I wrestle with the idea that long hair IS the covering because Paul says that a woman ought to cut her hair if she won't wear a covering... that doesn't really make sense if the covering IS her hair. I don't currently cover my head, but I am heavily considering starting since I have been feeling so convicted about this passage.

@Nina_Medina

Жыл бұрын

Read Romans chapter 14 it will definitely help you. When I shaved my left side of my head because of migraines the Holy Spirit immediately convicted me, my hair is my glory as a woman. So I stood in that conviction and let my hair grow and God healed me from migraines. As far a wearing a covering I've had no conviction to wear one so I don't. IF God led me to wear one I wouldn't be opposed to it, but He hasn't so I stand on my conviction to let my hair grow 😊

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@LinkzAnimEditz

Жыл бұрын

If you KZread Gino Jennings head covering. Goes deep in scripture and revelation about head covering. He answers your question.

@thecomingstorm9327

Жыл бұрын

lilabrown type in your web search *enduringword commentary 1 Corinthians 11* *concerning women* The entire chapter is broken down and discussed

@aeronblitz9347

Жыл бұрын

Paul mentions two coverings, the natural one which is the hair and the artificial one that shows obedience to the Head. Christian women have been wearing head coverings ever since GOD commanded it through Paul, even as soon as 100 or so years ago. It wasnt until the 1900s that the modern feminist movement attacked GOD's created order and viewed the head covering as a symbol of oppression and in the 1920s the National Organization for Women, or NOW, told women to send them their head coverings to publicly burn them, which they did and sadly they have suceeded in moving many women away from the head covering.

How did women of the Bible dress? We shouldn’t let modern culture dictate anything. We are children of God and must look like such.

@aanthemiss2

Жыл бұрын

Yes! That’s right

@holyfire327

Жыл бұрын

Yess!!

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@L.K.P_

Жыл бұрын

Amen

@Omatimestwo

Жыл бұрын

I believe they wore robes. Surely you’re not saying we should wear robes?

I cover my head full time. I was in the shower one time and I got out I was towel drying off and the Lord said to me “Cover your head when you worship”. I believe that the Bible is telling us the natural covering of a woman is her hair but we cover our heads with a veil i.e. bandanna bonnet etc. to show our obedience to Yeshua/Jesus. First Corinthians doesn’t tell us that women have to have their hair certain link that says it should be longer than a man’s. I’m not sure how people can say that we don’t have to cover our heads. I did a Bible study maybe year and a half to two years ago and it says two different words for Vail and hair. And it also says wholly which means to cover the whole head. I’m still working on it but I know that The Lord just wants us to obey him in all things.

@kittykitkat4968

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely, good on you, I too cover when I'm praying, in church or reading the holy Bible.

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

2 жыл бұрын

What denominations do you girls go to? I’ve been searching different denominations for women that actually believe the words of God, instead of these corrupted modern theologians.

@andrella7748

2 жыл бұрын

I like this . Beautiful

@ruthaseka4105

2 жыл бұрын

I do cover my head too full time

@abd8729

2 жыл бұрын

so ahmed deedat was right, Christian women also need to cover thier heads but most of them choose nudity lol

Just started covering my head with a scarf yesterday so this is day two, I have wrestled with this for many years I'm in my 50s so it is very new for me I was wrestling with God and I said it's easier for other cultures because they have grown up with this but for me it's completely not in my culture, and I felt like God answered me with, SO it is also easy for you to do something's because of your culture and harder for other cultures . Well I prayed about it and then went shopping I asked th Lord if I could have a blue color and said the shop I was going to and there in the shop was the most beautiful blue scarf I new it was for me,I even bought another one as well. That day I wore my scarf and had the most amazing day I was able to share the gospel with 3 different people throughout the day and had a beautiful dinner with a sister from church. I felt amazing beautiful and closer to GOD. I do hope this helps anyone that is struggling and my message for you is pray about it and do it and see what happens, God is an amazing GOD HE can do all things we just need to obey HIM.

@MexIndio1

4 ай бұрын

I'm proud of you, and you're very inspirational. Thank you for sharing this with us.

@tracytaylor9914

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing with such transparency. Blessings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

@robertmiller812

29 күн бұрын

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11, The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

@amishgirl1000

9 күн бұрын

Keep wearing your covering dear sister. You are doing great the right thing. Communion is in 1 Corinthians 11, and the church doesn’t consider that to be cultural, so then neither should be head covering, which is in exactly the same chapter.

It does instruct women to cover head when she is praying and prophesying, because to show her respect and obedience to Jesus Christ our loving Saviour.

@Andrea92_91

2 жыл бұрын

It doesn't say when she's reading the Bible. It only says when praying or prophesying. There's a difference.

@kittykitkat4968

2 жыл бұрын

@@Andrea92_91 okay thanks.

@defendingthegospel721

2 жыл бұрын

They are referring to short hair not a hat

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@LinkzAnimEditz

Жыл бұрын

@@justinaacuriouswanderer1496 is that what you got from this? I hope your mind is free From this way of thinking.

I follow these scriptures precisely and let me tell you it's been a blessing, dressing modestly as a woman is more of blessing that I thought it was hallelujah.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

9 ай бұрын

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 4 minutes, some scriptures outside of Corinthians. Essay by another: post length 12 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.

@chloerhodes8593

9 ай бұрын

@@user-iz8np3vv4i 1 Corinthians 11:6 King James Version 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.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

9 ай бұрын

@@chloerhodes8593 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered. ______________________________________________ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

@paulbaran4796

8 күн бұрын

Amen! That shows your love for your husband and yourself, but ultimately to God.

What’s better , your personal choice or following the word of GOD?

@d.l.3310

Жыл бұрын

Followingthe word of God.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

@nicholasemjohnson47

3 ай бұрын

What's more important: The letter of the Word, or the spirit of it?

gods word never gets “ modern” or changes … this generation and a lot of believers do like to believe that though because it’s easier for them

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@nicholasemjohnson47

3 ай бұрын

No, but that doesn't mean that everything that was written during that period affects us today. Nor does it mean that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it. You have to look at it in context.

Years ago I would cover my head at home to pray. We eventually found a Mennonite group whom we worshipped with for some time. So many things became more real and greater understanding of the conviction to cover my head became real. We are no longer with our Mennonite families, but I continue to cover all my waking hours. If you are a woman who uses a veil, notice the respect you are given. Some people will stare at you and some will ask you about your veil. It is a wonderful opportunity to be a gentle witness for our Lord. I've told many and believe it is and outward witness of the Grace I walk in. I believe it pleases the Lord I love so much and serve. The Word tells us if we do something to be scene that's all the reward we have from man. But if our heart is clean and we are walking to please God who knows our hearts there is blessing. Amen Amen

I cover my head all day to be immersed in meditative prayer, and I actually cover at night now too. I started sharing scripture with very spiritually unwell people and I'm now afflicted with terrible demonic dreams. If my head is covered I will not have a bad dream. If I wake up from a bad dream, my head covering will have slipped off. There is great power to the head covering when you are truly convicted by the Lord to do so.

@lampsaltlight

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing this.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

Within the realm of this misinterpretation one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online whose own channels are inundated with videos on head coverings. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical evidence. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. But of course those who believe the covering to be a veil are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such persons often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think, that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short they basically close themselves off to any reasonable debate or discussion. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. It’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape or form in their channels. There really seem to be no end to this obsession, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to talking about how they feel about it or how it has affected others and so on. With all due respect this is truly ridiculous. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatic extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible.

@alejandrogaricia2252

Жыл бұрын

Hallelujah

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@Omatimestwo

Жыл бұрын

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterInteresting. Some in the Pentecostal movement, which I was a part of for many years, have gone as far as to say to lay your long hair over somebody to heal them; that there’s power in long uncut hair. SMH.

I don’t believe it’s in the “Corinthian “culture”. I believe it’s an every day life that we should do these things not just back then.

@annescholl420

2 жыл бұрын

Amen 🙏

@0Chinese0Arithmetic0

2 жыл бұрын

The book of Corinthians was addressed to all believers in every place. It wasn’t a Corinthian thing at all. In fact, this practice was counter cultural for them.

@jeremyjohnson4106

2 жыл бұрын

But Paul addresses the Corinthians specifically in this letter. “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me…” 7:1 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…” 5:1 Etc..

@0Chinese0Arithmetic0

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremyjohnson4106 the books of Corinthians specifically stated that it is addressed to all believers.

@blake8820

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremyjohnson4106 That has nothing to do with eternal truths though. Paul makes clear that his reasoning for the coverings are because of God not because of something limited to only culture.

If women should not be the head pastor based on Paul's words then I'm not seeing why its hard to grasp that we should still head cover today (just in prayer and prophecy). It doesn't say there that long hair doubles as a covering at all. If we are going to say "this is cultural" then no wonder women feel like its ok to lead in church, or am I wrong? totally not judging women who don't

@JeffersonDavis412

2 жыл бұрын

You're 100% correct. And you should be judging them, because we're called to judge righteously and Scripture says what it says. Stand firm in what you know the Truth is. Blessings!

@dr0p0fg0ldensun

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. I made the same point. I'm just now coming to this conclusion on my own, so I feel a bit hypocritical, but I totally agree now.

@moseslee5721

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. It is a cultural thing. Women can be pastors and lead church. Is God disappointed because his daughter is leading congregations to Christ? Of course, it is a cultural context people must learn.

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@semi2893

Жыл бұрын

I don't see this as the same. Clothes (and therefore hair styles including coverings) extremely changed since biblical times. With that arguing, we would also still have to consider to wear clothes like they did. I also don't want to be mistaken for a muslim woman at my Christian church. The covering was a sign of women's submission under men's authority. No one recognises this today since it's not part of our culture. But what our culture does recognize is when women are silent at church and don't preach or lead the congregation in prayer.

God said that we’re supposed to pray without ceasing and God so we should have a covering on our heads when we pray or prophesy and I’ve heard that people can prophesy by reading the Bible I don’t know about that for sure but I do know that we should pray without ceasing so I were going all the time but but I had a friend who start it out by wearing white headbands. If we read the original words I think it’ll give us a clue as to what was being said. I think we should try to obey the Lord and all things not just what suits us.

@TheRealThanos55

Жыл бұрын

God bless you sister!

@dr0p0fg0ldensun

Жыл бұрын

That isn't meant to be taken literally, though. Obviously, we don't pray when we sleep, listen to someone talk, or comment on KZread vids. But, your heart is right, aka I believe God loves that most! ❤

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

Good grief! The reason women are to have their heads covered and men are to be uncovered is "because of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10). Why? bc man/woman is “a little lower than angels” Heb 2:7 It says what it means and means what it says. Culture or where you live has nothing to do with it

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

Lol the comment section is way more helpful than the video.

