Paul and Women

[agua.]

I'm wondering is it the vail itself ( comfort cosmetic appearance etc ) or the reason for wearing the vail the biggest problem ?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

the reason to wear the veil is simple obedience.
the results of not wearing the veil is disobedience.
since the western world doesn't obey Scripture anyway, who's going to notice !?
that goes for the rest of the world also. who's going to notice !?

only in the few places where Scripture is obeyed, will anyone notice if someone disobeys.

 

[By Grace]

Cool ! Yes I agree By Grace the number of manuscripts we have which have such a high percentage of agreement ( considering the different copiers ) sorta rules out #2 imo.

What really is so exciting about all the evidence is that it eliminates the question of an errant NT and "higher criticism" in the NT. Because the the liberals HAVE TO AGREE that these indeed represent all the evidences we have to date and the content of ALL are known, there is no clear-thinking scholar of note who would state anything different, the preservation and transmission of God's word is nothing short of a miracle.

Long ago, in the dark ages when I went to school, inerrancy was taught by taking propositions in Scripture, such as the words of Jesus and weaving a tapestry from the Scripture-based evidence.

Now, we can go back and trace the variations, and effectively reconstruct the autographa. And by doing it that way, God has provided us a way to see what was written, but not an original epistle which we could venerate as some do to Shroud of Turin and other dubious "artifacts"

Now if you will, please go back to propositions 1, 3, and 4 then see which of those violate the doctrine of inerrancy. BTW what I am doing is evidential apologetics. The way I was taught earlier is propositional apologetics, taught by Cornilius vanTil, whom I had the pleasure of hearing him in a lecture once before he died.

 

[Deborah13]

You sure know how to get to the point Deb :biggrin I think like you said it's more important that the wife actually agrees with and follows the arrangement and that may be sufficient. However I don't see any reason not to wear a vail especially if it was the accepted way to show this submission. Can you think of any other visible sign that would substitute ?

I can sorta compare it to water baptism in that there's a message there, and witness to observers, even though it doesn't imply we follow the reasons for it. Maybe that's not a great comparison.

You said,
Can you think of any other visible sign that would substitute ?

Well yes! A diamond ring that's big enough to be seen by the angels. :halo

 

[Deborah13]

I'm wondering is it the vail itself ( comfort cosmetic appearance etc ) or the reason for wearing the vail the biggest problem ?

It messes up and tangles one's hair?
It's hot?
Because it's not part of the western culture?
A wife's husband would be embarrassed that his wife looks like a Muslim or Hindu woman?
So people would think he was like a Muslim or Hindu husband?
Should a wife obey this rule if her husband forbids it?

Why do you think church men interpret this verse to be talking about wearing long hair, when it's not?

 

[Deborah13]

the reason to wear the veil is simple obedience.
the results of not wearing the veil is disobedience.
since the western world doesn't obey Scripture anyway, who's going to notice !?
that goes for the rest of the world also. who's going to notice !?

only in the few places where Scripture is obeyed, will anyone notice if someone disobeys.

Did Watchman Nee insist that wives do this? Huh, no! The Woman who mentored Watchman Nee certainly didn't wear one.
You did know it was a Woman who taught Watchman Nee, right?

 

[JLB]

Did Watchman Nee insist that wives do this? Huh, no! The Woman who mentored Watchman Nee certainly didn't wear one.
You did know it was a Woman who taught Watchman Nee, right?

Amen Deb.

Jeanne Guyon!


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Amen Deb.

Jeanne Guyon!


JLB

Thanks JLB, I couldn't remember her name and was too lazy to look it up!

 

[jasonc]

watchmen nee was of the demonation that I used to attend and allows women to preach. go figure.

 

[agua.]

You said,
Can you think of any other visible sign that would substitute ?

Well yes! A diamond ring that's big enough to be seen by the angels. :halo

Oh so now you want to want to send a message of showy displays as well :biggrin

It messes up and tangles one's hair?
It's hot?
Because it's not part of the western culture?
A wife's husband would be embarrassed that his wife looks like a Muslim or Hindu woman?
So people would think he was like a Muslim or Hindu husband?
Should a wife obey this rule if her husband forbids it?

