Is it ok for a man to pray while wearing a head covering? Paul told the Corinthians it was NOT ok.

[Ronald Nolette]

That is exactly correct. He is dealing with old traditions of men, whether Jew or Gentile. God does not appeal to traditions of men, to make His commandments.

And Paul through the Holy spirit made it an ordinance for the church!
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Exactly. It was never an ordinance of God to honor Him, but only tradition of pagans and Jews.

not of pagans in general but only in certain cultures.

Paul made it an ordinance for all the churches

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Perfect. And so God has taken a tradition of pagans and Jews, and made it commandment for His people of the NT.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Christ was crucified for defying the traditions and commandments of men taught for His word, and now He makes such traditions His word.

It's no longer vain worship to teach men's commandments and traditions for law of God, because now the Lord Himself is making them doctrine for Himself.

You need to take that up with God and the Apostles. they were the ones who laid down this teaching! YOu can complain to me all you want with your human reasoning. I didn't write the passage.

And there we go: a former traditional commandment of man is now made new commandment for the people of God, where there was no such commandment of the Lord, nor did He ever even both speak of it.

It came not into His mind, that head-wraps honor Him, until longer after men thought of it for Him.

So you are saying God didn't know until men thought it for Him? I don't think an omniscient God didn't know. And all that is irrelevant anyway. The Apostles called for it to be done in all the churches>

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

God is not moved to make commandments by the will of man.

Paul is accused of being the first prophet and apostle to ever 'appeal' to an old tradition of man, so as to make it ordinance and commandment of Christ.

I agree with this first line of yours.

But now you are accusing Paul and the Apostles of laying an unbiblical ordinance and "slipping in " a commandment of men as an ordinance of God! So this part of Scripture was not inspired by God according to your rationalizations. What other parts do you feel we should jettison as unnspired as well? Seems you seek to open Pandoras box here.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But now you are accusing Paul and the Apostles of laying an unbiblical ordinance and "slipping in " a commandment of men as an ordinance of God! So this part of Scripture was not inspired by God according to your rationalizations. What other parts do you feel we should jettison as unnspired as well? Seems you seek to open Pandoras box here.

No, he has adopted the "argumentum ad absurdum", which begins with your view and argues it to the absurd. What you find absurd is intended to cause you to reexamine your assumptions and "givens." If you decided to answer this type of argument, you would show or demonstrate why your presuppositions to NOT lead to the absurd conclusions specified in his argument.

You aren't suppose to criticize his absurd conclusions as if HE claims them for himself. He doesn't. And he hopes you don't either. And if you agree that such conclusions are absurd, you either 1) reexamine your position, or 2) show or demonstrate why such conclusions don't follow from your position.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, he has adopted the "argumentum ad absurdum", which begins with your view and argues it to the absurd. What you find absurd is intended to cause you to reexamine your assumptions and "givens." If you decided to answer this type of argument, you would show or demonstrate why your presuppositions to NOT lead to the absurd conclusions specified in his argument.

You aren't suppose to criticize his absurd conclusions as if HE claims them for himself. He doesn't. And he hopes you don't either. And if you agree that such conclusions are absurd, you either 1) reexamine your position, or 2) show or demonstrate why such conclusions don't follow from your position.

Well he made a clear accusation and I responded. I have made no assumptions or givens. I have merely shown the word of God as written without comment.

And are you now always believing spokesperson? did you hear from him this is the tool of debate he was using? for he certainly did not use it that way. Most people when making an "argumentum ad absudium" will use phrases such as "Well to follow your logic" or according to your position" etc. etc. Always did not do that- He made specific statements. And I answered them. I am not going to try to read into words what someone may or may not be trying to say. I will take their statements at face value, unless of course face value makes no sense, like "its raining cats and dogs".

 

[Always Believing]

You need to take that up with God and the Apostles. they were the ones who laid down this teaching!

You lay it down for your own special church. Paul laid down to rest the old head-wrap tradition.

So you are saying God didn't know until men thought it for Him?

God knew the traditions men would make up for honoring Him, before they did so. He never said anything about it, until rebuking it, so that His NT church isn't tainted with old pagan and Jewish made up religious customs.

God does not plead nor appeal to traditions of men, in order to make ordinance for His people, as you say He does.

God does not make commandments for Himself out of ordinances of men.

Men do not decide what honors and pleases God, to have God confirm them as true.