@ginaredrovan9217

Жыл бұрын

I agree you may want to scroll down to where a commentator by the name FA wrote a very concise essay on how the long hair of the woman is the veil.

@marksanders2168

Жыл бұрын

@@ginaredrovan9217 false

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

@@marksanders2168 If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else we deem fit. In fact, it would seem more like a verb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually being stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based only on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying such an argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were conditions then it would seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, if the reason for the man not to cover his head in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this one reason alone? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples and if so, then why do the same for verse 5? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved? I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario, based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people or Christians really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Given that this conclusion doesn’t make sense one should at least consider that perhaps this is a misinterpretation. But what if “uncovered” means “short hair?” Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved or likened to being shaved since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman even if she has long hair is somehow equal to being shaved. This is how many veil promotors claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” you can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. Is it true that those who promote the wearing of veils believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil she should have her head shaved? As similar as it sounds to what we spoke of in verse 5, in this section we are not talking about the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved but about literally shaving a woman’s head. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters of different sects but I have been told many by veil promoters that this is what the Bible teaches. They base this belief on verse 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.” This verse is often misinterpreted just as they do with verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone that if a woman has short hair then yes let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair. Yet veil promoters take this verse and have construed it as something of a punishment. The idea is that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved. Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 they believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which already is illogical), and then in verse 6 they believe that if the woman is not covered in a veil that her hair should be shorn off as a punishment regardless of whether her hair is long? When confronted about this extreme approach in verses 5 and 6 they normally do not deny it, as though this were normal. Yet when explaining that to be uncovered means to have short hair and covered means to have long hair, they make it seem as though it is weirder than their extreme and illogical conclusions. It is my belief that some reach these conclusions mainly because they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed rather than having made a careful study of the Scriptures.

@OnlyAbriS

Жыл бұрын

right? lol

Does not the word of God transcend culture? Is the book of Corinthians specific to the corinthian culture at the time? partly or wholly ie. If the book of Corinthians is partially specific to the people of Corinth at the time, then we can choose and pick what to obey in the Bible depending on whom the book was written to and the culture at the time. This would give us an opportunity to excuse away a lot of scripture that does not fit our culture and liking. This way we don’t die to self by creating loopholes in scripture. Or maybe we can decide what not to obey in the Bible by convincing ourselves that culture changes and depending on the century and culture we live in; we can have a different interpretation of scripture.

@jeremyjohnson4106

2 жыл бұрын

Did you greet your brothers with a holy kiss too?

@blake8820

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremyjohnson4106 The difference is that Paul isn’t speaking of culture in this passage; he is speaking of fundamental and eternal truths that men are the image of God and women are the glory of man. No matter what culture or time period you live in, this doesn’t change. He goes on to mention angels and nature which are also outside of culture.

@bkunyiha

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremyjohnson4106 I now actually go to an Anabaptist church where we practice the holy kiss: Which, i must say was very hard for me(because of my cultural upbringing) but could not find a way around it; since its taught in scripture(Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14). Also: feet washing like Jesus taught his disciples(John 13:14), practicing modesty and not adorning ourselves with Jewelry(1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4), not swearing(Matthew 5:34-37) just to name a few. I believe if we love God, we will seek to obey scripture like the Bible asks of us(John 14:15, John 14:21, John 14:23, John 15:14, 1 John 5:2-3, Luke 6:46, James 1:22-25). Even the parts that go against our culture or upbringing, since we are not of this world and are being transformed a new(Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:17).

@gundog4273

2 жыл бұрын

@@bkunyiha I was introduced to head covering by anibaptist women, and the first time I was pulled in for a holy kiss, I just had to hold on for the ride! It's something I'd like to start practicing though.

@liljs4189

2 жыл бұрын

@@blake8820 that didn’t answer his question though, do you greet your brothers with a holy kiss?

Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.

@amoleis61023

2 ай бұрын

Yes, thank you for expressing this. I thought that seemed off.

My problem with the legalist interpretation that says this is for every other follower of God is: 1 Why did Jesus teach NOTHING about the hair covering/uncovering? If it is a natural thing, why wasn't it established from the beginning (we don't see any command of the like in the past, since the Book of Genesis and it is only in 1 Corinthians that it is mentioned) 2. if for every man it not honorable to cover his head, why were the Jews actually commanded to cover their head in the past? 3. If every woman has to keep her head covered while praying or prophesizing now, why was that not an issue at all in the past? 4. If having long hair for every man is a sign of dishonor, why did Jews in the past and Nazirites (or people like Samson) have long hair and were still approved by God?

@user-hm4rc1qf8i

2 ай бұрын

Why did he have to? When he was here on earth it was a must

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Ай бұрын

A thoughtful analysis. I agree with your questions. BTW there is neither any evident that when he was here on earth it was a must. I wish people would quote scripture rather than making outlandish remarks that have no proof. The main problem with veiling is that Paul was NEVER referring to veils it was long hair. Note the many times he mentions hair directly (3x) then indirectly (4x via the words shorn and shaven) That's SEVEN times now where is the word for veil or cloth? ZERO times. Verses 4- 13 mention cover, uncovered or not covered which are verbs like covering your feet. So they cannot be counted as nouns. It is very simple women are to be covered in long hair and men in short hair.

@Wisdomwaferschannel

2 күн бұрын

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterI appreciate your answer. I currently am studying this topic. I also agree with one of your previous comments regarding how others base it on “how they feel” as if the covering provides some type of supernatural experience. I personally have struggled with this on and off for years. I have occasionally covered for religious reasons, felt it was bondage and now looking into it to see if it was a “maturity” issue, lack of proper education in this matter. I presently do sometimes cover for reasons to protect my textured hair, and give it a break from styling. That can be freeing for anyone but does that translate to a biblical mandate begs the question.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

2 күн бұрын

@@Wisdomwaferschannel It is a somewhat difficult passage for sure, at first, but after reviewing the surrounding passages it becomes clearer as to what Paul was conveying. Aside from the "supernatural experience" or what is more commonly referred to as "conviction" what irks me the most is when they abandon the conversation from the biblical merits to something non-biblical like church-history (which is vague even on its own because which church am I suppose to assume is right?) or scholars or the topic of feminism or how it looks good or how inconvenient it is and that a woman is just to simply do it, etc. I would say that 90% of the time people cannot offer a simple exegesis on the words we are reading they always have to introduce other non biblical factors. I've even had women tell me that God literally told them to wear something on their heads. So then suddenly all biblical conversation is shut off. If something supernatural occurs then THAT takes precedence to scripture despite the fact that the scripture tells us not to believe every spirit but to test them. 1st John 4:1-3 So what is the point of reading the Bible and use it to confirm or disprove doctrine as so stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? That is why I always ask everyone who believes in the head covering to cite the exact verse that states that veiling is a mandate. Keeping in mind which translation they are using as the newer or modern translations will add words that you won't find in the Textus Receptus or KJ Bible. Most of the time they either cannot or will not and that tells me a lot.

Good explanation, thanks!

In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul responded to any readers who may disagree with his teaching about the use of headcoverings: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." This may indicate that headcoverings were considered a standard, universal Christian symbolic practice (rather than a local cultural custom). In other words, while churches were spread out geographically and contained a diversity of cultures, they all practiced headcovering for female members.

@takingchances9071

8 ай бұрын

Amen!!

@VusiIrvinMthimunye

6 ай бұрын

Hallelujah!

@emmanuellopez7324

3 ай бұрын

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 disregarding previous verses I see.

@barryallen119

3 ай бұрын

@@emmanuellopez7324 Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.

@barryallen119

3 ай бұрын

@@emmanuellopez7324 Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (verse 4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (verse 6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable. Is It “Long Hair”? Another proposal suggests that the woman's long hair (mentioned in v.14-15) is the only “covering” that Paul has in mind throughout the entire chapter. Verse 6, though, indicates that “long hair” is distinct from the cloth headcovering. It describes a woman who does not cover her head and who subsequently “also” cuts off her hair. At this point, the woman is missing two things: the headcovering and “also” her long hair.

The book of Corinthians was explicitly addressed to all believers in Christ everywhere and at every time, not just the church at Corinth. Furthermore, there are three options presented to women: Shorn, shaven, or covered. The mental gymnastics being done to escape the plain meaning of this scripture are impressive. Long hair is not the covering. The long hair is nature’s supporting argument that shows us women ought to cover.

@emmakate6518

2 жыл бұрын

Shorn?

@MechaWingZero

2 жыл бұрын

The book of 1 Corinthians was indeed addressed specifically to the church at Corinth (v. 2) but certainly the principles that Paul was teaching apply to all believers, and it does seem to me like there are some mental gymnastics done regarding the head coverings issue, though I am still looking into it

@0Chinese0Arithmetic0

2 жыл бұрын

@@MechaWingZero the book of Corinthians explicitly states that it is addressed to all believers in every place that call on the name of the Lord Jesus.

@MechaWingZero

2 жыл бұрын

@@0Chinese0Arithmetic0 Which verse are you talking about?

@0Chinese0Arithmetic0

2 жыл бұрын

@@MechaWingZero verse 2, which you referenced yourself. It states quite clearly “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”

* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 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.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

