What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should women wear headcoverings in church?

Asyncritus said:
I see. And which other parts of his writings (about half the NT) would you also reject as being none of his business?
Click to expand...
Only the other parts that actually wouldn't really apply to us at all, you know - like this verse:

{22} At the same time also prepare me a lodging, for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you. Philemon 1:22 (NASB)

Can't say as I'm going to be making room for Paul at my house for Christmas this year, are you? :chin
 
You mean, like saying that Paul doesn't say a single word about baptism in Romans? As you did?
Click to expand...
If you have an axe to grind about being wrong on that thread, let's take it over there, shall we? :thumbsup

Still waiting for you to find water in those verses you cited. LOL!
 
If you take scripture seriously, does that make you a legalist?
Click to expand...
not everyone who takes Scriptures seriously are legalists
Click to expand...

Taking the Bible seriously does not make one a legalist. Being a legalist makes one a legalist. Asyncritis invoked a strawman. Not interested in dealing with those.
 
Stormcrow said:
Taking the Bible seriously does not make one a legalist. Being a legalist makes one a legalist. Asyncritis invoked a strawman. Not interested in dealing with those.
Click to expand...

How about facts? They good enough for you?
 
Some of these posts have been getting pretty personal. Let's cool it down please. Address the topic, not the person.
 
First, in case it hasn’t already been mentioned, the NLT translates 1Cor 11:16 as “no other custom†when the word “other†isn’t even in the Greek text. The KJV rightly translates the Greek phrase as “no such customâ€.

Second, Christians tend to miss the point. Paul’s merely stating the position of the woman in relation to the man, as he’s done elsewhere. He starts by saying in verse 3, “that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.†This is the point here. Not the head covering. The matter of the head covering is just an example of his main point.

Third, Paul clearly says the woman’s hair is given as a covering (vs. 15). The position of the woman is signified by her own hair given by God. If a woman rebels against the position of the man, she is as if she is bald (Vss. 5-6). Why would a woman wish to cover the covering that God gave her? Does her conscience bother her about her own state of rebellion, does she have a bald head?

Christians, in following the denominational character of Christianity, have to fight over such things as whether a woman should wear a head covering. Why? Are their own Biblical interpretations so important that Paul’s clear description is unimportant by contrast?

Why bother to put in my two cents worth? Because it’s a good example of the use of the practice of Biblical interpretation by those who understand the Bible with their own minds instead of through their Spirit. It’s one of many good examples of why so many people take neither Christianity nor the faith as portrayed in the Bible seriously, and of why I’m a

Former Christian
 
Stormcrow we arn't discussing about clothing for either men or womem, ONLY the head covering. Lets not stray the point. As father Abraham ( Lk.16) told the rich man in hades: "If they hear not Moses and the prophetrs, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
 
Former Christian said:
It’s one of many good examples of why so many people take neither Christianity nor the faith as portrayed in the Bible seriously, and of why I’m a

Former Christian
Click to expand...
What's the connection between arguing about head coverings and deciding not to accept God's offer of the forgiveness of your sins?

Sometimes I'm terribly frustrated with what people see and defend in scripture, but to use that as a reason to reject God's forgiveness isn't rational.
 
Methinks I'll welcome bro. Paul's words in my home not only on so-called Christmas but the rest of the 364 days of any year.
 
Webb said:
Methinks I'll welcome bro. Paul's words in my home not only on so-called Christmas but the rest of the 364 days of any year.
Click to expand...

The verse from Philemon I cited isn't about welcoming "bro, Paul's words" into anyone's home. He wrote to Philemon asking him to make room for his hoped-for physical presence.

It's one example - of many - of Paul having written things that DO NOT APPLY TO US LIVING 2,000 YEARS LATER!!!

Yet, the very fact that you misrepresented Paul's words to Philemon to support a point of view that you couldn't otherwise logically or exegetically support, indicates just how far some will go to twist the Bible to support their absurd ideas.
 