God does not write Scripture by the will of man, but men are to cast aside their own will and traditions to believe and do the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

The Apostles called for it to be done in all the churches>

Paul calls for women to have long hair on their heads, to honor God and man. Their hair by obedience is the glory to them, not man-made head-wraps.

You command head wraps to honor yourselves, and accuse others that do not.

But now you are accusing Paul and the Apostles of laying an unbiblical ordinance and "slipping in " a commandment of men as an ordinance of God!

Incredible. That is exactly what you do, and have been shown to do, and you then accuse the messenger of doing it.

1. You acknowledge he is addressing a tradition of men.
2. You acknowledge God never said in His word of old.
3. You then say Paul makes that old tradition of men, that God never spoke of before, to now be an ordinance for His churches.
4. And finally, you plainly state Paul is taking an old tradition of man, and making it an ordinance of God for His churches, and then condemn anyone that does so, as slipping in a tradition of men for ordinance of God.

Truly incredible.

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Always Believing]

No, he has adopted the "argumentum ad absurdum", which begins with your view and argues it to the absurd. What you find absurd is intended to cause you to reexamine your assumptions and "givens." If you decided to answer this type of argument, you would show or demonstrate why your presuppositions to NOT lead to the absurd conclusions specified in his argument.

You aren't suppose to criticize his absurd conclusions as if HE claims them for himself. He doesn't. And he hopes you don't either. And if you agree that such conclusions are absurd, you either 1) reexamine your position, or 2) show or demonstrate why such conclusions don't follow from your position.

Wow. That's a fairly good summation of logical fallacy. I didn't really know what argumentum ad absurdum means, till now.

What is see, is the blindness of teaching traditions of men for doctrine of God, just as the old Jews did and still do.

It's nothing more nor less than simple pride. People slip in their own special little rules for their own church, and God Himself can't dislodge them.

That's called making ourselves sects within the body of Christ. Which can be harmless, such as the Nazarene churches, that will not play instruments of ten strings during assy. It only becomes a serious problem of division by false accusation against the brethren. It's one thing to adopt special rules locally, but entirely another to then go on and make them carnal ordinances for all churches. Once that is done, they must then judge all other Christians by their own made up tradition.

This head-wrap heresy is now added to other such accusative sects, that I had not realized before now. By calling their special little rule a commandment of the Lord, they are no obligated to judge all other Christian women as dishonorable temple whores, if they do not bow down to receive the sacred head-wrap of the churches. Holiness Pentecostals do the same, but from the opposite side of the fringe. They go on to make a commandment of not cutting women's hair at all. It's their own version of holy sacrament for their own churches.

Here is a list of accusative sects, that I have learned of, that cause destructive division in the body of Christ:
1. Judaizing Cricumcizers
2. Holiness Pentecosters.
3. Sabbath Commanders.
4. Acts 2:38 Baptizers
5. Head-Wrap Dictators

All these have in common two things: The declare special little carnal rules for themselves to do. They then tie them to justification with God, and/or honoring God. They then bind themselves to accuse other Christians for not being saved and/or not honoring God, if they refuse the sect's tradition and carnal rule.

It is the same exact spirit and practice of the Jews of old, that condemned Jesus for not keeping their outward traditions, and had Him crucified for it. Why? Because He told them what to do with their man made traditions, that they teach for doctrine of God.

The reformation of Christ is to be rid once for all of all false traditions of man, that intrude into the covenant and peace of God and His people. That age old head-wrap tradition of pagans and Jews was dismissed, when Christ had Paul state plainly, that God's daughters and women are given long enough hair to cover their heads in honor to man, the Son, and the Father.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You lay it down for your own special church. Paul laid down to rest the old head-wrap tradition.

So you do believe god did not inspire this portion of SCripture then ! OK!

God knew the traditions men would make up for honoring Him, before they did so. He never said anything about it, until rebuking it, so that His NT church isn't tainted with old pagan and Jewish made up religious customs.

God does not plead nor appeal to traditions of men, in order to make ordinance for His people, as you say He does.

God does not make commandments for Himself out of ordinances of men.

Men do not decide what honors and pleases God, to have God confirm them as true.

God does not write Scripture by the will of man, but men are to cast aside their own will and traditions to believe and do the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

So show where any of this applies to what Paul and the Apostles declared to be a rule for all the churches of God!

Men do not decide what honors and pleases God, to have God confirm them as true.

God does not write Scripture by the will of man, but men are to cast aside their own will and traditions to believe and do the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

So once again you are sayin g that this ordinance and the instructions found in the Word of God are not inspired and yet God still allowed them in HIs Word to be handed down throughout the ages? Proof?