I don't see any of these reasons as solid really. Also if the message is about a symbolic head ( noggin ) covering then I'm sure the inventive woman could come up with something suitable. Oh if the husband forbids it then that;s another can of worms and simply means he doesn't agree with or accept the passage or worse, he does accept it and is being disobedient.

Why do you think church men interpret this verse to be talking about wearing long hair, when it's not?

Which verse ?

 

[Stan1953]

When Paul says the woman should have authority over her own head ( noggin ) it means that she should have a sign of authority on it ie a covering.

As far as I can tell, v10 uses the Greek word ἐξουσία (exousia), and it means authority throughout the NT. Here for some reason it is viewed with many connotations such as;

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases 1a) leave or permission 2) physical and mental power 2a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises 3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege) 4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed) 4a) universally 4a1) authority over mankind 4b) specifically 4b1) the power of judicial decisions 4b2) of authority to manage domestic affairs 4c) metonymically 4c1) a thing subject to authority or rule 4c1a) jurisdiction 4c2) one who possesses authority 4c2a) a ruler, a human magistrate 4c2b) the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates 4d) a sign of the husband's authority over his wife 4d1) the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself 4e) the sign of regal authority, a crown​

I do see that the following 5 versions translate it as sign or symbol of authority; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 11:10&version=MOUNCE;HCSB;NET;NRSV;NASB
The following link has more translations AND commentaries on this but NO consensus. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-10.htm
At this point, IMO, it is still a local issue that had to do with the church at Corinth and it seems to stem from the practise of them wearing veils in their temples before converting. Whatever the actual case I don't find it relevant to our church today.

I'm not sure what you mean by Parental authority Stan? Oh that the Father has authority over the unmarried woman ? Ok leaving that aside and concentrating on married women why do you think Paul mentioned that the woman was the glory of the man and the man was the glory of God ?
Everything concerning the headship issue covering reflects on the reason women were to have a sign of authority on the head ( noggin ).
Can you tell me what you think "this cause" is here ?

Parental authority was just that. Man or women, those that lived at home or on their parents land in those days we were under their authority. Deut 5:16 (NIV) was something Paul knew very well and I'm sure would want to convey to pagan converts.
As the NT uses two different Greeks words for Glory in v7, the first is εἰκών (eikōn), which conveys image or likeness, and the second is δόξα (doxa), which conveys pride or ornament and is translated as glory.
One day I'm going to ask Paul what the heck he was on about?

But why is the head covering requirement placed upon women Stan ? Shaving the head for a woman was a disgraceful thing can you think of why Paul would tell a woman who did not cover her head that she may as well shave off her hair ?

1 Cor 11:5-6 (NIV) needs to be read carefully. One of the issues was HOW women wore their hair as former pagans. Paul alludes to this as well in 1 Tim 2:9 (NIV), and Ephesus had the same type of problem with the new women converts in their church. IMO Paul is conveying that the hair should be worn DOWN and plain as a covering. Some allude to this as a means to prevent the angels from being attracted to the women and some allude to this as a way to emulate what the angles did when they prayed to God and covered themselves with their own wings. Again speculation that I don't perceive in this scripture, but I'm sure there are much savvier men than I am that know the Bible.

Ok I'm fine sticking with husband wife as the subjects here esp since Paul refers to the Genesis account and Adam and Eve were married. Do you agree Paul refers to the creation account of man and woman ( Adam and Eve ) ?
Like I said I'm ok sticking with the husband/wife stipulation for now. Yeah it's interesting the "glory" thing. Can you tell me how this could make me think that the passage isn't teaching anything about the headship of the husband in marriage ?

Yes IMO it is obvious he does refer to how Adam and Eve were created as Gen 2 reveals. But as Peter stated in 2 Peter 3:16 (NIV) "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.", I have the same problem sometimes with Paul.

