Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul did not define the manner in which a kiss is to be performed, except that it must be "holy". Russians kiss on the cheeks, some don't even actually make contact, more of a near-cheek brush-by, but some do a full on the lips kiss.

Like the Trump family. It's always about Russia with those people.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by houston

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

Smoochie Smoochie!

[Esaias]

The command to greet one another with a holy kiss/kiss of charity is a general command, and thus obligatory through all ages and cultures. However, the particular manner of performing the greeting (literally, "embrace") will vary with the culture. Just as the head covering doctrine is a general command and thus obligatory in all ages and places, yet the particular style of head covering is variable.

Again, just as singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a general command and obligatory today, but the particular style (melodies, rhythms, tunes, and specific lyrics) will vary from culture to culture, locale to locale, and era to era.

[votivesoul]

Two wonderful, but commonly unknown factoids:

The Koine Greek word used by Paul for "long" as in long hair, is where we get the word "comet".

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comet?s=t

In ancient Greek and Latin, the words for a comet, both literally translate to "hairy stars" (aster cometes and stella cometa, respectively).

Here is a computer simulated depiction of Halley's Comet created for a National Geographic Special:



http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...halleys-comet/

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Two wonderful, but commonly unknown factoids:

The Koine Greek word used by Paul for "long" as in long hair, is where we get the word "comet".

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comet?s=t

In ancient Greek and Latin, the words for a comet, both literally translate to "hairy stars" (aster cometes and stella cometa, respectively).

Here is a computer simulated depiction of Halley's Comet created for a National Geographic Special:



http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...halleys-comet/

Excellent!

[Captain]

Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.

The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.

So let’s just break this down into the coherent parts:

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”

• Reading 1Cor chapter 11 in full context clearly lays out that God has a hierarchy of authority; Christ, man, woman. Short version – the woman’s long, feminine hair is a sign of her submission to her husband and thus to God.

• The teaching of uncut hair is unclear in the scripture but it is very clear that it is a matter of a woman remaining feminine i.e. long hair and a man masculine i.e. short hair. Paul says that this is so natural that it is self-evident.

• So a feminine man or a masculine woman is out of God’s natural order just as a woman who is not submitted to her husband or a man who does not rightly exercise his natural authority in the home is out of God’s natural order.

• The idea of a doctrine requiring at least 2 or 3 verses comes from theology and is not biblical. It may be a good rule of thumb but there is nothing rigidly biblical about it. Another theological practice that is more true in practice is that of First Principles. Look it up, not important enough to get deeply into here but essentially something that is stated plainly enough to be self-evident can be a 1st principle i.e. Acts 2:38

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Captain

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”

Wrong.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

[TakingDominion]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

1800 years of church history the overwhelming majority of Christians also taught the trinitarian doctrine and baptismal formula, along with many other false doctrines... so uh yeah... history does not equal accuracy

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TakingDominion

1800 years of church history the overwhelming majority of Christians also taught the trinitarian doctrine and baptismal formula, along with many other false doctrines... so uh yeah... history does not equal accuracy

The point is not that "what everyone believed throughout history is right because everyone believed it." The point is that the no head covering interpretation is a new fangled doctrine, unknown to history, and therefore is subject to skepticism.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Captain

Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.

The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.

I wrote the piece so you are welcome to ask me what I meant.

It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense. We should trust God, not our own ability to keep rules so we can control outcomes.