Paul calls for women to have long hair on their heads, to honor God and man. Their hair by obedience is the glory to them, not man-made head-wraps.

You command head wraps to honor yourselves, and accuse others that do not.

That is not what Paul wrote as I told you time and time again.

also it makes Paul kind of an idiot for this passage:

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Let us write it according to your contention.

" If a woman does not have long hair- then let her be clipped! So are you saying if she has short hair already, they should clip her even more??????????????????????

 

[Always Believing]

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Paul is saying the following in this pone little passage.
1. If a woman does not cover her head with a man made covering

'With a man-made covering' is added to the Scripture, to teach a tradition of man for Scripture of God.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We can have whatever little private traditions, rules, and interpretations we want for ourselves, and no harm no foul. But if we preach them as the Scripture of God itself, then we make our personal rules into commandments of God for all churches to obey. And we thus bind ourselves to judging God's people accordingly.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

2. Let her be given a hair cut or shaved.
3. But as it is a shame for a woman to have a short haircut or be shaved- let her have a man made head covering in church.

And so now the teaching is confirmed: Women having shorn hair cut short like a man, is a shame that dishonors God and man.

Also, since these verses have moved on from just praying and prophesying, to all women, then all women must wear carnal head-wraps at all times, or else shear they ought shear their hair like a goat.

If hair was the covering and a woman does not have long hair- she need not have a haircut, or be shaved (maybe)

Of course not. It's already cut. Now it's time to let it grown long in honor of God and man. Wearing a head-wrap until then would suffice for something artificial, what God wants to do naturally.

It presupposes she has long hair, though not all Gentile cultures had women with long hair.

Because not all have Christ and do His word.

The head-wrap tradition of man, erringly slipped into ordinance of Christ, is a perfect example. Along with circumcision and sabbath day commanding.

but once again Paul is not making an argument for how culture is to be

Exactly, the only thing God does with personal traditions and cultures of man, is make sure they are not taught for doctrine of Christ, and thereby slip in unawares to the spoil His churches of their liberty in Christ and His law.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.

No Christian woman should have the bondage of head-wraps on demand, by false tradition of pagans, Jews, and now other Christians.

but how believing women are to be clothed on the head during church.

So, now it's 'clothed'. We see how men first make their personal rules equal with the word of God, and then go on to elevate them about God and His written word. Now, it's as being nude to have no head-wrap.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Christians women with long hair are unashamed and honorable to God, and their hair is their glory in sight of angels. Only the glory of man commands man-made glorified head-wraps for women. (I wonder of those head-wraps must be blessed and sanctified and washed in holy soap and water, in order to be kosher?)

Islamic burqas are merely an extreme of a false tradition and commandment of men. In due time, all such traditions degenerate into absurdity, because they were rotten in the beginning.

And as you declared, it was not in the Mosaic Law for Jewish women to have a covering during worship time in synagogue, so Paul is not appealing to past teaching, but is presenting a new command for the church to obey.

Nor is he appealing to past tradition of men, to present man's will for new commandment of God.

Only Head-Wrap warriors of honor do that. I shall call them the Amazons of Christianity. Perhaps I will open an Amazon account to sell a new line of Amazonian Christian Head-Wraps?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well he made a clear accusation and I responded. I have made no assumptions or givens. I have merely shown the word of God as written without comment.

This, in and of itself, is an assumption. But you have made an assumption. You assume, for instance, that Paul's statements are imperatives instead of say, axioms.

And are you now always believing spokesperson?

No. Always can speak for him or herself. In whatever way I was helpful, that was my intent.

did you hear from him this is the tool of debate he was using?

The state of the matter is self-evident.

for he certainly did not use it that way. Most people when making an "argumentum ad absudium" will use phrases such as "Well to follow your logic" or according to your position" etc. etc. Always did not do that- He made specific statements. And I answered them. I am not going to try to read into words what someone may or may not be trying to say.

You do it all the time without giving it much thought. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just sayin'. We all do it as a natural course of discussion.

I will take their statements at face value, unless of course face value makes no sense, like "its raining cats and dogs".

No such thing as "face value".

 

[Always Believing]

So you do believe god did not inspire this portion of SCripture then ! OK!

OK! There is no portion of Scripture commanding artificial head-wraps on any woman, much less Christian women with long glorious hair. Or at least long enough to honorably cover their heads.

So show where any of this applies to what Paul and the Apostles declared to be a rule for all the churches of God!

