Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Which is why women fight headcoverings today as it is clearly an outward demeaning symbol to them. Gotta look that part ya know!

This is an absolutely untrue statement.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is an absolutely untrue statement.

I have seen many scholars point this out of why we don't do that today because it would be demeaning etc....

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Women are always required to submit to husbands. But how that was symbolized so as to not offend in the culture of the day was Paul's issue.

Pauls points are clear. Heads should be covered and uncovered respectively BECAUSE of creation not culture!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There are many things in the law that are no longer required, everything from eating pork, to sabbath observance, and so on. The issue is that these things all had a purpose in their time and place, however, the principle is what we are to abide by, not the letter of said law. Paul was giving practical advice on modesty and explaining that immodest women dishonor their husbands and if they rebel from said modesty they are denying the headship of their husbands. It's about more than head coverings. Paul wasn't talking about a mystical meaning in a head doily, or the talismanic virtue of a magic head covering (be it cloth or hair). It just some really practical down to earth advice to women regarding how they should appear when attending worship. The women's refusal to wear a head covering just forced the issue and so Paul was addressing it in relation to the issue at hand.

Today, he might have to talk about women making sure their knees are covered. Same deal, he'd explain they were dishonoring their husbands by being immodest.

I would have to disagree here as well. I also thought you believed observing sabbath was a blessing? Also concerning pork etc... either you can observe common sense given by God or ignore it at the peril of your own health. Also neither of the things you bring up supports not wearing a veil,when Paul basis his reason on creation and headship with Christ in view among a few things. The rest of your points are subjective and speculation. Paul does not give a reason not to but the reason for.

[Aquila]

The issue Paul was addressing was how the women were dishonoring their husbands through their immodesty. Today we demean women if we force them into a first century mold. No magic head coverings or magic hair is needed. Just modesty.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The issue Paul was addressing was how the women were dishonoring their husband through their immodesty. Today we demean women if we force them into a first century mold. No magic head coverings or magic hair. Just modesty.

Absolute speculation and is not supported by the text by which Paul gives creation the reason for coverings not culture.

Also Paul is creating the culture due to the revelation of Christ! He is teaching the body how one is to approach God in prayer and prophecy with creation and divien order in mind. Sorry but you have no support from the text for extras you teach.

[Michael The Disciple]

Luke 2447 is doing a fine job here with the scriptures. Mike and Aquila also but then they fall and say it was just for back then.

Paul in no one meant it that way but rather as an ordinance of the Church.

2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He introduces the topic by saying so.

Its good to see this truth being brought forth and will deliver Apostolics from the error of uncut hair doctrine and into the light of obedience to the teaching of Christ.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Absolute speculation and is not supported by the text by which Paul gives creation the reason for coverings not culture.

Also Paul is creating the culture due to the revelation of Christ! He is teaching the body how one is to approach God in prayer and prophecy with creation and divine order in mind. Sorry but you have no support from the text for extras you teach.

Paul wasn’t “creating” anything. He was just addressing the issue of women ditching a head covering in public worship. It offended the cultural sensibilities of the men and dishonored their husbands. Most likely a letter from the Corinthians preceded this explaining how some men had complained to the elder about the women’s renunciation of head coverings and the elder was seeking advice as to how to address this issue. Paul’s letters aren’t didactic teachings. Paul most likely never knew his letter would become canon when it was first written.

Bro Luke, why “head coverings”? Nowhere in Scripture is any deeper relevance established. I’m glad Paul wasn’t addressing the inner garments worn by women; you’d demand they were necessary today. lol

[LUKE2447]

What I find amazing is with this divine order in which we properly approach God. Would not Satan want to destroy such? So he brings along false doctrine which goes against order and for disorder "because of the angels" yet the one fallen angel wants to destroy that order. He brings in false teaching and thus culture is changed among the church to scratch the itching ears. Then we have Aquila pointing to culture and today that we don't do this and thus it doesn't matter. Which is not based on scripture and the principle of divine order and creation but current feminism and culture based on false teaching which NEGATES, the needing of divine order and a covering which Pauls says you need to approach God properly. LOL! Nice circle for a argument! I will stick with the plain teaching of the text while you say NO COVERING is needed at all because...........


1) todays' culture does not wear them (not sure how that is based on biblical truth and not circular)
2) was only for that culture (when Paul basis wearing a covering on creation, angels, headship,submission, nature which are all eternal principles except maybe the angels which depends to what aspect Paul is referring)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Luke 2447 is doing a fine job here with the scriptures. Mike and Aquila also but then they fall and say it was just for back then.

Paul in no one meant it that way but rather as an ordinance of the Church.

2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

He introduces the topic by saying so.

Its good to see this truth being brought forth and will deliver Apostolics from the error of uncut hair doctrine and into the light of obedience to the teaching of Christ.

Bro., to say this was not for back then is to say that the bible teaches elsewhere, outside of rebuking people in 1 Cor 11, that a covering is to be worn. And the bible does not teach this anywhere else. So where did the Corinthians gain that understanding in order to be rebuked for not doing it, if it was not from the bible? Answer? CULTURE.

And to disagree is to also overlook the fact that chapter 10 immediately before this deals with offending people due to cultural issues. And chapter 11 begins its first verse with a note from chapter 10 about following Paul in not offending.

At any rate, we agree the issue was a veil and not hair.