Covering:Veil or Hair: Part II? Answers Inside

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sorry Blume but Paul is on to other things and the text is not directly what you want it to be in relation to Chapter 11. Also yes the veil is a sign and recognition of authority and submission. Because it is a sign and symbol of it does not negate the need for it!

Tokens, talismans, magic coverings, and magic hair. It’s all the same ol’ stuff. Focus on the external. Bro, I’ve seen women that wear head coverings who are absolutely not submitted to their husbands or under divine authority. It’s just a doily, dude. Paul’s point is much bigger. For them the issue was veils, for us, it might be dress length, style, or blouse cut. It’s a very flexible principle that applies any time and any place.

Is not the veil here the point in order that a women when she prays and prophecy she truly brings her authority and sign of submission to God in his presence thus "because of the angels?"

The “Magic Veil” doctrine is born ladies and gentlemen. Lol

The issue is simple…immodest ladies who refuse their husbands authority dishonor their husbands and break the divine order. I’m sorry, a woman can wear ten doilies to symbolically say she’s submitted but be unsubmitted in her heart and she still has done violence to the divine order and shouldn’t approach God in prayer or prophesy.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Tokens, talismans, magic coverings, and magic hair. It’s all the same ol’ stuff. Focus on the external. Bro, I’ve seen women that wear head coverings who are absolutely not submitted to their husbands or under divine authority. It’s just a doily, dude. Paul’s point is much bigger. For them the issue was veils, for us, it might be dress length, style, or blouse cut. It’s a very flexible principle that applies any time and any place.

Yes, submission is bigger than just veils but again the other aspects which Paul and others taught on does not negate the clear teaching in 1 Cor 11 on veils and there role in coming before God etc... Sure anyone can use something external and not be internally right. That does not negate though the need for the covering or anything else. Just as a person can be baptized without the right heart it does not negate the need of baptism.

The “Magic Veil” doctrine is born ladies and gentlemen. Lol

You shame yourself!

The issue is simple…immodest ladies who refuse their husbands authority dishonor their husbands and break the divine order.

Which "in part" is seen in veiling.

I’m sorry, a woman can wear ten doilies to symbolically say she’s submitted but be unsubmitted in her heart and she still has done violence to the divine order and shouldn’t approach God in prayer or prophesy.

Again nobody is disagreeing with this but your argument does not change the aspect of needing a covering as a symbol of authority. Also you negating scipture because of "we don't do that today" and other poor arguments shows a possible lack of submission in your theology and you might be compromised in some way. Again I will stick with creation as my reasoning and you can rely on today's culture as your pillar in the stand.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I find it sad you don't understand the clear teaching WHY she is to wear a covering. You basically make the covering nothing because other areas show submission and modesty as well. Nice logic! Paul clearly goes into depth on why women should wear them. hmmm God wants order, the devil doesn't. You negate that order and I support it. I like my side!

So if my wife wears a rag on her head it proves she’s submitted to me? LOL

The order God wants is a submitted wife who is modest in all things be they head coverings, dresses, shoes, blouses, or even attitude. God isn’t banking entirely upon a rag on her head. That’s silly. God’s order isn’t focused on a rag on some woman’s head. It’s modesty and submission in general.

Yeah, I'll take panty hose and other things as symbols of submission "FOR THE HEAD"
I agree modesty and propriety is not just about the veil. Just because modesty is not all summed up in a veil does not negate the veil as you are so proud of.

Bro… the issue was modesty and submission. If Paul would have been preaching in the 1960’s the question would be women burning their bras and not wearing them even when attending church. It’s so much bigger than a magic rag on a woman’s head.

I love how you just negate truth because of culture today. Way to accept a lie because somehow today's worldy culture determines the culture of the church and truth!

Bro… I’m saying it’s far more expansive. You’re saying all that matters is a rag on a woman’s head. I’m saying that the veil was only the immediate catalyst for Paul’s instructions. Paul’s instructions apply to all a woman wears, does, and even the attitude that she holds. It’s bigger than a magic rag on the head. lol

I'll base my views on divine order and creation as the reason for a covering when approaching God and you can stick with today's culture as the reason for women and men to and not to wear a covering.