It doesn't. It applies to what erring Christians say Paul was doing. God does not take old traditions of men, and make them His own new commandments.

Christians who do that themselves, are trying to accuse the Apostles of doing it, in order to justify themselves. They then properly call it 'slipping in' traditions of men and taught for doctrine of Christ. And finally, they condemn people of doing exactly what they have already done.

It's just simply astounding.

So once again you are sayin g that this ordinance and the instructions found in the Word of God are not inspired and yet God still allowed them in HIs Word to be handed down throughout the ages? Proof?

The ordinance is that women are to have long hair to cover their heads. Old traditions of artificial head-wraps are now rebuked out of hand. I don't know why God took so long to finally do so, and never even spoke of that carnal tradition before, but all in His good time.

He no doubt just didn't want it lingering on too long in His churches, as it still continues among Jewish synagogues today. He nipped it in the bud with Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

That is not what Paul wrote as I told you time and time again.

Yes, I've heard several times your personal rule made out of old pagan and Jewish tradition, that you judge others by.

" If a woman does not have long hair- then let her be clipped!

Not quite. Short hair is already clipped. In such a case, let it be shaven, and stop playing games with God and man, by just clipping it like a man's.

So are you saying if she has short hair already, they should clip her even more??????????????????????

Exactly. Now you have it! If a woman gets a man's haircut, let her shave it all off.

Now, you're getting the idea. If only you would also be rid of the pagan tradition of carnal head-wraps. You'd be preaching doctrine of Christ.

But then, you'd have to ostracize yourself from your Churches of the Sacred Head-Wrap, as well as risk offending the Christian women's order of the butch haircut.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

It's not like you haven't already taught it here, howbeit ignorantly. You have acknowledged the Scripture, that it is a shame for a woman to have her hair shorn short.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wow. That's a fairly good summation of logical fallacy. I didn't really know what argumentum ad absurdum means, till now.

What is see, is the blindness of teaching traditions of men for doctrine of God, just as the old Jews did and still do.

It's nothing more nor less than simple pride. People slip in their own special little rules for their own church, and God Himself can't dislodge them.

That's called making ourselves sects within the body of Christ. Which can be harmless, such as the Nazarene churches, that will not play instruments of ten strings during assy. It only becomes a serious problem of division by false accusation against the brethren. It's one thing to adopt special rules locally, but entirely another to then go on and make them carnal ordinances for all churches. Once that is done, they must then judge all other Christians by their own made up tradition.

This head-wrap heresy is now added to other such accusative sects, that I had not realized before now. By calling their special little rule a commandment of the Lord, they are no obligated to judge all other Christian women as dishonorable temple whores, if they do not bow down to receive the sacred head-wrap of the churches. Holiness Pentecostals do the same, but from the opposite side of the fringe. They go on to make a commandment of not cutting women's hair at all. It's their own version of holy sacrament for their own churches.

Here is a list of accusative sects, that I have learned of, that cause destructive division in the body of Christ:
1. Judaizing Cricumcizers
2. Holiness Pentecosters.
3. Sabbath Commanders.
4. Acts 2:38 Baptizers
5. Head-Wrap Dictators

All these have in common two things: The declare special little carnal rules for themselves to do. They then tie them to justification with God, and/or honoring God. They then bind themselves to accuse other Christians for not being saved and/or not honoring God, if they refuse the sect's tradition and carnal rule.

It is the same exact spirit and practice of the Jews of old, that condemned Jesus for not keeping their outward traditions, and had Him crucified for it. Why? Because He told them what to do with their man made traditions, that they teach for doctrine of God.

The reformation of Christ is to be rid once for all of all false traditions of man, that intrude into the covenant and peace of God and His people. That age old head-wrap tradition of pagans and Jews was dismissed, when Christ had Paul state plainly, that God's daughters and women are given long enough hair to cover their heads in honor to man, the Son, and the Father.

You are on the right track, in my humble view. We are on a quest for a genuine authentic faith. Our guide is Romans 14, "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." Those who "practice" should not hold those who "do not practice" in contempt. And those who "do not practice" should not judge those who do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wow. That's a fairly good summation of logical fallacy. I didn't really know what argumentum ad absurdum means, till now.

What is see, is the blindness of teaching traditions of men for doctrine of God, just as the old Jews did and still do.

It's nothing more nor less than simple pride. People slip in their own special little rules for their own church, and God Himself can't dislodge them.