Stan maybe we should leave the man/woman husband/wife stipulation alone for now. Here's all the bibles I usually use. Poor KJV get's bashed up sometimes when he's no different than NIV .
(ESV) But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
(KJV) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
(KJV+) ButG1161 I wouldG2309 have youG5209 know,G1492 thatG3754 theG3588 headG2776 of everyG3956 manG435 isG2076 Christ;G5547 andG1161 the headG2776 of the womanG1135 is theG3588 man;G435 andG1161 the headG2776 of ChristG5547 is God.G2316
(LITV) But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
(NIrV) Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God.
(NIV) But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
(YLT) and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

I just started referring to the ESV as my daughter started using it on her Facebook
I use the following in relatively the same order, but mostly the NIV and MOUNCE.
NIV - 2011
MOUNCE - 2011
NASB - 1995
HCSB - 2009
NRSV - 1989
ESV - 2001
NET - 2006
ISV - 2013

All but the last version are available on Biblegateway.com and the ISV is only available on Biblehub.com

Yes that's true Stan but Paul sets the context of the passage by beginning with the headship issue, then moving on to the head coverings, and then explaining why with the creation account. I think we agree Paul is referring to the creation account and ( for some reason ) this is why this stipulation exists for the woman's ( wife's ) head covering ? I'll use the NIV from here in.
1Co 11:7-10 KJV For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

MOUNCE translates three verses here as WIFE
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 11:5
but any wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces · her head, for it is one and the same as a woman who has her head shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:13
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The rest he uses woman. I have to defer to him as knowing what it should be because I don't. It makes complete contextual sense this was IMO.

 

[Stan1953]

watchmen nee was of the domination that I used to attend and allows women to preach. go figure.

Read a lot of his stuff when I was a new born Christian.

 

[jasonc]

Read a lot of his stuff when I was a new born Christian.

the churches, church of god, Christian missoniary alliance and one other started the azure street revival. Im with the church of god.

 

[Stan1953]

the churches, church of god, Christian missoniary alliance and one other started the azure street revival. Im with the church of god.

I go to a PAOC church which is basically the same as AOG. My understanding is that COG is pretty close to AOG these days. I also attended Foursquare for over 20 years.

 

[jasonc]

I go to a PAOC church which is basically the same as AOG. My understanding is that COG is pretty close to AOG these days. I also attended Foursquare for over 20 years.

aog is hardly pentacostal. some of the cog are that way, but not mine.

 

[Stan1953]

aog is hardly pentacostal. some of the cog are that way, but not mine.

You may want to look that up? You will find the following statement HERE.
Currently the Assemblies of God USA and Assemblies of God organizations around the world make up the world's largest Pentecostal denomination with some 66 million members and adherents.

Wiki states: The Church of God, with headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee, is a Pentecostal Christian denomination.

What Church of God do you belong to? There are a few noted HERE

 

[jasonc]

You may want to look that up? You will find the following statement HERE.
Currently the Assemblies of God USA and Assemblies of God organizations around the world make up the world's largest Pentecostal denomination with some 66 million members and adherents.

Wiki states: The Church of God, with headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee, is a Pentecostal Christian denomination.

What Church of God do you belong to? There are a few noted HERE

my brother attends one, I have attended one, and both aren't much into pentacolism. he has been with that church a few years and says they are quiet. I know them well. I have attended them reba was aog. the hq doesn't speak for all tis churches. they don't care for my local church. long story. it may be soon that we break away from them.

 

[Stan1953]

my brother attends one, I have attended one, and both aren't much into pentacolism. he has been with that church a few years and says they are quiet. I know them well. I have attended them reba was aog. the hq doesn't speak for all tis churches. they don't care for my local church. long story. it may be soon that we break away from them.

Thanks, so what you are saying is you ARE part of the AOG denomination, whose HQ is in Cleveland, but NOT practising the Pentecostal aspects of it?

 

[jasonc]

Thanks, so what you are saying is you ARE part of the AOG denomination, whose HQ is in Cleveland, but NOT practising the Pentecostal aspects of it?

no, my brother is. I have attended the two here of the aog. both quiet compared to the pentacostalism im used to. the church I attend is quiet compared to first pentacostal church I attended.

 

[Stan1953]

no, my brother is. I have attended the two here of the aog. both quiet compared to the pentacostalism im used to. the church I attend is quiet compared to first pentacostal church I attended.

Aah OK I get it. Yes I have been at one or two PAOC churches that were more like Baptist congregation that Pentecostal ones. No offence to the Baptists here.