* Misinterpretations Lead to More Questions and More Problems…. Much of these misunderstandings come from small groups who push the veil agenda because of years of misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, such groups will have to deal with additional complex and logistical matters for example: If it doesn’t say the word “veil” how do you know they are not referring to a hood or a bonnet or any other type of headwear? What are the dimensions of this covering? How can you be 100% sure that your dimensions are acceptable to God? What is the frequency of wearing it? Does location matter? Does color matter? If a woman takes it off because she is going to bed or showering and naturally prays to God without thinking did she commit a sin? Wouldn’t this provoke internal shame and fear having to constantly beg for forgiveness for praying without the veil? So instead of something so simple like maintaining a manly or feminine look by one’s hair now it becomes complex and even a burdensome issue. To expand on my previous question why should a woman wear a tiny veil that covers a small area of the head? Why not cover the whole head? Wouldn’t it seem that they are NOT keeping to their own beliefs? Isn’t it hypocritical to preach to others that women ought to cover their heads when they don’t really cover the whole head? It’s gotten to the point where I’ve even read comments from die-hard veil promoters criticize women who cover just a patch going as far as calling them “disobedient.” Some denominations have their women wearing veils nearly 24 hours a day and that because they point towards the verse that states we are to “pray without ceasing.” Sometimes these same people will say that the verses refer to an item that can be taken on or off and that within the confines of a “church” setting yet will frown upon any of their followers if they walk around without them outside of the so called church setting. Some will use the exclusivity interpretation, as proof that it is a removable item that anyone can do yet their women wear them in a way that they CANNOT be easily taken off. Therefore, it is not an option anymore for some. So let’s put this in perspective. It’s ok to preach that it is a removable veil TO PROVE YOUR POINT to others as it was supposedly meant ONLY for praying and prophesying (meaning you can take it off if one is not doing this) but in practice your women are bound to wear it all the time and everywhere in a way that is not easily removed and is frowned upon if they do so in public. Interesting, seems hypocritical. This misunderstanding also now imposes new and unheard of dynamics that one will not find in the Bible like the purchasing or creation of veils, hats or bonnets, figuring out how to maintain it or keep it well fastened by purchasing various forms of pins or clips since it is not an option to take it off and always being mindful not to let it fall and so forth. Can you see how easy this misinterpretation can lead to an array of issues, which is unheard of in the Bible? * The “Head Covering Journey or Testimony” Obsession…. Within the realm of this misinterpretation one will find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online by those whose channels are inundated with videos on the same topic. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical basis. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or creation of some kind of “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extremist manner. But of course those who believe the covering to be a veil are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of most important topics from the entire Bible. Such groups often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based on EMOTION rather than something biblical. It’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape or form in their channels. There really seem to be no end to what they can say, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to talking about how they feel about it or how it has positively affected others and so on. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatic extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible. A perfect example is the recently created “Head Covering Movement,” which is a small group of people trying to “bring back” the supposed custom of wearing veils. These followers have no doubt placed one small section of the Bible to such an unnaturally HIGH level in their lives that they think it requires the formation of an actual organized GROUP. This, ladies and gentleman, is extremism… at it’s worst. Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? What’s even worse are those who claim that God actually TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap or veil on their head. If this is you then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures I have shared and the obsession that is clearly demonstrated in your videos or actions. * False Doctrines Lead to doing the Opposite of what the Bible Intended…. Another example where following a misinterpretation compounds the problem is that it can create an OPPOSITE EFFECT of what the Bible is trying to exhort women to do. For in hiding the hair under a veil the GLORY of the woman is no longer seen and the Bible gives the strong impression that the woman’s hair was meant to be seen. For how can one testify to a woman’s “glory” if it cannot be seen because it is hidden under a hat, bonnet or veil? If one of the purposes of these passages was for the woman to maintain their hair long then there is a complete failure here if you subscribe to wearing veils; because by hiding the hair in a veil (aside from looking like a person with a medical issue) now you look like you have short hair and no one can see this glory. Also, how can you correct a Christian woman with short hair if you cannot even see their hair because it is hidden under a veil, bonnet or cap? So by following this misinterpretation they are now doing the complete opposite of what the Bible is asking believers to do, which in a way is a form of disobedience.

@mels.2419

Жыл бұрын

Very helpfull, I have been so confused by this issue with questions that you have pointed out. I appreciate your response ❤️.

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

Thank you so much for this, I really appreciate it brother.

Thank you bro for this message May our Good God bless

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

thank you very much I needed a clear and straight forward answer I just subscribed thanks again 🙏

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

Not gonna lie, I'm still undecided and confused. I need to study more, read, and pray about this. A bit off topic, but something that I was thinking of was Nazarite vows, and Samson. It says doesn't nature teach you that to have long hair is disgraceful, for a man, but it was actually a sign of extra devoted dedication to God for Israelites. So I only bring this up because I was pondering whether or not this was a universal law or something, men's hair length that is. So now I suppose I lean more towards no it's not a universal law that nature teaches us, or that there is at least some nuance there. Also I wonder why what I would consider to be simple matters to the early church have been allowed by God to become so complicated or confusing for us. Though it's been 2,000 years since these texts were written so it makes sense when we are so far removed in time and location honestly. However at the same time I'm reminded of the proverb that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of a king (and I would say Queen) to search out a matter and discover it. I'm sure, or at least I think, as time goes on we will learn exactly and definitively what was meant by the author in his original context, and whether or not the hair covering applies as a universal rule or not. I have faith the Lord will happily reveal his will to the church, if we so seek, on this matter. Maybe he already has and we are just catching up. Maybe we already know 🤷🏾‍♂️, God bless.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

@agentsbf969

3 ай бұрын

​@@YeshuaMessiah777Eye opening claims there, could you elaborate on the mark of the beast?

@YeshuaMessiah777

3 ай бұрын

@@agentsbf969 the shortest simplistic way I could put it would be that who are those with the seal of God in their foreheads (meaning your mind)? God's elect, those who know the whole truth and are not deceived by Satan now or then because we know he is a fake and we know he comes first and we consider him to be an abomination. The mark of the beast in Revelation 13:16-17 either in your hand or on your forehead means (the forehead ill start first) -> those without the truth have accepted it, then as for the hand (meaning you work with your hands/ do work with), are those who are doing work for him beast. You might say well this is a good ole church right over yonder here and id say good Christian people who have believed in a lie, fell for the deception because they are not digging in God's Word in the manuscripts (original language to have that appetite of the deeper student), they are biblical illiterate to the point that they don't know if they're being lied to and because they've never been taught, judgement starts at the poolpit and I thank God it does because many false teaching and traditions of men have turned the Bethels meaning house of God into Bethavens meaning house of not or emptiness and they think he is Jesus and deliver you up to death which is to say the devil, Satan and are doing the work for the beast and not even know it thinking they're serving Christ. Agent BF that is how people have accepted it already and will accept it, you'll really see that and it will be very sad to see people we love as Revelation states the whole world will whore after him. The thing is about other religions is when he shows up they're gunna think it's their man, or their god. I love you brother, God bless.

thank you bro God bless you. It helped me to understand 🙏

I don't understand. Hair is a womans head covering. Why would she need a second covering? When you bendover to pray, your hair covers your face. Why would you need two? What is the point of having hair if it isn't good enough? I don't get it.

@defendingthegospel721

10 ай бұрын

I agree with 100% The real issue is the misinterpretation of scripture. There are some who, no matter how much you show them it isn't, believe wholeheartedly that Paul is speaking about veils. The word veils isn't there or hat. But we do read the words Long Hair, Shorn and Shaven all written twice in the KJV. The idea Paul was saying is that women ought to cover their heads with long hair and men not to. In other words covered and uncovered.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

10 ай бұрын

The second covering theory is an unfortunate theory that just messes up the actual message that Paul was trying to convey. Aside from the logic that there would be no need for a second covering the facts are that the word veil is not used, the words long hair, shorn and shaven are used twice, the fact that Paul asks us to make a judgment solely based on observation that if it looks right if a woman prays uncovered. He couldn't mean a veil because he is saying as though it should be innate. A praying woman without a veil shouldn't make anyone think twice. But if he mean a woman NOT covered in long hair (meaning like a manly haircut) then we can say that it does look off. We are accustomed to seeing women with long hair that a woman praying in short hair would look uncomely.

The covering was not about the culture. Paul spent an entire chapter about the importance of the significance of the covering. It was not a personal choice it was a commandment from the Lord. It is interesting that it is America that has done away with this symbol as they follow the feminist model of independence from their husbands.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

10 ай бұрын

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.

@AntiFurryNatio

5 ай бұрын

​@@user-iz8np3vv4i are you saying Gods word is self Contradictory and God makes mistake in his book? Noted in heresy log book.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

5 ай бұрын

@@AntiFurryNatio Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.

Much of what this speaker states is not true. First of all he wants us to assume that the passages in 1st Corinthians 11 refers to married women (and am assuming married men also) , but that's not what it says. It doesn't say "Every "married" man.. in verse 4 or "But every "married" woman...in verse 5. It says "every man" and "every woman." To assume that they are ONLY referring to the married is not provable. And there is also an implication here and that is that IF the married women were "suppose" to wear a fabric on their heads then logically Unmarried women "don't" need to wear this "veil" yet several denominations follow this unsubstantiated doctrine by both the married and unmarried. So that doesn't work. Then he makes the claim that the Corinthians followed some kind of tradition in their culture. Where did he get this information? Perhaps from some outside source, because it isn't stated in the Bible? I've heard people make this comment and normally mention some additional source. What is the implication here? That we cannot fully understand the Bible unless we read some historical books. But the Bible can be understood on its own without the need of additional books. In addition someone made a comment that "Because of the Angels is not cultural!" That is a great comeback, succinct and logical, I love it. Aside from the godly order that is set within men and women regarding the topic of wearing a veil or not it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" The "covering" referred to in the earlier verses then makes sense in that when it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered and for the women uncovered. Meaning it is obviously wrong to be having hair like a woman or a woman to have hair like a man while praying and so on. Also it asks you like you should naturally know something is wrong because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. If it was to mean a fabric veil then the answer is no. How would anyone possibly come up with this idea of veils? But if it means "short hair" like a man then yes because it makes sense. The next verse continues this supposed obvious understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So to all those who believe in a veil I exhort you to ask God and question the logic that i have proposed here. If you can't truly prove it then don't push others to believe it.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general or a mixture of both. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. I will be going at length here not for any other reason than to cover all the many excuses people have made regarding this topic. * Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against long hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did they read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to “exclusive conditions” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. If such a person truly believes in this interpretation, then THEY SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM if an UNVEILED woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? As long as she is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If their answer is NO, then they admit that it is NOT UNDER ONLY two conditions but that there could be many more; thereby making their argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of this verse in a real life scenario: Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Don’t just dismiss this logic think about it for a minute.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation, which we will cover later but if we are to logically make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t just dismiss this, think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that an everyday normal person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) while praying and by SEEING a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. Also note that it doesn’t say pray…. and prophesy it only mentioned the word “pray.” Why was prophesying not included? Could it be that they were given as mere examples? By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is a dishonor if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 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.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@kjkernSerendipity

Жыл бұрын

FA. Wow, thank you for this thorough comment.

I cover full time. A veil is a beautiful symbol of being under my husband's authority. Women throughout history have covered their heads and it's a thing that I think should be brought back. Not something to be contentious about but it is something to think about.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

11 ай бұрын

In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12

@defendingthegospel721

10 ай бұрын

History in some churches does not necessarily make it biblical truth.

@charismagustafson9976

10 ай бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 This is true. It is an individual's choice. Christian liberty.

@kayaissimo

10 ай бұрын

I’m a Christian teenage girl, and not married. I really want to do it, can I still do it?

@defendingthegospel721

10 ай бұрын

@@kayaissimo You can wear whatever you want as long as you don't think you have to. The Bible makes no mention of veils or hats that a woman is under obligation to wear.

loved it .. exact answer to my question .. as here in India most Christians do cover their "hair"my doubt was did God ask us to cover our "head" or "hair" and i got the answer!

