better, but now needed. I'd not argue with God in the ways he provided for moral codes at the first. 2500 yrs for the first method, and the second lasting 1500, or will we say 3500? God has a better plan, one that suits His will and desire for humanity.

This includes a veil over a woman's hair, because her hair is given to her as a περιβολαίου (peribolaion), i.e. a testicle, as part of a Biblically defined understanding of a man's external genitalia, which must be covered when she prays or prophesies, lest she do what? You can extrapolate from Isa47 all you want to. But this does not yet make for a command of God which could be given to Eve or any of those after her and before the time of Isaiah's writing, approx 3200 yrs after Creation.

If you would say that all those Jews who did veil, including all the pagans who also veiled, do it without a command of God asking for it, then you may well believe as I do, that veiling came by way of Man and not God. Do you believe these were veiling because of instincts? I don't.

If God has not commanded it, then it may well be that carnal thinking, the dominant kind of thinking by majority numbers, was what led many pagan nations to veil. It was not only Israel (veiling to plz God, as you would say), but many pagans doing the same thing, but not to plz God. Carnal thinking opposes the Spirit-thinking, that which you say caused Paul to say, as you say he said, that the Spirit commanded the veil.

The facts you quote fit the vv, but many facts are ignored which shouldn't be ignored. Namely, why doesn't the OT show a command for that which both testaments should command, if one actually does. That the OT doesn't, that which lays the foundation for the NT, should lead any honest seeker to say that the NT wouldn't if the OT hadn't. But here I am, hated by those of AFF who take all efforts to get rid of me because of the facts I present which shows the vv as full of holes. If the Spirit spoke for a veil in the NT, then the same Spirit would have spoken so in the OT. He didn't.

Paul shows that GOoA starts before any covenant. It pre-dates covenant as a principle which shows it superseding any covenant. The start of the NT does not introduce a time when GOoA comes into effect, only then recognized by a head symbol. Both GOoA and head symbols pre-dated covenants. So, now vs, there you go. You now have another thing to ignore while you contend for the vv. Where is your love for truth?

You attempt to make veiling an OT command. But no command can be found to make it so. Perhaps you'd describe this veiling-without-a-command-for-it to be from instincts? Not me. And I am also not with you if you say it came by command. If it had been the will of God we would see a command. Why is none seen? (you listening, vs? Answer that question. Reader, vs will not answer the question. It can't be acknowledged to exist because of the repercussions. vs is not a truth-seeker but of those who value man-made church doctrines over truth) But don't yet give up, vs, in your efforts to authoritatively discredit the iv. You may yet do so. But I doubt it. (You listening,vs?)


Dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. Now, note the preposition "for". It is the Greek word ἀντί (anti), as in antichrist (See, e.g. 1 John 2:18). It denotes the idea of in the stead of, a replacement for, opposed to/opposite of. These three are not equals.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/473.htm

So, a woman, instead of being given a testicle, in the place of part of a man's external genitalia, as opposed to/opposite of, she is given long hair, which must then be veiled when she prays or prophesies, lest she bring shame and reproach upon her husband, just as much as a husband would bring shame or reproach upon his wife if he attempted to pray or prophesy with his testicles out on display. That's a fair trade: long hair for a testicle. What did man have to trade for his hair?

This definition, I believe, we can all agree with. Errr...maybe not everyone, if you mean the preceding paragraph. Praying or prophesying in the nude is wholly inappropriate. Paul considers a woman without a veil as naked before God, the angels, her husband, and the congregation of the saints. This is why veiling is the customary practice, the tradition he insists upon, and why he wrote that if anyone wanted to argue, too bad, this is the way it is in all the churches of God. Maybe. Maybe not. There is tons of reading between the lines going on with this explanation, which many might have a problem with.

Is there a Torah command that mandates this? No, but there doesn't need to be one.

Acts 1:2 (ESV),

Quote:
2 ...[Jesus] had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Paul was a chosen Apostle. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, issued commands to Paul. But saying this does not yet say what method he uses, other than just through the Spirit. This phrase is not very descriptive. John says that Jesus breathed on them. Jn20.21,22. I interpret this to mean that he opened their understanding by means of the Spirit moving on them as he spoke. This is one man's opinion, mine, of 'through the Spirit' you refer to.

But consider the following plz, vs. You've just said that Paul has received, via a message from the Spirit. Would you then say that the Spirit commands the veil? I conclude you would agree. But why then does Paul reference the Beginning scriptures, stating them to be the basis for what he says. Instead of referring to the scripture he would say, 'the Spirit told me to say this'. That he references the Word testifies opposite to what you say, 'that it was spoken by the Spirit as a command for the Church'. Paul says 'the Word shows such and such in the Beginning'.

Even so, even if this actually was the case as you teach, what then of all those previous to Paul? Are you saying that the Spirit said something to Eve and to those in the Age of Conscience and to those during Law? Is this the explanation for why pagans veiled, because, somehow the Spirit got past the Satan-inspired religions with this one part of obedience to God. Is that what you want us to believe? I'm not buying.

Had Eve heard from the Spirit something so important as relating to GOoA (God's Order of Authority) then it would have been recorded, just like other important things from the Beginning were recorded.

This method you use, vs, has the appearance of stretching the available facts to make them fit by great effort into a doctrine you want to have Biblical evidence for, which isn't there otherwise. I'd suggest another method, like that the iv uses. Read the facts and formulate a doctrine which fits the facts naturally. (you listening vs?)

Does Paul speak of veiling? Yes. It should be understood that the veiling referenced was a long-standing cultural practice of a pagan nation, which was being challenged by a cultural revolution wishing to tear down harmless cultural norms. It should be said that Paul addresses this issue as not wanting Christians to get involved with rebellion affecting their testimony.

Part3/3....