Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more ....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I said history.... Also we don't have many writings from the first century.


e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Bro... I'm sure the average Roman woman would wear something over her head underground. Besides, these are congregational depictions, women will be depicted in their most modest form and fashion. It means nothing. I'm sure many were wearing shoes too, perhaps Paul made a mandate for shoes that we know not of? This is weak evidence.

2. Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)
a. Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "A woman ought to
have a veil [kalumma] upon her head, because of the angels."5
b. This is significant in that Irenaeus apparently understood the "power" on
a woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 to be a veil of some kind and not a
woman's hair.

Please provide the actual context of Irenaeus' statment. For example, the actual context may have been speaking of Paul's letter in context to the Corinthians. This is a statement plucked out of it's context. For all we know it might have read...

"And we know that angels minister among us. For what did Paul write to the Corinthians? A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels."

As you can see, you're not providing context or intent of Ireaneus' statement. And even if such a statement can be provided, this only expresses Ireaneus' personal interpretation of the text. Most likely if Ireaneus was writting in support of the veil, he was responding to a wider body of believers who questioned the requirement. Such is the case with most first and second century writtings. For example, Tertullian argues heroically for the Trinity. Why? Because a sizeable number of Christians DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY. In fact, the MAJORITY didn't. So, Ireaneus' statement may prove valuable in demonstrating wider opposition to the teaching as Tertullian's does the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, it was around this time that many outlandish teachings and ordinances were being laid upon the saints by a developing Catholic Church. This is most likely one of them. Nothing they say truly holds much weight, but it does offer food for thought.

Hippolytus (170-236 a.d.) Hippolytus, a church father from Rome
"Canon Seventeenth. Of virgins, that they should cover their faces and their heads."

Same as with Ireneaus. This was a period of drifting. This was a teaching that was part of that drift.

Tertullian (AD 198)

"…Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in Church? Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms—and at every mention of God—remain uncovered."

Tertullian can hardly be held up as a paragon of right doctrine. He read the Trinity into Scripture, and clearly also read this teaching into Scripture as well. But it does support the fact that historically the church never interpreted Paul to have been elaborating on hair. Please note, Tertullian, as with most Church Fathers, was writing to a wider body of believers. Obviously the use of the veil wasn't being enforced universally by Pastors and Tertullian was trying to force the issue (as he did the Trinity). This proves that the head covering practice wasn't universal... else Tertullian wouldn't be presenting the apologetic to a wider audience.

Also the Apostle Thomas to many brought headcoverings to India etc...

Here start reading....

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/stor...g-history.html

http://www.biblicalresearchreports.c...eringmyths.php

http://www.headcovering.info/articles.html

http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/Breth...ry%20Teach.htm

Apocryphic. The dupatta were widespread wear in India and the far East since ancient times. Long, long, long before Thomas. Such ignorance (or dishonesty) by those you regard as authorities on the subject should be a red flag my brother.

God bless.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro... I'm sure the average Roman woman would wear something over her head underground. Besides, these are congregational depictions, women will be depicted in their most modest form and fashion. It means nothing. I'm sure many were wearing shoes too, perhaps Paul made a mandate for shoes that we know not of? This is weak evidence.




Please provide the actual context of Irenaeus' statment. For example, the actual context may have been speaking of Paul's letter in context to the Corinthians. This is a statement plucked out of it's context. For all we know it might have read...

"And we know that angels minister among us. For what did Paul write to the Corinthians? A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels."

As you can see, you're not providing context or intent of Ireaneus' statement. And even if such a statement can be provided, this only expresses Ireaneus' personal interpretation of the text. Most likely if Ireaneus was writting in support of the veil, he was responding to a wider body of believers who questioned the requirement. Such is the case with most first and second century writtings. For example, Tertullian argues heroically for the Trinity. Why? Because a sizeable number of Christians DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY. In fact, the MAJORITY didn't. So, Ireaneus' statement may prove valuable in demonstrating wider opposition to the teaching as Tertullian's does the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, it was around this time that many outlandish teachings and ordinances were being laid upon the saints by a developing Catholic Church. This is most likely one of them. Nothing they say truly holds much weight, but it does offer food for thought.



Same as with Ireneaus. This was a period of drifting. This was a teaching that was part of that drift.