Stormcrow we arn't discussing about clothing for either men or womem, ONLY the head covering.
Click to expand...
The veil was part of the overall ensemble of first century women's apparel, qualifying as "clothing for women." If we're discussing the need for women to wear the veil, why not the rest of the ensemble???

If Paul had written they should be clothed in burlap sacks from head to toe, I'm sure you would be making the exact same arguments in support of such nonsense.

It's the eagerness of some people to take such verses literally that lead to the abusive cults that arise "in the name of Christ" around this country.

Stop taking Paul's words out of the time and context in which they were written.
 
Sometimes I'm terribly frustrated with what people see and defend in scripture, but to use that as a reason to reject God's forgiveness isn't rational.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, I know how he feels. Given what I see written in the name of Christ and His church on some websites makes me want to renounce any affiliation with Christianity, too.

Sometimes, it's just painfully embarrassing to call oneself "Christian" in light of the absurd statements others make in support of equally absurd beliefs.
 
Stormcrow said:
The veil was part of the overall ensemble of first century women's apparel, qualifying as "clothing for women." If we're discussing the need for women to wear the veil, why not the rest of the ensemble???

If Paul had written they should be clothed in burlap sacks from head to toe, I'm sure you would be making the exact same arguments in support of such nonsense.

It's the eagerness of some people to take such verses literally that lead to the abusive cults that arise "in the name of Christ" around this country.

Stop taking Paul's words out of the time and context in which they were written.
Click to expand...
come on now, we cant be logical and use proper hermeneutics. cant have that.

we should also being doing what the jews say.

the pharisees sit a moses seat, whatsoever they bid do ye but not as the pharisees do..


i guess we should be doing them feasts.
 
STORMCROW: Of your post 134 it was you who introduced Philemon, not I. You wrote: ''ITS ONE EXAMPLE-OF MANY-OF PAUL HAVING WRITTEN THINGS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO US LIVING 2,000 YEARS LATER!!!"

I agree Paul wrote some things which do not apply to us today, Philemon 1:22 being one. Your attempt, however, has no bearing on the subject of the head covering. I shall show why. Paul's word to Philemon was written to Philemon ALONE! I Corinthians which contains Paul's INSPIRED, and NOT SIMPLY HIS PERSONAL JUDGMENT instruction on the head covering was addressed "TO ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST--".

I shall be willing to meet you in the one-on-one forume on this matter of the head-coverning and/or the matter of Holy Spirit vs water baptism. Either or both. The discussion and study should ( and will on my part ) be respectful, honorable yet forceful.
 
Hi Stormcrow. On post 135 you wrote: ''IF WE'RE DISCUSSING THE NEED FOR WOMEN TO WEAR THE VEIL, WHY NOT THE REST OF THE ENSEMBLE?"

Time and again some have sought to discuss on this thread dress customs for both men and women of varied places and customs. I shall not go there as Paul did not. He was concerned with the woman's head covering in I Cor.11 and THATS ALL! As I understand it, anything else is a deliberate attempt to distract. What you wear is of no concern to me as long as its decent.
 
Webb said:
You wrote: ''---I DO BELIEVE THAT ITS A VALID POINT TO SAY THAT IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT GOD WOULD COMMAND SOMETHING UNDER THE OLD COVENANT THAT HE NOW SEES AS DISHONORABLE." Well, Nathan, how about animan sacrifice for one? God commanded it under the Old. Under the NT would such sacrifice be accepted? Honorable or dishonorable, which?
Click to expand...

I thought someone would point out the tension between animal sacrifice in the OT and no animal sacrifice in the NT. I actually expected that someone would point out that God himself said, in the OT, that he took no pleasure in animal sacrifice even while it was still going on.

My response to both objections is simple and straightforward: Animal sacrifice prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus, and was therefore unnessary after the death and resurrection of Christ, and while God took no pleasure in animal sacrifice, He never said it was dishonorable in the NT, just obsolete. Animal sacrifice, in this case, is NOT a good parallel to the tension between hair length and headcoverings that we find in this single passage of Paul's and the OT priestly dress code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top