That's called making ourselves sects within the body of Christ. Which can be harmless, such as the Nazarene churches, that will not play instruments of ten strings during assy. It only becomes a serious problem of division by false accusation against the brethren. It's one thing to adopt special rules locally, but entirely another to then go on and make them carnal ordinances for all churches. Once that is done, they must then judge all other Christians by their own made up tradition.

This head-wrap heresy is now added to other such accusative sects, that I had not realized before now. By calling their special little rule a commandment of the Lord, they are no obligated to judge all other Christian women as dishonorable temple whores, if they do not bow down to receive the sacred head-wrap of the churches. Holiness Pentecostals do the same, but from the opposite side of the fringe. They go on to make a commandment of not cutting women's hair at all. It's their own version of holy sacrament for their own churches.

Here is a list of accusative sects, that I have learned of, that cause destructive division in the body of Christ:
1. Judaizing Cricumcizers
2. Holiness Pentecosters.
3. Sabbath Commanders.
4. Acts 2:38 Baptizers
5. Head-Wrap Dictators

All these have in common two things: The declare special little carnal rules for themselves to do. They then tie them to justification with God, and/or honoring God. They then bind themselves to accuse other Christians for not being saved and/or not honoring God, if they refuse the sect's tradition and carnal rule.

It is the same exact spirit and practice of the Jews of old, that condemned Jesus for not keeping their outward traditions, and had Him crucified for it. Why? Because He told them what to do with their man made traditions, that they teach for doctrine of God.

The reformation of Christ is to be rid once for all of all false traditions of man, that intrude into the covenant and peace of God and His people. That age old head-wrap tradition of pagans and Jews was dismissed, when Christ had Paul state plainly, that God's daughters and women are given long enough hair to cover their heads in honor to man, the Son, and the Father.

One more thing. In his epistle to the Romans Paul answers objections to his gospel. His defense of the Gospel usually beings with the phrase, "What are we saying then . . .?"

For instance, he begins

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? Romans 6:1

To paraphrase this as an argumentum ad absurdum, his objectors would say something like this: "Isn't it true Paul, that sin will increase among those who believe the gospel you teach? Isn't an increase in sin a logical implication of the gospel you preach?"

Paul's strategy is to show or demonstrate why the gospel doesn't logically and necessarily lead to that conclusion.

Answer: Don't you know that those who believe the gospel agree that sin was the reason why Christ needed to die and that he promises to remove sin from our lives and cause it so that we never sin again? Why would anyone who believed this message ever want to sin again? Why would a group of people who repudiate sin want to continue in it?

Anyway, Romans 5 - 11 demonstrates how Paul handles objections based on arguments to the absurd. He proves or shows why the gospel doesn't logically or necessarily lead to the postulated absurdity.

This is probably more than you wanted to know. Right? Have a great day!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Of course not. It's already cut. Now it's time to let it grown long in honor of God and man. Wearing a head-wrap until then would suffice for something artificial, what God wants to do naturally.

'With a man-made covering' is added to the Scripture, to teach a tradition of man for Scripture of God.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We can have whatever little private traditions, rules, and interpretations we want for ourselves, and no harm no foul. But if we preach them as the Scripture of God itself, then we make our personal rules into commandments of God for all churches to obey. And we thus bind ourselves to judging God's people accordingly.

This is nothing more than ignorance on you rpart. If you read the 2 words for covering in the original language you would not sound so benighted. And Paul is clearly saying here if a woman already has short hair - let it be cut if hair is the coveiring he is talking about. Are you thatr bereft of understanding simple passages?

And so now the teaching is confirmed: Women having shorn hair cut short like a man, is a shame that dishonors God and man.

Also, since these verses have moved on from just praying and prophesying, to all women, then all women must wear carnal head-wraps at all times, or else shear they ought shear their hair like a goat.

YOu really don't get it do you? {Paul is saying if her head is uncovered - then let them clip it or give her a haricut! Kind of stupid to give a woman a haricut who already has short hair! C'mon man if you are going to ignore simple understanding we need to end.

Exactly. Now you have it! If a woman gets a man's haircut, let her shave it all off.

That is not what Paul said and you would know that if you weren't so blinded by modern culture.

Now, you're getting the idea. If only you would also be rid of the pagan tradition of carnal head-wraps. You'd be preaching doctrine of Christ.

Show this doctrine from scripture that man made head coverings in church are pagan.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This, in and of itself, is an assumption. But you have made an assumption. You assume, for instance, that Paul's statements are imperatives instead of say, axioms.