Again, if a wife wears a rag on her head it PROVES she’s submitted? Not hardly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Show me where he is rebuking them like you said in 1 Cor 11? I wouldn't think Paul would have to directly say " I command" veils considering what being covering entails and his argument! If his argument is not clear enough then I really have to question your ability to comprehend the depth and force of Pauls argument. I teach my kids truth all the time and I don't have to "command" them. they understand the depth of what things mean after I explain what they mean to God.

Bro, the entire passage is an instruction addressing uncovered women in the worship service.

[Aquila]

Give me a loving and submitted wife over a cranky woman wearing a doily any day. lol

[LUKE2447]

Hey Aquilla want to take your logic to it's end and make baptism it magic as well. Which is basically according to the above you are saying. If a person uses anything given by God it's a Talisman or whatever. Guess you fall in line with those who basically say baptism is witchcraft or anything else. Seems you got in trouble for this before didn't you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Hey Aquilla want to take your logic to it's end and make baptism it magic as well. Which is basically according to the above you are saying. If a person uses anything given by God it's a Talisman or whatever. Guess you fall in line with those who basically say baptism is witchcraft or anything else. Seems you got in trouble for this before didn't you.

Water baptism is a clear cut command of Scripture. Head coverings aren't. This is the only place they're mentioned and the context is entirely debateable among far more brillian scholars than us. Bro, don't attack baptism to defend the doily. lol

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So if my wife wears a rag on her head it proves she’s submitted to me? LOL

No, but it is something that she should do as part of here submission and sign of authority before the angels and God.

The order God wants is a submitted wife who is modest in all things be they head coverings, dresses, shoes, blouses, or even attitude. God isn’t banking entirely upon a rag on her head. That’s silly. God’s order isn’t focused on a rag on some woman’s head. It’s modesty and submission in general.

Again you are making argument out of nothing as nobody said modesty is not about alot of things. we are dealingSTICTLY WITH A COVERING and you should stick to the text instead of bringing otehr things in that PAUL DOES NOT MENTION to thwart what Paul clearly says and you throw off like yesterday's garbage.

I find it funny you use God isn't banking "entirely" upon a rag upon her head. Yet Paul gives reason and you can sit back a make all the "current" culture arguments you want but it doesn't negate creation.

Bro… the issue was modesty and submission. If Paul would have been preaching in the 1960’s the question would be women burning their bras and not wearing them even when attending church. It’s so much bigger than a magic rag on a woman’s head.

Yes, it is bigger but it doesn't negate clear teaching of which you give more authority to today's culture than the Word of God and the order of creation.

Bro… I’m saying it’s far more expansive. You’re saying all that matters is a rag on a woman’s head. I’m saying that the veil was only the immediate catalyst for Paul’s instructions. Paul’s instructions apply to all a woman wears, does, and even the attitude that she holds. It’s bigger than a magic rag on the head. lol

You have not read what I have said or you are lying!

Again, if a wife wears a rag on her head it PROVES she’s submitted? Not hardly.

No, but it is something the angels look for and Paul teaches is a parallel of spiritual authority.

[Aquila]

Bro. If the angels are looking for anything it's modest submitted women. The neglect of the head covering in the first century was just the issue that underscored the deeper issue, honoring headship.

So tell me, if my wife doesn't wear a magic doily will she be lost? lol

Can the be colorful?

What if I (her head) ask that she not wear a magic doily? hehehe

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Water baptism is a clear cut command of Scripture. Head coverings aren't. This is the only place they're mentioned and the context is entirely debateable among far more brillian scholars than us. Bro, don't attack baptism to defend the doily. lol

Your point was that the abuse of the outward means that it can be negated. Just because your argument is weak and was shown such doesn't mean you have to hate the truth presented.

Also, yes baptism is commanded and it has principle meaning that back it. Paul does not have to directly command such when he says you shame Christ and your head if you are not covered. Paul doesn't have to say "I command" when his total explanation is based on creation and everything else. The need to be directly "commmanded" to do what Paul is teaching and turn around and say I don't have to do it because I was not commanded boarders on the edge of absolute spiritual stupidity and intellectual suicide. Especially when he just in the first part of the chapter praises them in following his teaching and the traditions.

If you can't get the depth of why I am sorry but it is pointless to continue this as you base your opinion on current culture and addition by subtraction to negate one truth because of others that show modesty and order before God. You create a fictional chapter of 1 Cor 11 and make it say completely unrelative to what Paul is saying. Sure 1 Cor 11 has a aspect of modesty but that doesn't mean all other aspects of modesty negate clear truth of divine headship and approaching God.