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?

In looking over this "conversation" from the last 24 hours, it's degenerated to shameful argument on both sides. I hate to see Christians being so snarky with each other over a point of doctrine that barely rises to the level of a secondary issue.

I know that those here who disagree with me on this issue do so in good faith, believing that they are faithfully following the instruction of Paul. I really hope that those same people would give us that same credit, understanding that we too are trying to faithfully follow the instruction of Paul; and that we are not just choosing to ignore him, as has been suggested at least once or twice recently. I am willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong on this issue, I'm sure there a plenty of things I am mistaken about, but I know I am not dismissing Paul's teaching. It's this simple: I am not dismissing Paul - I am unconvinced that those who believe this is a universal, unbending standard for all time are interpreting him correctly. There is a big difference.

The tone of this thread has turned very sour. I'm gone.

See you on another thread.:wave
 
God hated animal sacrifice because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. That was under the old covenant as was the Aaronic priesthood which was at fault as well because the Old Covenant in its entirety was at fault. The priesthood with its law was changed of necessity.
 
Nathan Alterton said:
I know that those here who disagree with me on this issue do so in good faith, believing that they are faithfully following the instruction of Paul.
Click to expand...
I see it this way, too. They have my complete respect, for I once saw the things of God through the same narrow lens of legalism--sincere, but very misguided. But as I grew in knowledge and the Spirit and began experiencing more and more situations and circumstances in my life I began to realize how there's often much more than just the face value of a single scripture to consider when we seek to discern God's will in all the varying times and circumstances of life.

I think Romans 14 should be required reading for everybody right now. There's a lot to be said for the varying levels of strengths and weaknesses of faith in the church and how it can dictate what God's will is in any one situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Webb said:
God hated animal sacrifice because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.
Click to expand...
Actually God only hated the sacrifices of the Israelites when those sacrifices were defiled by those who offered them. God speaks of the pleasing aroma of the sacrifices when offered up according to law. They only became stench to him when offered up by unclean people.


Webb said:
That was under the old covenant as was the Aaronic priesthood which was at fault as well because the Old Covenant in its entirety was at fault. The priesthood with its law was changed of necessity.
Click to expand...
Er... not quite. God found fault with the people. And it was for that reason the old covenant could not accomplish what God gave it to do and a New Covenant was needed.
 
Nathan Alterton said:
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.
Click to expand...


huh? he said that because of the perverse heart they did them with. they didnt repent while they did those sacrifices. that is why he said that.
 
Jethro---Of course God's people had fault. No one questions that. The fact remains the OT was faulty, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought forthe second" Heb.8:7.
 
Webb said:
Jethro---Of course God's people had fault. No one questions that. The fact remains the OT was faulty, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought forthe second" Heb.8:7.
Click to expand...
I don't know what translation you're using but this is how I know it:

"7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people" (Hebrews 8:7-8 NIV1984)

We know the first covenant was wrong in that it was unsuited for sinful man. But it is the sinfulness of man that made it 'wrong'. It couldn't forgive all of man's sins.

"39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38 NIV1984)
 
In my post (#146) I stated the people were faulty. Such was the history of Israel, no one argues otherwise at least not me.

You wrote: ''WE KNOW THE FIRST COVENANT WAS WRONG IN THAT IT WAS UNSUITED FOR SINFUL MAN. BUT IT IS THE SINFULNESS OF MAN THAT MADE IT 'WRONG' ." The Bible rather teaches the opposite, the OT was not built upon the "better promises" Heb. 8, thus it was faulty.

You wrote: ''IT (the OT, emp. webb ) COULDN'T FORGIVE ALL OF MAN'S SINS." The truth is Jethro, the OT could not forgive ANY of man's sins. "--without shedding of blood is no remission" Heb.9:22. But it was not "--possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" Heb.10:4. Only the blood of Christ could take away sin, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obdtained eternal redemption for us" Heb. 9:12. The greatest reason why the OT was faulty and needed to be replaced was because it could not remove sin, thus the priesthood, law and all had to be changed, and was changed, and thats why the dress of priests cannot be used to prove the womans head covering in ICor.11 is simply a cultural thing.
 
Webb said:
In my post (#146) I stated the people were faulty. Such was the history of Israel, no one argues otherwise at least not me.

You wrote: ''WE KNOW THE FIRST COVENANT WAS WRONG IN THAT IT WAS UNSUITED FOR SINFUL MAN. BUT IT IS THE SINFULNESS OF MAN THAT MADE IT 'WRONG' ." The Bible rather teaches the opposite, the OT was not built upon the "better promises" Heb. 8, thus it was faulty.