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@bleekwater6176

10 ай бұрын

​@@justinaacuriouswanderer1496men and women are not same that's ur double standard now go cry about it.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

Paul's reasons are not cultural, nor specific to the Corinthians. If his letter to them was only to them, then why do we accept and apply other commands as doctrine? Paul argues from creation order, not culture, though he gives examples. His WHY is because of the order God established and because of the angels (which admittedly, I do not understand). Paul also uses this order and furthers it by adding that Eve was the one deceived, and therefore women should not teach men nor have authority over men (1 Tim 2). If we reject that Paul's assertions aren't valid, then we reject the WHY as well.

@ginaredrovan9217

Жыл бұрын

@@zacharyyogus5013 LOL very good point. I think it's called hypocrisy. Becky if you are reading this there is a very good comment from FA (just scroll down after ordering the comments in the most recent.) It has a complete proof that the hair is the covering and not some fabricated head wear.

@dr0p0fg0ldensun

Жыл бұрын

@@zacharyyogus5013 If you are sincere about your question, here's my honest answer. 1) Because it's not possible to pray or prophesy in a profile picture (the two times Paul's said women, or arguably, WIVES, should cover their heads). Even if it was possible, I'm not in mine. 2) I'm not married, though I'm still unsure if 1 Cor 11:5 is talking about wives or women. 3) I'm still trying to figure this out and rightly divide.

I don’t get how Paul was speaking to specifically Corinthian culture about head coverings but he was speaking universally when he spoke of homosexuality, thieves, idolaters, etc… Respectfully I know it’s a common argument but it’s the same type of argument used to take down 1 Tim 2:12. I don’t see any real scriptural basis or extrabiblical sources that make that clear. What am I missing?

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

Жыл бұрын

I agree which is likely that they are misinterpreting the scriptures. The problem is that the host along with others here want to see the covering as a veil when the word veil is not there. People want you to see veil when they show you the word covering. The Bible states that the covering is long hair, not some piece of cloth. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" 1st Corinthians 11:15 Long hair is the covering. Also it would seem silly if people were to apply a fabric veil to the following verses. "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:13-14. Two questions asking us to Judge and naturally see something wrong by mere observation. Are we to somehow naturally come to a conclusion that a woman with long hair is missing a separate physical object on their head by mere observation? Now, unless they mean short hair when they refer to "uncovered," which would make sense because one can visually make a judgement call that a short haired woman doesn't look right. Now if the covering is long hair (which is synonymous with cover or covered) according to verse 15 then uncovered should mean short hair. Once you reread the passages with this understanding it starts to make sense.

I recently tried to wear head coverings this year and my goal is to get over my fears of people looking at me funny and wear it full time! I am Christian woman and I have done a lot of research on head coverings and how it really used to be such a common thing up until feminism unfortunately. I think it’s more about modesty, showing your approval of gender roles, being submissive to your husband and doing what most women did for thousands of years until feminism destroyed everything. Should you wear it at church? Absolutely! All the time? Not totally necessary but I think should be highly encouraged. That is my opinion!

@kevinfromcanada4379

6 ай бұрын

A decent book on the subject is Warren Henderson's _Glories Seen & Unseen: A Study of the Head Covering._ Paul's injunction was for men to be bare-headed and for women to cover their head at church. It is important to recognize that Paul is addressing both genders, not simply the women. People today think this injunction is just for women, but that is a mistake. In the first century, many men wore head coverings during religious worship of various gods (depending on the god they worshiped). Depending on the culture, some women wore head coverings in public and would remove them during religious worship. Paul is not dealing with social convention but is telling the Corinthians that in the Christian community, during religious activity men are to be uncovered and women are to be covered. They are silently proclaiming that this Christian community, God's new creation, is following God's order, unlike Adam and Eve who disobeyed God's order.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

6 ай бұрын

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual.

@kevinfromcanada4379

6 ай бұрын

User (I don't know your name), Paul is dealing with the church, which does things differently than the way things were done in the temple. If you think hair is the covering then you have a problem. All men would be required to shave their heads before praying. Hair at the end of the pericope is being used as an appeal to nature for why women are to wear a physical head covering and why men are not. By nature, women are to have long hair, which acts as a natural head covering, while men are to have short hair. Since everyone in the first century recognized that men were to have short hair and women long, they ought to recognize that women ought to have a physical head covering and men are not.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

6 ай бұрын

@@kevinfromcanada4379 As essay below by FA looks at all this in detail: * Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 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.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@JohnYoder-vi1gj

6 ай бұрын

@@kevinfromcanada4379 Why would you say if "hair is the covering then you have a problem. All men would be required to shave their heads before praying." Praying and prophesying were just examples Paul was mentioning he wasn't being exclusive. If being uncovered were to mean "short hair" then it makes sense that a man shouldn't have long hair when doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. Please explain what you mean

Even pagan cultures cover their heads. I know this because I used to do it as a pagan. Now I’m a child of God and I feel as if it is much more important to do it. I just don’t have a reason as to why I should due to not being married. However wearing one is a constant reminder that I belong to God.

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

I'm sorry but submission on the inside shows on the outside ! The angels still watch

@KH-hc6sy

Жыл бұрын

And many are submissive on the outside and not the inside. God is after our heart ❤

@VaradiAttila

3 ай бұрын

@@KH-hc6sy Faith without works is dead.

@KH-hc6sy

3 ай бұрын

@@VaradiAttila you need both

Mike Winger's Women In Ministry gives the best biblicallly balanced investigation into this imo.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

But what if my hair is braided because it’s easier to take care of

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

This comment section missed the point of what God desires, obedience to Him, not what you wear during prayer. Consider those who do pray and worship God but cannot access a head covering. The head covering argument is a personal choice like the guy said in the video.

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

7 ай бұрын

Obedience to Him is following the instructions given by His appointed apostles. You are not being obedient whatsoever if you refuse to wear the symbol of headship Apostle Paul told you to wear. You’re living in rebellion. You’re doing the opposite of obedience to God.

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

7 ай бұрын

Can’t access a piece of cloth?

The head covering in this passage is referring to both wearing a veil and having long hair. Read 1 Corinthians 11:6 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. Notice that not having a hair covering is different from cutting your hair short. Therefore, the head covering in this verse is referring to a veil. If not wearing a veil is just as bad as cutting your hair short or shaving it, then you should wear a veil.

@jeremyjohnson4106

2 жыл бұрын

He doesn’t make the argument that it only means hair

@blake8820

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeremyjohnson4106 “It is not something that should be used to judge spirituality.” He makes it seem as though not wearing a head covering and short or shaved hair aren’t equated as equally disobedient. Paul’s reasoning isn’t because of the culture but because of both nature and angels. These are not limited to time or culture.

@defendingthegospel721

2 жыл бұрын

"If not wearing a veil is just as bad as cutting your hair short or shaving it, then you should wear a veil." That has to be the most foolish thing I have ever read. The correlation makes no sense. Now if having the head uncovered means "short hair" then the correlation makes sense. Seeing a woman with short hair would be relatable to having their head "shaven." No one looks at a woman with long flowing hair with no veil and says to themselves: "Oh yeah she's not wearing a veil therefore it's just like being shaven." You'd have to be extremely brain washed to think this. There is a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are not covered meaning that they do not have long hair. “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.” Therefore ONLY those whose heads are uncovered is this verse referring to. The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing. Clearly this is not the case. As further proof in this one verse alone the women who are “uncovered” are equated with being as if they were shaven, therefore if we were to see a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying who would think in their right mind that because she not wearing a veil that it would be somehow equate to being shaved. That is illogical and ludicrous. But if we see the same woman with a man’s haircut then we can easily make the comparison of why this would be viewed as if she were shaven. This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. . Putting aside the godly order that is set within men and women for a moment and focusing on the topic of wearing a veil it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" The "covering" therefore referred to in the earlier verses like 4, 5 and 6 makes sense in that when it says that it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered and for the women uncovered. Meaning it is obviously wrong for men to be having hair like a woman or a woman to have hair like a man while praying and so on. It also asks you make a judgment call as if one should naturally see a problem because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. How or why would anyone possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying without a fabric veil on their head to be wrong? Looking at someone doing this does not automatically or naturally create a thought that a veil is missing. No one would be thinking "Yeah she is missing a veil on her head.” That would be ludicrous. There is no natural reasoning to make such a judgment. But if it is understood to mean "short hair" like a man then it would make perfect sense. If I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things then I can naturally judge that there is something wrong here and that it doesn't look right. The next verse continues this supposed obvious and natural understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So given all this, how can one conclude that they are referring to a cloth or veil? How can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil there is something off. It makes no logical sense. No one does this. I’ve never seen or heard anyone make such remarks. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@blake8820

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 Hey. Thanks for your comment. You seem to not be understanding my point. I’m not arguing that the long hair isn’t a covering. I’m arguing that Paul uses both veils and long hair to describe the two different ways a woman should be covered. If you read verse 6, which is the verse I used in my comment, it is clear that Paul is referring to a veil. Look at the beginning of the verse again: “For if a woman will NOT COVER her head, then she SHOULD CUT her HAIR SHORT. But since it IS DISGRACEFUL for a woman to CUT OFF her HAIR…” Saying that this is a brainwashed view doesn’t make sense when Paul clearly makes a distinction between “not covering” your hair and cutting it short. They are two separate things in this verse, meaning that Paul is referring to a veil. In later verses, I am not disagreeing with you that long hair is one of the two requirements. Paul uses an example of nature to show that even nature itself agrees with the long hair part. Obviously Paul isn’t going to use a veil in this verse because he is talking about nature, which doesn’t involve veils, to prove one of the two requirements. He already explained in verse 6 that a veil is also needed. If you do respond to this, I’d like you to make a counter argument specifically for the verse that I used.

@blake8820

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 To add on to my first reply, let’s try out your view in the beginning of verse 6 for argument sake. “For if a woman already has her hair cut short, then she should cut her hair short.” That makes 0 sense. Let’s try the other way. “For if a woman doesn’t wear a veil, then she should cut her hair short.” The second option is the only one that makes sense.

I am 13 and converted from athiest to catholic. I want to start veiling but my whole family is athiest and some of them don't agree with religion , so I don't know what to do. And I'm not sure how I should start veiling, because it may be unusual if I come to school wearing it out of nowhere.

@robertmiller812

9 күн бұрын

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.

@YeshuaMessiah777

4 ай бұрын

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

I support your view of head covering brother♥️

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@zacharyyogus5013

7 ай бұрын

What?

My Nana was a Sephardic Jew. She covered her hair when she left the house and wore beautiful lacy veils at church. Catholic women used to wear lacy Mantillas / veils, and now it's coming back as acceptable in the Catholic church. My understanding of the scriptures, thus far, is to wear a viel when praying or prophesying. I'm still researching this out as I want to obey Yah·weh's commandments but not man's traditions. Ty for the teaching (No, I'm not Catholic).

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

So this means men can wear hats or caps to church and can pray and preach in them then?