Tertullian can hardly be held up as a paragon of right doctrine. He read the Trinity into Scripture, and clearly also read this teaching into Scripture as well. But it does support the fact that historically the church never interpreted Paul to have been elaborating on hair. Please note, Tertullian, as with most Church Fathers, was writing to a wider body of believers. Obviously the use of the veil wasn't being enforced universally by Pastors and Tertullian was trying to force the issue (as he did the Trinity). This proves that the head covering practice wasn't universal... else Tertullian wouldn't be presenting the apologetic to a wider audience.



Apocryphic. The dupatta were widespread wear in India and the far East since ancient times. Long, long, long before Thomas. Such ignorance (or dishonesty) by those you regard as authorities on the subject should be a red flag my brother.

God bless.

We can go on and on and on and it won't matter. I am pretty much tired of arguing as people can study the links and whatever for themselves. The arguments for the most part have been presented so......

Concerning Tertullian and others... don't use any history then because you won't find hardly any Oneness writings and that depends on if you consider them oneness. So that eliminates pretty much everything.... I guess we are back to the text and no use of history. Also I was just pasting what they wrote etc... you and I both can go get the info. Also Tertullian was correcting peoples interpretation which I think happens in many peoples day and age. Also I am not your daddy or mommy to give you everything, look up the references they are online. Also I simply don't feel like rehashing same points over and over especially when you point to history of veiling on some parts then when it's not useful for you and that it was about veiling for the church historical references is not good enough. Whatever, I am done!

Also the links are not about Thomas but the subject matter in whole!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

We can go on and on and on and it won't matter. I am pretty much tired of arguing as people can study the links and whatever for themselves. The arguments for the most part have been presented so......

Concerning Tertullian and others... don't use any history then because you won't find hardly any Oneness writings and that depends on if you consider them oneness. So that eliminates pretty much everything.... I guess we are back to the text and no use of history. Also I was just pasting what they wrote etc... you and I both can go get the info. Also Tertullian was correcting peoples interpretation which I think happens in many peoples day and age. Also I am not your daddy or mommy to give you everything, look up the references they are online. Also I simply don't feel like rehashing same points over and over especially when you point to history of veiling on some parts then when it's not useful for you and that it was about veiling for the church historical references is not good enough. Whatever, I am done!

Also the links are not about Thomas but the subject matter in whole!

Fact: Veiling wasn't universal practice or there wouldn't be such a need for the Trinitarian church fathers to push their interpretation. Demonstrating that this wasn't an established ordinance as claimed.

Fact: Thomas didn't bring the head covering to India. This is either presented in ignorance or dishonesty (not you LUKE2447, whoever told it to you or wrote it originally).

Oh, and just a note, the catacombs also depict baptism by pouring.

Yes, we're on the text.... but as stated before.... there is more than one way to look at it. Seeing the facts... which view is correct? Universal ordinance or Corinthian context? Reader be the judge.

Love ya bro.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Fact: Veiling wasn't universal practice or there wouldn't be such a need for the Trinitarian church fathers to push their interpretation. Demonstrating that this wasn't an established ordinance as claimed.

Speculation and we would not have had many other things argued over or defended which was about everything. Thus this point fails on common sense of people changing views of what the bible says thus correction among rogue groups having there own interpretation etc... Either way I just use history as a point of reference not truth of the matter.

Fact: Thomas didn't bring the head covering to India. This is either presented in ignorance or dishonesty (not you LUKE2447, whoever told it to you or wrote it originally).

I will have to find the references as I have not looked them up in a while.

Oh, and just a note, the catacombs also depict baptism by pouring.

Just to let you know I prefer immersion but I see nothing wrong with covering by infusion.

Yes, we're on the text.... but as stated before.... there is more than one way to look at it. Seeing the facts... which view is correct? Universal ordinance or Corinthian context? Reader be the judge.

I would agree! Which goes to my point his argument offer universal principle all through out and lacks any effort to limit it to Corinth.

Love ya bro.

Back at ya!

[The Lemon]

Aquila and Luke -

Both of you are ALOT smarter than me.....my head hurts!

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

Aquila and Luke -

Both of you are ALOT smarter than me.....my head hurts!

Either they are smarter or they are geeks. Hey wait a minute, maybe we are all geeks for being on this forum.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I think I heard this line on a commercial for diamonds.
(You know... Valentines day coming up and all that.....)

Well, RandyWayne, it did NOT originate with the commercials and I have
not seen them. But you can ask Crakjak, our late father quoted that
over 30 yrs ago after riding along the countryside and observing the
barns and homes that he had remembered when they were newer
and in good repair. He then saw them as they became old and were
falling into decay. Just as each of our bodies will do, given time.