And you are assumong they are axioms without any supporting construction in the passage to warrant such an assumption.

No. Always can speak for him or herself. In whatever way I was helpful, that was my intent.

So assuming without any evidence is helpful to you?

The state of the matter is self-evident.

Well if it was self evident all would see. But it wasn't. I know argument to absurdity and this wasn't it!

You do it all the time without giving it much thought. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just sayin'. We all do it as a natural course of discussion.

Yes and how I word teh argument makes it clear (to those who knwo the tool) that I am making an argument from absurdity. I do not fault anyone using it, but you assuming that was what he was gdoing without even bothering to verify it with him. But then again, if you make loads of assumptions on Scriptures when the earthly authors are gone and cannot defend themselves, it is no surprise you would do it to the living.

No such thing as "face value".

I know you are not that stupid as to not know what this means!

 

[Always Believing]

Deu 21:12
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Thank you for the reference to length of hair commanded by God. He also says lepers should shave their heads, as well as accused adulteresses.

In the adulteress case, it is called uncovering her head. Which proves it is the rule of God, that Paul confirms, not the tradition of men.

1. In the OT, cutting the hair is uncovering the head.
2. In the OT, It is for lepers, adulteresses, and newly captive slaves.

2. In the NT, if a woman does cuts her hair short, let her shave it as an adulteress, a leper, or a captured foreign slave.

it has nothing to do with Corinthian pagan temple prostitutes. Not only does God not make His commandments out of traditions of men, He doesn't even equate disobedience to Him with their personal shamefulness.

These same ordinances come from the OT, except what Paul does is expose another deeper meaning, spiritual behind the "letter" .

True. The Spirit of God wants to see His daughters with long enough hair to cover their heads, so that they don't appear like a man, which is confusing to any child. Including men that appear like women with long hair.

And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

It's not just physically confusing, but spiritually also. Really confusing.

What is it about either the husband or the wife that allows this sanctification to "cover" the unbelieving one?

You go too far by adding cover to sanctified. The sanctification is only physical in providing for the household. It does not mean the unbeliever is 'covered' and honored by God, as the woman with long hair. No unbeliever is spiritually sanctified and covered in the glory of Christ.

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

So then:
1Co 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

In the OT the woman is seen as a captive.

Captured women of war, sure. Not free daughters of Israel and honorable wives of Israelite men.

How can a woman pray or prophesy if she is an unbeliever?

There are plenty of false prophetesses, such as Jezebel rebuked by Jesus.

Wouldn't this bring shame upon her husband?

All false prophesy is shameful, whether by man or woman.

But the believing husband is her covering. Or even the believing wife is her unbelieving husbands covering.

See above. Physically sanctified and protected against a wicked world, not spiritually covered in Christ's glory.

And then:
1Co 11:7
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.

So what is this saying?

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

If a man has faith and is believing, he is covered by Christ. He has submitted his life to the will of God.

True.

But yes, the man is the head of the household and the woman is his helper.
That's how God designed it from the beginning.

True.

Gen 2:18

Her submission to him is her virtue.

True. Same as her long hair is her glory, not the man's.

No woman being unmarried or an unbeliever aught to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered.

You've inserted your own teaching.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Men and women dishonors their own physical head, as well as Christ and God, by disobeying the new ordinance for God's people: Women keep their hair long, and men keep it cut short.

She has no authority whether through marriage or through faith to preach on behalf of the church.

Tell that to Deborah. And if she was married, which we are not told, then it certainly does not include Anna.

But if she be married then her husband is her covering

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Your comparison between headship and covering is unique, but doesn't work. Heads don't cover heads. Heads are over the body. Christ is head of the body of the church, and man is head of the body of the woman, and woman has power from God over her own head to have long hair.

No man ought intrude into that.

The shaving of the head and pairing of the nails is her leaving behind her past life. Her glory no longer belongs to another.

True, and she was not dishonoring her head at the time, because God had no ordinance at the time condemning it.

Same for the Nazarite man with hair grown long. God does not command any one to sin against His own word. The ordinance for women's long hair, and men's short hair is not until Christ over His church.

The husband has now become her saviour through his faith in God.
He is now her covering.

Once again. Scripture doesn't say that. She is only to shave her head, etc...while he has her body in his power. He can still make a decision whether to make it for life in marriage or not.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

It's not about the strange woman captive being made a daughter of Israel by such carnal submission. She must believe for herself to be made the circumcision of God.

I don't believe Paul is speaking about material coverings... it's just not his way.