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

(I didn't watch the video.) In the Old Testament the priests were required to wear turbans, as well as their other priestly garments. A woman's long hair is her 'covering'. I don't know what was said in the video, but I have my thoughts and scriptures which I can post if requested.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}

@defendingthegospel721

2 жыл бұрын

"If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald." Funny but the problem is a misinterpretation of the word "covered" and "uncovered." If the woman was given hair for a covering and that it is a shame for her to be UNcovered and that it is a shame for a man to have long hair which correlates with the earlier verse that if his head is Covered is in dishonor then we are talking about short and long hair. if having the head uncovered means "short hair" then the correlation makes sense. Seeing a woman with short hair would be relatable to having their head "shaven." No one looks at a woman with long flowing hair with no veil and says to themselves: "Oh yeah she's not wearing a veil therefore it's just like being shaven." You'd have to be extremely brain washed to think this. There is a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are not covered meaning that they do not have long hair. “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.” Therefore ONLY those whose heads are uncovered is this verse referring to. The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing. Clearly this is not the case. As further proof in this one verse alone the women who are “uncovered” are equated with being as if they were shaven, therefore if we were to see a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying who would think in their right mind that because she not wearing a veil that it would be somehow equate to being shaved. That is illogical and ludicrous. But if we see the same woman with a man’s haircut then we can easily make the comparison of why this would be viewed as if she were shaven. This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. . Putting aside the godly order that is set within men and women for a moment and focusing on the topic of wearing a veil it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" The "covering" therefore referred to in the earlier verses like 4, 5 and 6 makes sense in that when it says that it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered and for the women uncovered. Meaning it is obviously wrong for men to be having hair like a woman or a woman to have hair like a man while praying and so on. It also asks you make a judgment call as if one should naturally see a problem because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. How or why would anyone possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying without a fabric veil on their head to be wrong? Looking at someone doing this does not automatically or naturally create a thought that a veil is missing. No one would be thinking "Yeah she is missing a veil on her head.” That would be ludicrous. There is no natural reasoning to make such a judgment. But if it is understood to mean "short hair" like a man then it would make perfect sense. If I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things then I can naturally judge that there is something wrong here and that it doesn't look right. The next verse continues this supposed obvious and natural understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So given all this, how can one conclude that they are referring to a cloth or veil? How can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil there is something off. It makes no logical sense. No one does this. I’ve never seen or heard anyone make such remarks. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@earnestlycontendingforthef5332

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 stated " This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil " Yes! it does refer to a veiling of the woman. "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". 1 Cor 11:5-6 (KJV) **[From (Kata) and (Kalupto); To cover wholly, i.e. VEIL:- cover, hide. -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]

@kevinfromcanada4379

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 My friend, there are two head coverings in 1Cor 11-a artificial covering (a veil or hat) and a natural covering (hair). This is easily demonstrated if you substitute "covering" for "long hair." For instance, in 1Cor 11:5 we would read: "but every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if she had short hair." Do you see how the verse becomes nonsense? Go on to v. 6: "For if a woman will not have long hair, then she should cut her hair short..." How does this make sense? If she doesn't have long hair, then it is already short-it is nonsense to tell her to cut her hair short if it is already short. What is the symbol of authority on her head (v. 10)? Her hair? No, it is the artificial covering (a veil or hat) that women wear during the cultic gathering of Christians. This is how the early Christians understood it. For instance, the church father Irenaeus substituted "veil" (κάλυμμα) for "authority" (ἐξουσίαν) in his quotation of v. 10 because he thought that's what it meant. He quoted the verse like this: "A woman ought to have a *veil* upon her head, because of the angels." Paul's statement regarding hair (the natural covering) in v. 15 is to bolster his argument regarding the artificial covering. The fact that nature shows that women ought to have a natural covering and men ought not, is used as an argument for Paul to demonstrate that women ought to have an artificial covering on their heads and men ought not to have an artificial covering on their heads during the cultic gathering.

@defendingthegospel721

2 жыл бұрын

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 "Yes! it does refer to a veiling of the woman." No! It does not refer to a veiling of the woman" "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Covering = Long Hair. - From the Holy Bible-KJV. The Bible is already defining what they mean by covering. No need to guess or look something up. Choosing not to use the context of the Bible is usually the problem with all misinterpretations.

@thetruthsadvocate4934

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 As mentioned elsewhere..... Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before praying, or of course, be bald.

I’m not fully on board with the head coverings for women. One man that I listened to on this issue said we shouldn’t let society dictate over scripture and I fully agree. However, this was cultural. This was 2,000 years ago. Many, many things have changed culturally since then. Now, some cultures are not good. Culture today goes directly against scripture where morality is literally hated. Head coverings are not a moral issue. Dressing immodestly is. I agree with modest dress, however, this is a subjective topic on what some women think dressing modestly is. For example: dressing in ugly clothing deliberately so as to not tempt men. I think this falls into personal conviction, not scripture. I was a licensed hairstylist for 25 years. I was never once convicted of sinning because I cut women’s hair, permed or colored it. A woman’s hair is her crown and glory and it’s important to both men and women to look well groomed. Because our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, are we to look sloppy and dowdy? Unkept? I’m going with no. Culture does have to do with a lot of commandments in scripture. Both in the OT and NT. If it doesn’t, then women shouldn’t have the right to vote, own property, or have her word admissible in court just as it was in Biblical times. Yet all women are ok with these changes, right? This is becoming a legalistic issue, and I fully disagree with it at this level. If you don’t want to cut your hair, then don’t. If you want to cover your head, then do. Just don’t dictate it to the rest of us who do have reservations about these verses applying to women today when they fall into a cultural role vs a moral role. God also commanded that women not be elders in the church and they shall not teach men. We should listen to our husbands teaching us at home instead, as we remain quiet. Well, we can all agree that this latter role has changed as well. Families go to church together. Women don’t remain silent, they serve, socialize, worship while singing out loud. Are these sinful actions too? I should clarify that I fully agree with what the scripture says about women being teachers of men, this is a no. I also don’t agree with female pastors as this is not our role either, nor is being an elder. Some would say that this was once cultural, however look at all of the problems it has caused within the Church. The designated roles by God need to remain in place. Hair and head coverings do not interfere with male/female roles in the church. These are outward coverings meant to convey a message that is not needed to be conveyed this way any longer. Wedding rings also serve as a symbol of marriage today.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

you wrote: Culture does have to do with a lot of commandments in scripture. Both in the OT and NT. If it doesn’t, then women shouldn’t have the right to vote, own property, or have her word admissible in court just as it was in Biblical times. I'm tired, so maybe missing your point here. Women in the Old Covenant could buy and own land as scripture says. I have an essay, posted by another, that explains quite well that the covering for women is the hair itself. I'll paste if desired. As far as a woman having authority over a man...I suggest you read Judges 4 and Deborah's authority over Barak. He was the commander of Israel's army of 10,000. Prophetesses are above teachers, according to the New Testament. Phoebe was a deacon.

@youtubescoop2286

Жыл бұрын

It’s not about what we feel or how we thing God never changes and it’s his way not ours

@kellyanne7225

Жыл бұрын

@@youtubescoop2286 I never said anything about feelings, and I agree with you about that. As you should have read in my comment, I wasn’t putting society above scripture either.However, customs DID change, and legalism tends to be at the core of this issue. We are to cloth ourselves in humility and modest dress, but all Paul had to work with at the time was what women were wearing 2,000 years ago to make an example of. God doesn’t change, His word does not change. This modesty issue has turned into a legalistic issue without common sense and without lining the words up with reasons, intentions, and with the other scripture that is mentioned about it too. It has nothing to do with feelings and you’re out of place for using that as an argument where you found no evidence of that.

@kellyanne7225

Жыл бұрын

@@user-iz8np3vv4i I’m referring to specifically the authority over a man in regards to the church. Everyone uses Deborah as the go-to for women’s roles, but this was an isolated incident, specific in the OT for a specific time with Israel. Women are not to have authority over men in their homes or in the church. This is my point. I would’ve responded 6 months ago, but I didn’t see it until now. Oops!

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

@@kellyanne7225 Thanks for replying. __________________________________________ ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. ____________________________________________ I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. A Judge was a pastor, according to scripture. A Judge could judge homicide cases, according to scripture. There are no 'roles' in the New Covenant. Reply if desired. P.S. I don't get about 10%-20% of my notifications. Maybe you didn't get one about me.

Does this just apply to married woman to cover head?

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

5 ай бұрын

Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see it is completely made up. The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found in the King James Bible but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to and will use their modern version to prove that. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women not just married people. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” On this topic someone once mentioned in a KZread comment about “submission” for example: “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word “submission” or “husband” in this passage yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before it would not make sense. Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.

I find it strange because it says if a women prays or profisy she has to have her head coverd so what is he talking about ?

@defendingthegospel721

2 жыл бұрын

It is actually simple by reading the context of the chapter particularly the parts that refer to coverings. The "covered" head is to mean a woman's long hair in that she should look like a woman if she will preform these holy acts. Allow me to begin by stating who oppose this would say that way you have an understanding of both sides. Some have falsely stated verses in question in 1 Corinthians 11 refer to women who already have their heads covered. This is why some people can’t get out of the loop they have formed in their minds because they assume that if the woman already has their head covered then logically they must be referring to something else like a veil but that is not true. When reading verse 5 the Bible is addressing those women whose heads are NOT covered meaning those that do not have long hair, which I will prove in a moment. Let’s read verse 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.” Therefore, ONLY those whose heads are UNcovered is this verse referring to. The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing. Usually theyl only see a veil in verses 4, 5, 6. As further proof in verse 5 alone the women who are “uncovered” are equated with being as if they were shaven. If we were to subscribe to those who misinterpret this verse then the picture they would paint would be something like this: Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil they believe that the Bible is saying that this equates to someone as if they were shaven. Now why would one think that just because a woman is not wearing a veil that it would be somehow equated to being shaved. This is illogical. But if we were understand uncovered to mean short hair then we can easily make the comparison of why this would be viewed as if she were shaven. It’s not a big leap to make the correlation unlike others who want you to make a gigantic leap of logic by saying that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Normally such people do not want you to be a critical thinker. This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. Putting aside the godly order that is set within men and women for a moment and focusing on the topic of wearing a veil it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." Therefore, if the covering is referring to “long hair” in this verse then to be uncovered should be understood as short hair. Then it makes sense in that when it says that it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered (like a woman which we just read equates to having long hair) and for the women uncovered meaning short hair. It also asks you make a judgment call as if one should naturally see a problem because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. How or why would anyone possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying without a fabric veil on their head to be wrong? Looking at someone doing this does not automatically or naturally create a thought that a veil is missing. No one would be thinking "Yeah she is missing a veil on her head.” That would be ludicrous. There is no natural reasoning to make such a judgment. But if it is understood to mean "short hair" like a man then it would make perfect sense. If I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things then I can naturally judge that there is something wrong here and that it doesn't look right. The next verse continues this supposed obvious and natural understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So given all this, how can one conclude that they are referring to a cloth or veil? How can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one can automatically conclude that there is something wrong. It makes no logical sense. No one does this. I’ve never seen or heard anyone make such remarks. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@Caleb-fm1hp

2 жыл бұрын

@@defendingthegospel721 The ordinance of head covering is for certain times...while praying or prophecying...suggesting it is removable and placeable on the head at a precise timing like an actual fabric covering.