You wrote: ''IT (the OT, emp. webb ) COULDN'T FORGIVE ALL OF MAN'S SINS." The truth is Jethro, the OT could not forgive ANY of man's sins. "--without shedding of blood is no remission" Heb.9:22. But it was not "--possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" Heb.10:4. Only the blood of Christ could take away sin, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obdtained eternal redemption for us" Heb. 9:12. The greatest reason why the OT was faulty and needed to be replaced was because it could not remove sin, thus the priesthood, law and all had to be changed, and was changed, and thats why the dress of priests cannot be used to prove the womans head covering in ICor.11 is simply a cultural thing.
Click to expand...


so god didnt forgive the nivehites then? he destroyed that city even when it says he spared them and there was no blood sacrificed.

to the hebrew alone was that the way. god is able to forgive anyway he wants.

it removed sin, sigh, david wasnt forgiven when he did this

1 Chronicles 21
Click to expand...
1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
3And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
4Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
5And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
6But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
7And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
8And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
9And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying,
10Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
11So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
13And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.
14So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
15And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
16And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
17And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.
18Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
19And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the LORD.
20And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.
21And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshingfloor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground.
22Then David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the LORD: thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people.
23And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.
24And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.
25So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.
26And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.
27And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.
28At that time when David saw that the LORD had answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.
29For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon. 30But David could not go before it to enquire of God: for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the LORD.
Click to expand...


the law couldnt do what the lord wanted because of the weakness of man as god wanted a permenent high priest.

it had nothing to do with animal blood in the first place but the hearts of the hebrews and that above verse a command to sacrifice with no levite in place, david did it himself.

the law says only priests could do that.

odd that god would do that.

per hebrews the new priest is after the order of melchisedek.
 
i hate to say, if what you say is true jethro then how is it that men backslide in todays age?

it was the same then as now. god decided to have a perfect priest so that when one did come and repent there would always be means and minister to cleanse you unlike before where at numerous times the temple and so forth had to be rebuilt and levites cleansed etc.
 
revalant since if the law commanded that men wear hedress and women by talmudic traditions. the law is fulfilled.

since when is a culture thing in the law where ordinances died with them that included both men and women now dead and yet pauls command also a cultural thing not to die. and i would like to hear your comment on stormcrow as that includes the whole deal of then.

greek culture. that is what they did.
 
You ask that I answer something from STORMCROWS posts. Not sure what you refer to, to the best of my knowlege I answered him. Let STORMCROW restate and I will answer him.
 
Webb said:
You are off topic
Click to expand...
Maybe I'll catch up with you in a law thread and we can talk about how the old covenant was only 'faulty' (if that's really a good word to use) relative to man's inability to keep it. And how the law did indeed forgive sin, just not all sin (it tells us plainly what can be forgiven and what can not)...thus the need for a New Covenant of Priest, Temple, and Sacrifice that could forgive all sin.
 
Hi Jethro--In your post 155 you wrote: 'WHAT LAWS, WHAT REQUIREMENT OF GOD ABOUT HEAD COVERINGS CAY YOU SHOW US PAUL WAS DEFENDING?" Read I Cor. 11:1-3.

Regarding post 156, why wait for a thread on the OT to "catch up"? Make a proposition for discussion on the one-on-one. If its one I can accept we can go from there.
 
Webb said:
Hi Jethro--In your post 155 you wrote: 'WHAT LAWS, WHAT REQUIREMENT OF GOD ABOUT HEAD COVERINGS CAY YOU SHOW US PAUL WAS DEFENDING?" Read I Cor. 11:1-3.
Click to expand...
You're not getting it.

What shred of evidence in the only existing scriptures of the day (the Law) shows us that a women must be covered in the manner Paul is speaking of in this passage that he would have to remind the Corinthians about that law?

What we do see in the passage that is a matter of law that Paul really is addressing is the matter of submission. The veils are only the current cultural instrument through which the lawful topic of submission is expressed.

He could have just as easily been talking about where to adjust the idle on your 1936 Chevy. Since '36 Chevy's are obsolete now any judgment regarding the idle speed of a '36 Chevy is just as obsolete as the '36 Chevy itself. Unless '36 Chevy's suddenly come back into use again we don't have to make sure we submit to a law concerning them. Ditto for head coverings.



Webb said:
Regarding post 156, why wait for a thread on the OT to "catch up"? Make a proposition for discussion on the one-on-one. If its one I can accept we can go from there.
Click to expand...
I'd really like to not tie myself down to a one-on-one.

The law is one of my favorite topics. It's off topic here and I had to keep myself from launching into further discussion about it, but I'm sure there's other opportunities to address it on topic in the future.
 
Hi Jethro

I didn't bring the subject of the law into this discussion, another poster did if you choose to retrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top