Blessings,

Falla39

[LUKE2447]

Interesting points by Beisner...

Cultural or Universal?
It remains to be asked, does Paul view head covering as symbolic of being under authority regardless of cultural context (that is, as transcending culture) or only within particular cultural contexts (that is, as limited to culture). If the former–and because of the structure of Paul’s argument, appealing not only to propriety but also to creation, angels, and nature, I think it is–then he requires head coverings for women in worship through all time and across all cultures. If the latter, then Paul requires head coverings per se only in those cultures where they are recognized as such. Even in the latter case, however, Paul still requires that women in worship display some kind of sign of being under authority and that, as men’s glory, they not be displayed, and that, as women’s own glory, their long hair not be displayed. His argument from the angels makes this clear. Whatever is made to be under authority to serve man’s God-given purpose ought to have a symbol of that submission–somewhere, whether on the head or not. The woman is made to be under authority to serve the man’s God-given purpose. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of that submission–somewhere. Those who reject the use of head coverings are obliged, then, to come up with some other symbol that will communicate the same message. Some might argue that a wedding ring would do, but in an egalitarian culture that explicitly rejects male headship even in marriage, it would not. 9 In any case, this view ignores the other aspect of Paul’s argument: the necessity of hiding all glory but God’s in worship. Granted the Biblical background and the long history of the use of head coverings for women in churches, I cannot think of a better symbol than the historic one. Additionally, it serves the purpose of covering not only the man’s glory (the woman) but also the woman’s glory (her long hair) in worship. Nothing else meets all of Paul’s Spirit-inspired concerns: the display of God’s glory (and so the man is uncovered) and the hiding of any other glory and signaling that the woman is made to be in submission to the man and to serve his God-given purposes (and so the woman is covered).

Two Remaining Matters
One question with which we have not dealt is whether the “head” a man disgraces if he worships with his head covered is his own anatomical head or Christ as his federal head, and, similarly, whether the “head” the woman disgraces if she prays with her head uncovered is her anatomical head or her husband as her federal head (vv. 4-5). Our answer does not affect the outcome of the larger investigation, but it is a question that deserves answering. It is possible that Paul intentionally wrote so as to invite both understandings, but I think it is more likely that the disgrace is not to the federal
head but to the anatomical head–here used in metonymy for simply oneself. I offer two reasons. First, in verses 14 and 15, Paul writes that “if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her.” This seems textually and thematically parallel to Paul’s concerns in verses 4 and 5. Second, while we may imagine that a woman’s showing insubordination by praying with her head uncovered brings disgrace on her husband by the implication that he is failing as her
federal head to have her in proper submission, it is impossible to imagine Christ’s failing as the man’s federal head. It is more likely that Paul means simply that a man disgraces himself by refusing to glorify Christ as he ought in worship, and a woman disgraces herself by refusing to wear the symbol of authority and the veil of glory on her head in worship. But I leave a more detailed consideration of this question to another opportunity. Paul concludes with a statement that reminds us of his introduction, which exhorted the Corinthians to imitate him and commended them for maintaining the traditions he had passed down: “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Does he mean by this that if someone is inclined to press this point of head coverings, and so to cause contention in the churches, he should be rebuked because it is not the practice, or custom, of the churches to be contentious? That understanding would be something of a stretch, granted that Paul
himself was always contending for truth and righteousness–indeed, even in this passage he was contending against a wrong practice in the church in Corinth, and he would correct yet another in the next. On the contrary, he means by this that someone who wants to reject head coverings and, corrected for it by the church, becomes contentious, must be made to recognize that he stands against the practice of the apostles and the churches. It was not those who required head coverings who were contentious, but those who did not.

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/freear...dcoverings.pdf

His points of the woman covering her glory is excellent to show sign of submission.-

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Well, RandyWayne, it did NOT originate with the commercials and I have
not seen them. But you can ask Crakjak, our late father quoted that
over 30 yrs ago after riding along the countryside and observing the
barns and homes that he had remembered when they were newer
and in good repair. He then saw them as they became old and were
falling into decay. Just as each of our bodies will do, given time.

Blessings,

Falla39

Years ago, I was an avid comic book collector. Since then I have known people who collect sports cards, and everything else.

I don't collect anything now.

Why? Because I look at stuff and somehow see it all slowly disintegrating. Nothing lasts -especially paper products! Things can also burn in fires or get stolen...... When you die, what good is it? (Although there IS value, even monetary, in things you leave for family.)

[Aquila]

J'adore Valentin. C'est une journée de l'amour.