@Caleb-fm1hp

2 жыл бұрын

There are two coverings. This guy is just another false teacher.

@stannmyself5856

Жыл бұрын

@@Caleb-fm1hp no, it doesn’t suggest anywhere that it’s removable. You’re adding your own context just like any veil supporting group does. It is taking praying and prophesying as an example because they are holy acts and especially when we do them in church we are in front of everyone else so we should do it as God commanded it. That means a man looks like a man and a woman looks like a woman. The verse is about long and short hair, and it makes that very clear. It even tells you word for word that the long hair is the covering and for a woman her long hair is her glory. Glory is the opposite of dishonour. That is why Paul says it is a dishonour for any woman who prophesies or prays without her HEAD covered. Nowhere does it talk about a hair covering or fabric veil. People have created traditions that don’t exist in scripture. And it even tells you to judge according to nature. It is natural for a woman to have long hair, so when you see a woman with long hair praying or prophesying there is nothing wrong, but if you saw a woman with a manly haircut doing that you would naturally judge that there is something wrong.

@Caleb-fm1hp

Жыл бұрын

@stannmyself According to that line of reasoning (if long hair is the headcovering) you must then teach that every short-haired woman must wait until they grow long hair before they can pray. That sounds unreasonable Vs simply putting a veil fabric on their head. The old testament has several verses that indicate women wore fabric on their heads.

1 Corinthians 11:2 - I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you. Paul praises Corinthians because they remember him in everything and maintain the traditions he passed down onto them. He then goes on to correct them (indicated by the word "But..." in the beginning of the next verse [v3]) in something which they are probably doing wrongly. Question #1: Would Paul praise the teaching in this video and people who follow it? 1 Corinthians 11: 16 - If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God. Question #2: In the light of what Paul says in this verse, if a teaching is against what Paul exhorts in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 labelling it as "Corinthian culture", is it really a Christian practice and is the practicing church a Church of God? Please think about this! My intention is not to be legalistic, but we should be very careful what we read, interpret and teach others from the Holy Scriptures. May God Bless you all!

Veils and head scarves are way prettier than burkas and hijabs.

@youtubeuser9168

2 жыл бұрын

Veils means burqa and head covering means hijab, it's same!

@benita6442

2 жыл бұрын

@@youtubeuser9168 yes it's the same! I'm a Christian but I wear Hijab 24/7

@benita6442

2 жыл бұрын

It's the same thing

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

2 жыл бұрын

Gotcha. I was just trying to encourage Christian women, because they don’t want to look like Muslims.

@youtubeuser9168

2 жыл бұрын

@@benita6442 nice, I'm a muslim and I wear it too, but not 24 hours, just some hours when we go out for school or job

Of course they should - St. Paul states so expressly in 1 Corinthians 11:3 - however, St. Paul was Jewish and was actually literally imposing a Jewish cultural requirement upon non Jews because of the requirement in Temple or Synagogue to cover the head when before the Divine Presence. But the distinction is that MEN also covered their heads. Chances are that this very same practice was taught, encouraged, and enforced as normal Church etiquette after the manner of Jewish practice. Men would then UNCOVER their heads at the CONSECRATION, and not before, in order to acknowledge the presence of a superior. And that is why men began the practice of uncovering their heads at the consecration and then gradually began the practice of uncovering simply upon entering a Church and that was extended to when men enter any building, especially in the English tradition and as required in US Military practice.

Did you ever do 1 Corinthians 11:4 & 7 about men needing to not cover their heads while praying or prophesying?... I can only find things that relate to women and head coverings...

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

The 'covering' is the hair itself. As for men, the priests of the Old Covenant were required in scripture to wear turbans. This was part of their priestly garments God required them to wear. There is an essay on hair covering regarding women that is several minutes long to read. I'll paste if requested. It should help you understand that the hair itself is the covering.

Crazy how evangelicals will “culturally contextualize” things like this but then say other Pauline teachings are for all time

Head covering is God's instruction, then we have to do it, no excuses...

@matildamaher1505

Жыл бұрын

Correct. I wear a head covering when in church, praying or reading the holy Bible

@lubnaalmok8577

9 ай бұрын

so its only during worships?

@angellicat.n.g2382

Ай бұрын

God is cruel right😢force woman to do what she doesn't want. God is sexist in Bible.

As a Catholic . I have been brought up to use a head covering at church . Some of us used to wear head covering all the time .

First, all the Church Fathers (most of them did NOT live in Corinth) unanimously taught that women were to wear head coverings in a liturgical setting. They did not see it as merely a cultural artifact. Second, later church exegetes such as John Chrysostom, St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas asserted the requirement that women were head coverings in a liturgical setting for all times and all places is what Paul meant. Third, Paul required men to remove their hats in a liturgical setting and having short hair does not lift the obligation. Even contemporary men realize this and automatically remove their hats in prayer, etc. women having long hair does not lift the obligation for them to cover their heads in liturgy. Additionally, very few if any of the women in the Corinthian church would have had short hair. They already had long hair. Hence, if long hair sufficed as a covering then Paul was wasting his breath. Fourth, ALL branches of Christianity held to this practice for men and women until 2nd Wave Feminism impacted the church in mid-20th century. At that point, most Western Christian women stopped but the men did not. Hence, it is pretty obvious Western Christian women follow the culture and not Scripture. Additionally, there are many male apologists for Feminism in the church. I might add, head covering are making a revival in both conservative Catholic and conservative Protestant/Evangelical churches precisely because people see that it is biblical and not strictly cultural.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

To say that the “Church Fathers ...unanimously taught ” is not the same level as biblical evidence. Plus, which church fathers are you invoking here? Also if we were to accept your logic that longevity is a factor since you are claiming that such teaching had been going around for years then by your logic you are referring to the Catholic church since they have a long time existence also. The same church that burned people at the stake, fought in wars, believe in works for salvation, that Mary can save also, practice idolatry, belief in purgatory, that the Pope is infallible, etc. But a “church” can’t be wrong for so long a time, right? Well, this and many other churches have been wrong for a long time about many other doctrines. Or are you going to say that every church or church father, from then until now, were 100 percent correct on every single doctrine? You also seem to want people to accept your personal belief that through the mid-Twentieth Century people began to disobey these precepts when feminism hit the West. I can also make a conclusion that during that time more people were likely getting their hands on the Bible and brushing aside all the false doctrines their “churches” were preaching. Then you name names one of which was John Chrysostom. Now let’s read what Wikipedia says about this guy you seem to be admiring. It says he was an “archbishop” of Constantinople. Ok I don’t recall reading that title in the Bible do you?. But the Catholics do. So looks like he basically followed the Catholic church ways. It says he was honored as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, as well as in some others. How can someone accept the idea that a group of opposing sects can dub or honored someone as “saints” when the Bible already stated that all the true believers were saints? It also says that he was exiled though not clear but according to : “Jennifer Barry suggests that they have to do with his connections to Arianism.” Arianism is the belief that Jesus did not always exist but was begotten/made[c] before "time" by God the Father;[d] therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, And here I am thinking that Jesus always coexisted with the Father according to the Bible. I could go on but I think I made my point. You are putting too much stock in men. Men CAN be wrong and according to a simple search this guy was religious and followed religious doctrines and man-made rituals. You claim that head coverings are making a comeback but I see the exact opposite in fact a whole group of Mennonites broke from their traditions of head covering and we are talking about thousands of people.

@tiffanym663

22 күн бұрын

Yet you believe the canon of Scripture to be God’s Word that the early Catholic Church declared (via guidance of the Holy Spirit). You know nothing about the Catholic Church because your Protestant pride has blinded you. You have watered down the Bible to almost nothing, only what’s to your liking. And your crackers and juice “communion” is utter blasphemy. As if Christ would have instituted that. Your “empty traditions” are what we were warned about long ago. And how arrogant to question the earliest Christians who were taught by the Apostles. Scripture came out of the Church, not vice versa. So glad I got away from these protestant churches that keep God in their little box. By their fruits you shall know them…

(Matthew 28:19) "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Question: Since Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", does this indicate three separate persons? NO! There is only ONE person in the Godhead! I used to be a Trinity Doctrine believer, until God opened my eyes to the truth! Again, Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize, IN THE NAME OF! Thus, what is the name of the Father? Jesus commanded we baptize in the name of the Father, so, the Father must have a name. Let's continue: We know the name of the Son, so I won't even go there. Jesus also commanded baptizm in the NAME of the Holy Ghost! The words 'Holy Ghost' are a TITLE! It is referring to some ONE, or some entity! Thus, the Holy Ghost must have a name, because Jesus commanded baptizm in His name! What then, is the name of the Holy Ghost? What is the name of the Father? Peter was there when Jesus gave the great commission. Was Peter wrong in Acts 2:38, when He commanded baptizm in the NAME of Jesus Christ? NO! He did exactly what Jesus commanded him to do! You will notice, in Matthew 28:19, that there is a comma after the word FATHER, and after the word Son, and after the word Holy Ghost! Does this indicate three separate beings or persons? NO! It indicates that ONE PERSON holds those titles! If you doubt me, read Matthew 28:19 again! IN THE NAME OF. What you people are doing is repeating the words verbatim the words Jesus spoke to His disciples, instead of DOING what Jesus commanded! Let's go to Genesis 1:16. God said, "Let us create man in OUR image....." Who was He talking to? Who helped God create everything, as if He needed help? No one. Not Jesus, and not the Holy Ghost, and not the angels! The angels don't have the power to create anything. So who was God speaking to? Let's read what Isaiah 44:24 says, and then you can decide for yourself: (Isaiah 44:24) "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" God was ALONE, when He created heaven and earth. He did it all BY HIMSELF! If you can't swallow that, rip this verse out of your Bibles! I hope you learned something here, and I await your reply!

@taylorwillis2478

2 жыл бұрын

No one is denying that God is the Creator, it's the people who claim that God made Christ that is the issue. John 1 completely disproves that. Christ always has been and always will be alive.