This is partly true. His first references only speaks of that which hides the head, which darkness can do. It is not until he specifically gives the ordinance for women to cover their heads with their hair, that the word cover is for man-made wraps.

The old tradition of pagans and Jews requiring such carnal wraps on women's heads, is finally done away with to preserve the purity of the newborn churches of God, from such old pagan and Jewish foolishness.

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

But he is trying to teach spiritual understanding by using material things to make a point.

It is a physical rule and ordinance for the churches pertaining to hair length. The spiritual part is the same for keeping all commandments of the Lord: Obedience from the heart and sanctification in the Spirit.

All ordinances of God are spiritual in nature, because they are kept first with spiritual purity from the heart. Men's traditions and ordinances are not spiritual in nature, but only require outward obedience.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The power on the head of the woman with long hair, is not just about the hair itself, but is her obedience to Christ and His physical rule in the churches. It was the same with the Nazarite with long hair. The Lord left Samson for disobeying Him. The cut hair was only a the evidence of inward rebellion.

In this way, it's the same for men with women's hair, and women with men's hair: it's not just length of hair, but obedience of heart, and love and fellowship in the Spirit.

Babes in Christ may have long or short hair, but in time it's a matter of obedience to the written word.

 

[Always Believing]

You are on the right track, in my humble view. We are on a quest for a genuine authentic faith. Our guide is Romans 14, "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." Those who "practice" should not hold those who "do not practice" in contempt. And those who "do not practice" should not judge those who do.

This is exactly true, and is rare among sincere believers, who do not make difference between our own personal rules in Christ, and Christ's rule for all His churches. They do not rightly dividing between what is written, and what is not written. That's why they don't rightly divide the word of truth, and teach only what is written, but begin to teach their own personal rules for doctrine of Christ.

Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

By pride in our own Christian living and ministerial services, we fail to make difference between sharing our own personal benefits, and making law out of them for everyone else. Which then requires us to judge everyone else by our personal rules, that are not written as such in Scripture.

Whether drinking wine or head-wraps, it's the same. It's one thing to abstain from all drink, and to wear head-wraps for church, which is no harm no foul. But to then preach it for ordinance of all the churches, we become the same old fault-finding Jews that condemned Jesus and His disciples for not keep the traditions of men.

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

 

[CadyandZoe]

And you are assumong they are axioms without any supporting construction in the passage to warrant such an assumption.

I showed you proof. You spit it out. Okay. Did you taste it first?

So assuming without any evidence is helpful to you?

You assume that background information is essential. I don't assume that because Paul gives us all the background information we need in order to follow his argument. In my view, you have decided that Paul's statements concerning the background are dictums instead.

Well if it was self evident all would see.

There are many reasons to reject self-evident truth. God proved himself 10 times in the wilderness to Israel, and yet, they still didn't believe him or trust him.

But it wasn't. I know argument to absurdity and this wasn't it!

Yes and how I word teh argument makes it clear (to those who knwo the tool) that I am making an argument from absurdity. I do not fault anyone using it, but you assuming that was what he was gdoing without even bothering to verify it with him. But then again, if you make loads of assumptions on Scriptures when the earthly authors are gone and cannot defend themselves, it is no surprise you would do it to the living.

I know you are not that stupid as to not know what this means!

What I do is reason from the scriptures when the author, in this case, Paul, offers an argument from reason. I assumed nothing. Apparently, you don't see or understand that Paul is making an argument. Right? Just a series of unconnected random statements?

 

[Always Believing]

To paraphrase this as an argumentum ad absurdum, his objectors would say something like this: "Isn't it true Paul, that sin will increase among those who believe the gospel you teach? Isn't an increase in sin a logical implication of the gospel you preach?"

Well now, halleleuh. I have never heard it this way before, and I totally agree with it. The norm is hypocrites excusing their sinning by grace. So that the more we sin, the more grace we need not to be condemned like others.

But. you make the point, that some Christians thought with all the newly revealed carnal ordinances of Christ, especially through Paul, it's just a greater list of things to fall by. And that is the wrong attitude to have. When Paul reveals the works of the flesh, he's not creating a new list to avoid offending, but is only showing those things that conform we are not in the grace of God.

I.e. just in case any Christian is wondering. If we're doing these unrighteous things, then no we ain't right with God, nor inheriting His kingdom. As Paul says, those doing His righteousness don't need a list of what not to do, because they already know what to do not to fall. (2 Peter 1: 5-11)

Paul's strategy is to show or demonstrate why the gospel doesn't logically and necessarily lead to that conclusion.