@rambo_4_christ7

2 жыл бұрын

But trinity doctrine is true. 3 distinct persons that coexist eternally 1 God. We see the Trinity (Godhead) in the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17), The great commission (Matthew 28:19), The benediction (2 Corinthians 13:14), and arguably in Genesis 1:26, 3:22,and Ephesians 4:4-6. All three Persons of the Trinity participated in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6 and Genesis 1:1-2) and in salvation (John 3:6 & 16). All three are responsible for the resurrection of Jesus Christ The Bible indicates that ALL three Persons of the Trinity (Godhead) were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. 1 Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (also in Romans 1:4 and note that Romans 1:8 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (also in John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not to mention The Father is called God (Romans 1:7). The Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and 3:4). The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). Peep 1 Timothy 4:10 points to the Savior being God.

@rambo_4_christ7

2 жыл бұрын

With your mindset you can’t explain John 1

@royaltm3420

2 жыл бұрын

I love what u've written. I'd like to take it a step further. The word God is a title. So what is our God's name? And therefore if we should ask for all things in His name, should we not say His name instead of His title?

@jeftefouani1740

2 жыл бұрын

@@royaltm3420 God reveals himself to Moises his own name as I am ( Exodus 3:14) and the book of revelation just confirming that (Revelation 22:13 NLT -) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

No in a word .

@patprr1756

2 жыл бұрын

@@ServingrKingofGlory What are you babbling on about you clown .

And if your well, going bald? Will God understand this? Bless you and yours

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

He will understand.

Literally when I want to wear a hijab my dad said it goes against his religion

@justinaacuriouswanderer1496

Жыл бұрын

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

@freespiritpearl89

Жыл бұрын

Justina I thought it was the holy spirit that inspired Paul to write?. Why would he follow after others in his time? The bible said it more than twice for men to love their wives like christ love the church. Even said they should give their life up just like Jesus did for the church.

Thank you for showing the verses. However, what you say has no standing. You are putting your own thoughts and the thoughts of others together to justify women's wrongs. I'm not sure if you're doing it for more subscribers, but you need to stop. For you to say that it was specifically for a culture, then that tells everyone that they don't have to follow the full Bible. Only what identifies with their culture. I'm not sure if you know this, but the devil is working through you. You need to pray my brother and repent for the kingdom of God. Peace be upon you.

@Omatimestwo

Жыл бұрын

The devil is not always working through someone just because they believe differently and interpret scripture differently. Stop with that nonsense.

@freespiritpearl89

Жыл бұрын

Women wrongs?

, Muslim women wears ,you want to wear too.

@taylorwillis2478

2 жыл бұрын

It's not about Muslim women, it's about what the Bible tells us Christians to do. Covering was done in the Christian community until the feminism movements, and now hardly no one does it. It's because Christians let their worldly desires be above their faith, simple as that. It's definitely not about wanting to copy Muslims.

@robintang7304

2 жыл бұрын

Critics of the Muslim veiling tradition argue that women do not wear the veil by choice, and they are often forced to cover their heads and bodies. In contrast, many daughters of Muslim immigrants in the West argue that the veil symbolizes devotion and piety and that veiling is their own choice.

@taylorwillis2478

2 жыл бұрын

@@robintang7304 and how is that relevant to what's been said?

@robintang7304

2 жыл бұрын

@@taylorwillis2478 For some, the hijab is worn by Muslim girls and women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia". The Qur'an instructs Muslim women and men to dress modestly.

@taylorwillis2478

2 жыл бұрын

@@robintang7304 and how exactly does that relate to what's been said? Your comment was about Christian women wanting to be like Muslims, which is not true in the slightest.

The Bible has always given a glimpse into the cultures of the days in which it was written. This doesn't lessen the value of what the Bible teaches. It is the inspired Word of God but it cannot be fully separated out from the context in which it was written. My question for those considering headcoverings is, what signified marriage in the day and age in which Corinthians was written? I use ESV as that's the version used at my church. I was always struck by the passages using the word wife. If the passages apply to a wife, logic would say that headcoverings were used to signify marital status. Our present culture and many generations before us transitioned to the wedding ring being the universal symbol of marriage. Can women wear headcoverings? Yes. They can also wear dresses or skirts or pants. Because headcoverings haven't been used to show marital status for ages and ages, it becomes no more relevant than any other outter garb. And the NT encourages believers not to focus on outward adornment. Wear a headcovering . Don't wear a headcovering. Neither has any significance. Just dress modestly and if you're married, keep your wedding rings on! 👍

pray without ceasing cover head when praying. conclusion: cover without ceasing

The guy with a girly pink shirt thinks it’s just a cultural thing.

@precisionbay6899

2 жыл бұрын

Hes a demon

@user-xe6dl9mf1w

Жыл бұрын

Let's not be rude!!!

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

Жыл бұрын

@@user-xe6dl9mf1w It’s rude to tell women to openly dishonor men(women’s head) by not putting on their head coverings.

@user-xe6dl9mf1w

Жыл бұрын

@@jesuscameintheflesh4725 yes but you could have made your point with love and correction 😃

@jesuscameintheflesh4725

Жыл бұрын

@@user-xe6dl9mf1w I really think God had him put that shirt on, because he was dishonoring God’s Word with his false teaching on the passage. It was like God was saying, “If you want to encourage women to not honor the distinction I want to be seen between the genders, I will make you wear the color of the opposite gender.” I feel since the church is so confused about gender, and we’re supposed to be light to the world, the world has become confused about their genders. We’ve been a terrible example to them, and now we have the LGBT epidemic as a result. But, yes, I probably shouldn’t have made that joke, and should of said it differently.

Sad to say but it is odd that people intermix Catholicism with this topic. It is irrelevant if for most of “Christian history”, since the first century A.D. women universally covered their heads. That is because it does not mesh with words described in 1 Corinthians 11. It doesn’t say veils, it doesn’t say cloth and it doesn’t say fabric. All it says is that a woman ought to cover her head. The word cover is a verb not a noun. So the question is what is the noun used to cover the head? According to verse 15 it is long hair. The practice of covering the head with a veil or something like it was never imposed directly or indirectly by the Apostles. That happened after the Bible was written when people started forming churches and denominations and man-made church rules. Like when they meshed the pagan religion with Christian beliefs to form Catholicism. Taking all the former idols to Jupiter and other pagan gods and renaming them with names in the Bible like Peter and Mary. This misinterpretation of veils continued into the modern era. EXACTLY like when people thought that constructing the temples were ok for centuries yet God was upset about that. (See Act 7:47-50) Given this biblical precedent we can understand that this can happen and did happen again. To try to influence this idea one typically must move away from the Bible and refer to moments in time when some women rebelled against wearing a veil. But if one were to really do research, they would find that it was a small groups of women (about 15) that were reemed by a “Catholic” priest in small church in Milwaukee because they did not wear a hat when receiving the blasphemous Eucharist (which Catholic dogma states is the actual body of Christ brought down from heaven by the power endowed to priests). So they staged a protest and went to the godless altar to receive their God now in the form of a wafer (read up on transubstantiation) and now suddenly because of this moment women stopped wearing head coverings. This is the story that head covering believers try to push in order to gain the masses. Not so much about what the Bible states but because of what others did. It doesn’t matter if the Bible says something different but because what the majority of people did whether it be wrong or right. I suppose it doesn’t matter if people hung crucifixes or baptized babies or believed in purgatory or that one has to follow a Pope as long as people believed in that for centuries in the “church” that’s what is important right? Well I am here to tell you it is wrong. There is no “biblical” origin of the chapel veil. Maybe a man-made one after the Bible was written when men began to create all sorts of doctrines and misinterpretation like I just mentioned, but not a scriptural one.

@tiffanym663

22 күн бұрын

Your crackers and juice is the blasphemy. The earliest of Christians always believed in the body and blood of Christ. But stick to your 500-year-old belief system if you wish. The early Christians would not even have considered you a Christian because you do not believe in the body and blood. Your “pastors” set the temperature for you protestants, and never discusses church history because it’s not in line with what they want you to know.

What about women who are single, separated, or divorced? Or widowed. They are not under the authority of a husband so do they need to cover their heads?

@user-iz8np3vv4i

9 ай бұрын

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

9 ай бұрын

You make a great question that most people who believe in wearing something on their heads will not be able to answer. This is one area how the interpretation of wearing a veil or hat on a woman's head fails. From your comment the issue is about who Paul is referring to and some people like to think that Paul was referring ONLY to married couples. This is just an interpretation that can easily be refuted. Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see it is completely made up. Also the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women CAN be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.

I can see many people mixing principles with practices here in the comments

In my church, women cover their head when they pray and /or prophesies, other than that the have their hair as another covering

I think i am starting to get it. If her head is glory to her husband she should keep it covered because it is for him. Just like the veiling of the holy of holys... It cant be on display for all to see. I dont wear a head covering but i think i am going to start in my prayer time.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

3 ай бұрын

I would like to preface this topic by addressing the importance of using the correct version of the Bible. It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the version one is referencing. For example, if we focus on the chapter where this doctrine is almost entirely derived from, 1st Corinthians 11, in the King James Version (KJV) you’ll see the word “cover” where some modern versions have translated it to “veil,” when it shouldn’t. Why? Mainly, because the definition of a “cover” is not exclusively interpreted as a veil, neither a hat nor a bonnet, etc. Some versions also use a variety of other words not found in this passage in the KJV like the words: “symbol,” “sign of authority,” “veiled,” “unveiled,” “public worship,” “wear,” “assembly” etc. Also, some versions use the words “wife” and “husband” whereas the KJV and other Bibles use the words “woman” and “man.” As a result of this some people believe the chapter refers only to married couples, but that is not how it is understood in the KJV. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of this chapter. Therefore, I would like to use the King James Version in this matter, as I have done extensive research about bible versions and have found it to be the strongest and purest version of what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey. In addition, I will be mainly focusing on the woman’s side of this topic and that is because when it comes to head coverings the focus is usually on how women ought to wear something on their heads whereas men do not. But I will interject a quick discussion on the men’s side of this because there are false beliefs surrounding this topic for them as well. * The verse that pretty much started it all… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

As a Muslim i am concerned about Christianity becouse everyone is editing God's law. This for that culture this is for this culture who said that? God's law is for every time and place. If God says do it, you have to do it, if God said not to do it, you don't have to do it, that's it, don't try to find contradicting verses to Ignore God's law.

🧕 does this mean hijabs are not just for muslims ?

@lauracheeverauthor

Жыл бұрын

Christian headcovering predates Islam headcovering by about 700 years, so no, they're not just for Muslims. ☺️ That being said, the passage in 1 Corinthians doesn't say anything about covering your neck/chest, or even that every strand of hair needs to be covered, so we don't necessarily need to wear a scarf that covers as much as a hijab. My headcovering is often my husband's baseball cap because he takes it off to pray and I put it on lol.

@KH-hc6sy

Жыл бұрын

Hijabs are just for Muslims

Given the cover photo, I was disappointed to not see a woman discussing this topic. I pray for a future where we have a more diverse, representative church leadership body. Otherwise, good information shared.

To all, I recommend Cynthia Westfall's hermeneutical study of these passages in the book Paul and Gender. Being the "head of" is more likely to mean source, like headwaters, and yes woman was taken from man as Paul clearly states, and this was contrary to the godless myths and false teachings that Paul was countering in these passages. This is Pauline theology underscoring why Christ was the only one that could save mankind. Adam sinned knowingly and, as Eve's source, all of humanity fell when he sinned. Fun fact, the term "a symbol of" is not in the Greek (why was this not addressed in the video?), and that passage can be read a woman has authority over her literal head (the Greek is epi). This is why Paul stated nevertheless woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman, which clearly shows he had affirmed woman's authority for self-modesty because he put in this qualifier. Veiling was a sign of modesty and sexual unavailability in a world where high class men could pretty much have their way with low class people, and it is more rational to believe that the church was struggling with class division and the objection to women veiling who were lower class but wanted to be modest, versus the demand that unveiled women veil. Doesn't logic and knowledge of human behavior to protect one's own place in society make this highly plausible? This is akin to Peter's letter that mentions women not making their beauty about ornate hairdos and costly jewelry. Additionally, there is no evidence that veiling is required for angels to understand order. Rather, it is more plausible that it refers back to one of Paul's preceding statements in 1 Corinthians 6:3 in which he mentions that believers will one day judge the angels and therefore are able to decide trivial matters now, including spirit-filled women This passage supports that female believers are able to decide matters of modesty so that they do not bring shame to themselves, to their husbands/fathers, or to God the Father. The application today is modesty and not calling attention to oneself in worship. The odd woman veiling or wearing a hat would have the opposite affect and call attention in today's culture. Having said all this, I know some will disagree because the hierarchical view has been so ingrained (and indeed Jesus warned about believers lording over others as the gentiles do), but to you I simply say - let us be convinced in our own minds based on the study of scripture.

I believe in hair covering too but what if you’re single? Are you still supposed to cover?

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

29 күн бұрын

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 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.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

29 күн бұрын

* Why do some say these passages refer only to married people? Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see, this idea is completely made up. As noted earlier the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found in the King James Bible but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to and will use their modern versions to prove that. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case and the likely reasons why the translators thought best to translate it this way. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.” If you try to replace the word woman with wife or man with husband, you will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts. You will also have to deal with the logical implications of this idea in that all single men CAN wear a covering, or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Some have mentioned in KZread comments about “submission” for example: “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word “submission” or “husband” or “symbol” in this passage (KJV) yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before it would not make sense. Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to claim that they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the entire context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.

I'm old enough to remember women wearing hats or veils to church when I was a child. It was quite universal back then in the 50's and 60's. I remember one young lady who forgot to wear a head covering and before she entered the church, she asked her male companion for his handkerchief, which she then placed on top of her head. Apparently, people took this quite seriously in those days, both Protestant' and Catholics. They dressed much better for church too, wearing their "Sunday Best," as they called it. In my world travels, I see women still covering their heads in some cultures and in some sects at home. 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." indicates how binding and important traditions delivered by the Apostles are But it seemed to fade about the time of the rise of feminism. A coincidence?

So “context” and “culture” applies to this but not to “women pastors” I just saw this video and it sounds contradictory

@user-iz8np3vv4i

9 ай бұрын

A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered. ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB

He keeps saying wives wearing covering. What if you're not married? Don't wear a covering?

Please view on you tube: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: Head Covering Debate: The Greater Glory Revealed: Parts 1-8

It is odd that this is even a question worth asking. For most of Christian history, since the first century A.D. women universally covered their heads as described and stated explicitly in 1 Corinthians. This was a practice imposed directly by the Apostles upon all churches established by them and continued to the modern era. In the west it was the communist Betty Friedan who expertly used Christian sentimentality about justice against ill informed Christian women by saying that a chapel veil was a sign that the Catholic Church taught the intrinsic inferior status of women, and that women should throw away their veils to be equal with men. But the origin of the chapel veil was Jewish, and stems from the original practice in which men and women covered their heads before the divine presence, and it was a sign of reverence, not inferiority. Early Christians believed the Lord's supper was endowed with the Divine Presence, Holy Communion, and thereby Christians who were Jews at the beginning, maintained the practice they had learned in temple and synagogue.

Then why does 1 cor 11:13 say “ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” It’s not talking about the husband here. It’s talking about prayer to God.

@xgupdate2022

4 ай бұрын

You are right that it is not talking about the husband here and yes it is talking about prayer to God. It should also be noted that it is asking us to make a judgment call in that if it is proper or as the KJV phrases it "comely" (pleasing in appearance) that a woman pray to God with her head uncovered? This is a judgment based on observation. So what makes a woman unpleasing in appearance the lack of a hat? or the lack of hair? For if long hair is the covering then to be uncovered means to have short hair. Therefore if a woman is not covered in long hair (in other words has short hair) it is obvious that it would make a woman look unpleasing. The lack of a hat wouldn't.

God's Word doesn't change. It is simple to understand. By this apologist's argument, everything is relative to culture. Example: When addressing the stoning of the adulteress, Jesus was addressing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees of the time. Since infidelity is common today, Jesus wasn't prohibiting adultery. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. ~Romans 12:2

And what if your not married?

@user-iz8np3vv4i

Жыл бұрын

Married or not, it doesn't matter. (I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

6 ай бұрын

* Why do some say these passages refer only to married people? Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see it is completely made up. As noted earlier the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” On this topic someone once mentioned about “submission” for example “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word submission in this topic yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before would not make sense, not to mention the idea of submission which they somehow wrongfully included in this passage. Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.

The vast majority of all Christians throughout the history of the church have held the doctrine of a physical vail or head covering , along with modesty as well. To this day, most churches still practice this, just not in the liberal western and feminest cultures. A little bit of research will make this plain to those who want to know. Don't get me wrong, I am a subscriber of this channel, and really apreciate their work!

At 3:10, Got Questions states that "to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the culture at large." - yet, that is exactly what feminists did in 1970 with the Easter Bonnet Rebellion, organized by the NOW (National Organization for Women). They stated that the covering was a "symbol of oppression" and urged women in churches everywhere to dispense with the coverings in an effort to show they were equal in all ways to men. If that is not a textbook example of rebellion against God's ordained gender roles, Got Questions, then I don't know what is.

@JohnYoder-vi1gj

6 ай бұрын

The problem with your theory is that it is irrelevant to the scriptures. The scriptures in 1st Cor. 11 are not referring to a hat or veil but the topic is about women having to cover their heads with long hair and men to not do that in other words keep their hair short. God is not caring about a woman wearing something or not on their heads. This idea is completely due to a few who have misinterpreted Paul's words.

So I’m Christian, more so nondenominational, I just follow the Bible, not a specific religion, cause some have beliefs that’s actually go against the Bible. I’ve been in search for the full truth, and this has been something I’m trying hard to figure out, if I should wear one or not. I honestly think the idea is nice, I’d love to wear one, but i wanna make sure God would be okay with me wearing one and if I don’t am I disobeying God.

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

8 ай бұрын

Ok I would like to offer my tiny thesis on this which is only based on bible. If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

8 ай бұрын

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7

I've just started to listening to online bible teachings and I must say, I will stick to reading on my own. There's a video that's more or less on the same topic but it was asking if it's right for a man to have long hair. Then I thought about the picture of Jesus. He and his disciples had long hair!!! If God did not want men to have long hair, I don't think men's hair would naturally grow long. This is why there are physical features you don't find in men but you find in women. Women do not naturally have beard, there are very few of them who do, but it is hormonal. I know it's not a topic under discussion here but I'm raising it to show confusing some of these teachings are, especially online. They break one's spirit

,we must connect to Almighty with our concience and not with a head cover .

I am scared with this interpretation. Paul has never at any point taught about culture. He only taught about Christ crucified. Even in this verse he states that the reason for the covering is because of the Angels. Not because of culture. I am interested to know if the conclusion that this verse doesn't refer to the literal covering of the head whether it is also the case with men such that a man can pray, preach prophesy etc with his hat on

@user-iz8np3vv4i

10 ай бұрын

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************

@defendingthegospel721

10 ай бұрын

He not only mentioned something briefly about angels but about the order of creation in that man was created first then the woman. So yes it cannot be cultural. But Paul's references over hair over and over gets sidelined by those who interpret covering as a veil. It[s like it doesn't matter if long hair was written twice or that the words shorn and shaven were also written twice. Or that Paul asks to us to make a judgment call based on observation as though we should already recognize that a woman without a veil looks wrong somehow. Was Paul assuming that everyone can innately or naturally see something wrong with a woman without a veil? Or was he saying that it is obvious that we can see something wrong when a woman is not covered in long hair especially when doing something holy or godly like praying? A woman praying with a manly haircut does look off doesn't it?

how long hair for a man is actually long? 😢.. I have afro hair but they are long 3cm if stretched up.. I used to have hair covering my forehead. But people with dreads what about them? ugh.. this is so confusing.. God should have sent rules more concisely to be fair 😅

@MarthaM-xq6sv

2 ай бұрын

You make a very good point. Though men's hair and women's hair is apparently different. If your ancestry is African - do you know if culturally men and women's hair was worn differently? In any case the head covering is not her hair I believe but a fabric covering indicating man is the head of woman.

@user-iz8np3vv4i

2 ай бұрын

There are more important things in Christianity than the hair. I tried to get a haircut last week, but couldn't get an appointment until the next week. Not going to worry about that. Generally, women should have longer hair. Generally, men should have shorter hair. The main takeaway is to understand, as you do, that no fabric covering was required in the Old Covenant, or the New.

@robertmiller812

29 күн бұрын

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11, The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Why wouldn't Paul simply have bucked the culture if this was only a cultural phenomenon coming from the pagan Greeks? Would it have been such a hard thing for Paul to say that head coverings are great now, but it's really only the submission from the heart that matters. Further, wouldn't this simply be promulgating a misogynistic conception (if this was indeed the case) since it presents an unnecessary burden on women but not men, or is it when our culture has a belief concerning gender hierarchies we should adopt it wholesale? It seems these are not arguments Paul is presenting but ad hoc and post facto apologetics.

The Bible says only when praying

Aside from the headship order mentioned it is clear that the point is that one should keep the custom of women wearing long hair and men short hair. It is not about a foreign object on the head of a woman. The Covering is long hair. To say it is anything else is to read more into what it is saying.

Every Christain answer is - Yes'nt

A woman still to this day need to not cut their hair. It still stands just as back then n its not a personal choice

If todays culture I know you’d aid a head covering is a submission to their husband but can it simply be a submission to god for an unmarried woman