Answer: Don't you know that those who believe the gospel agree that sin was the reason why Christ needed to die and that he promises to remove sin from our lives and cause it so that we never sin again? Why would anyone who believed this message ever want to sin again? Why would a group of people who repudiate sin want to continue in it?

True. I.e. by doing so, they don't really want the gospel of Jesus us doesn't just forgive us of past sins, but saves us from our sinning.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

This is probably more than you wanted to know. Right? Have a great day!

I agree. It's absurd to think that Jesus Christ, who was condemned and crucified for rejecting traditions of men as doctrine of God, would then turn around and begin taking traditions of men and making them doctrine of Christ.

Those who say men's old pagan tradition of head-wraps, is made by Paul into ordinance of Christ for His people, are saying Jesus has begun doing the exact same thing He was crucified for.

They are saying he now teaches the same sin of error in doctrine, that sinners rejected Him for, in order to keep doing.

 

[Always Believing]

Show this doctrine from scripture that man made head coverings in church are pagan.

A sure sign of a failed argument, is turning fair challenges into something utterly ridiculous.

Head-wraps themselves in church are not pagan in nature, and should not be forbidden in any church.

However, the tradition of head-wraps for godly honor, began among pagans and Jews, that God never said.

And so, to then make that religious tradition of head-wraps into religious ordinance for churches of God, is to slip pagan and Jewish religion into the body of Christ.

It's not wrong to wear a head-wrap in church, no more than to have a Christmas tree in the home, so long as they are not commanded in 'honor' to God, as they once were in honor to pagan and Jewish gods.

Your problem is your pride in your head-wraps. It won't allow you to see the difference between a personal choice of any believer, and an ordinance of Christ for all His believers.

Head-wraps are personal choice with no harm nor foul. Head-Wrap commandment is destructive division in the body of Christ, along with Sabbath day keeping and outward circumcision.

You can wear two or three head-wraps in our church, and no one would care, except for the oddity of it. Just don't command others to bow down to your pagan head-wrap tradition.

The ordinance made by Christ for His churches, is women to have long hair, and men to have short hair. And He once-for-all rebuked the old tradition of pagan and Jewish religious head-wraps in the process. Head-wraps never justifies the people of the true God with His honor.

You keep a pagan tradition alive by your commandment of it, the same way Judaizers try to keep a dead law alive in circumcision and Sabbath day keeping. (At least those things were once commandment of God. Head-wraps weren't even bothered with at all, until Paul dismissed them out of hand.)

 

[Jim B]

Why is this unimportant issue concerning dress 2,000 years ago still being discussed?

 

[Always Believing]

There's always something good coming out of every dispute of the Bible. Some of the best learning is by accurate correction of errors, whether of our own or others.

From this argument about head-wraps, I have learned men's traditions have absolutely nothing to do with God's word. Not only does He not adopt men's traditions, nor plead His case from them, but He doesn't even use their bad examples for instruction to His people.

The reason it is a shame for women to have shorn and shaved heads, is not because of pagan temple whores. He is not saying women with shaved heads are being as the whore priestesses of Corinth, but rather is comparing it to being lepers, adulteresses, and captive slaves.

OT law of God commanded lepers, accused adulteresses, and captive slaves to shave their heads.

And at the same time God calls such shaving, the uncovered and bare head. Paul simply confirms OT Scripture, that it is a shame for women to have shaved heads, which is uncovering the head to make it bare .

This Scriptural rule for the diseased, guilty, and captives is also what Paul refers to, when rebuking women for shearing their hair short like a man: he says just to shave it off and be judged leprous, adulterous, and in slavish captivity.

The only time OT Scripture ever refers to any man-made head covering, is for mourning for men. (2 Sam 15)(Jerem 14). It was not a law of God, but was a practise of men, and was later corrupted by Talmudic Rabbis making it an act of 'awe' before God, especially while praying.

And so, Paul is rebuking the use of artificial head-wraps as any kind of honor and worship with God, whether men or women, since there was no such commandment for men and women to do so, and a tradition of mourning was perverted into 'awe-inspired' worship of God.

Paul rebukes men for thinking carnal head covers makes them more godly in worship, and he moves from one scripture to then next, show women's covering pertains to their hair in honoring the headship of God and man. (1 Cor 11:5-6)

The only time in history, that head-wraps were considered awe and worship of God, was by pagans and Talmudic Jews, that pervert a traditional practice of wearing them for mourning.