Absolutely- they’re all linked in the community tab so you can bookmark the class page for easy access! Visit here and you’ll see all community posts available to you for your subscription level. This week’s with the links should be the 2nd post. :) www.youtube.com/@HeavenlyMindedHome/community

Absolutely- they’re all linked in the community tab so you can bookmark the class page for easy access! Visit here and you’ll see all community posts available to you for your subscription level. This week’s with the links should be the 2nd post. :) www.youtube.com/@HeavenlyMindedHome/community

@@OrchidScent Grace and peace to you. Paul says this about the things which he's writing in this letter..... I Corinthians 14:37-38 [37] If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. [38] But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. These are commandments from Christ, and those who are prophets or spiritual would recognize that.

@@marriage4life893 Wearing a headcover is not in everyday use, but only during prayer.

@@OrchidScent Some women will wear it all day, and others only during prayer and prophecy. Either way, it's a command from Christ, not Paul's thoughts and opinions.

@@marriage4life893 But it is not a command from god to wear it everyday like Islam. Right?

@@OrchidScent The passage instructs men to uncover and women to cover for prayer and prophecy. This letter was written 600 years before Islam ever existed.

I would like to add my two cents here. 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. Regarding your observation that it is easier for women to wear a hat or veil that is because most, not all, are complacent or just willing to take an order without care as to its veracity. Men on the other hand tend to, not all, want to be sure and review a matter before signing up, you see.. So real question should be is if this "timeless principal" as you mentioned is really about an artificial covering or something else based only on Scripture. 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.

@@robertmiller812 Do you just copy-paste this essay in every comment section on this topic? Anyway, looks like you deliberately take my words to a direction I didn't intend. You are trying to make me look like I'm proving some false doctrines, while I'm actually sharing observations and personal experience. Would you say it is wrong for a woman to veil if she wants to? I haven't stated that I find a cloth cover to be mandated, but you still try to prove me wrong on something I didn't even say. As for what I said as "timeless principle" - you either misunderstood or intentionally misinterpret my words; this phrase was referred to the whole Bible, rather than 1 Cor. 11 only Just an example for clarification: "1Tim 2:9: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." Has modesty changed? I don't think so. It isn't something measurable, but rather a state of soul; if a woman is keen to be modest, it will result in certain way of apperance. The principle of modesty is timeless, same as love, respect, God fearing. All those behaviours can be summerised by only one measure - the more, the better. You can't be too modest or too loving. Now, if we imply this idea to 1 Cor. 11, the timeless principle in this scripture is the hierarchy of God - Christ - man - woman. From creation to this day did something changed? "a woman is for the man, not a man for the woman" That's a timeless principle. The order of creation sets the authority of the husband over the wife, and hair length is what differs men from women, what is appropriate for each one.

@@Kot1026 I like to think that I am doing my part to help others in this matter and if they wish to respond then I will do so. Think of it as giving out a Christian flyer it may be the same wording but eventually someone will want to talk. I have mentioned in many other comments that I have no qualms about a woman wearing a hat or veil or bonnet if she wants to. But unfortunately there are some who think they HAVE to or proclaim that every woman must wear a veil. That is where we ALL should draw the line not just me but you as well. So you are claiming that I misunderstood you because you were “actually sharing observations and personal experience.” These are your words that you are basing my reply on. I want you to remember them because I am going to share with you by your own words that this is not exactly true. “if you're a man reading this, then you're ought not to cover your head, nor to grow long hair, and for women it's written to cover, to have long hair.” Now clearly you are claiming that the man ought to cover his head and also not to grow long hair. Now it is possible that you mistakenly made it seem like two different things but on the surface you are making it seem like two different things. When covering the head IS about growing out long hair. So maybe you didn’t write the word “cloth” yet anyone reading this will naturally assume you are not only talking about long hair but a covering that one would assume to be artificial. As for the woman part in your sentence that is more vague and could mean that a woman’s covering is long hair. But given the previous distinction about men then it is not wrong to assume that you were separating long hair from being covered with an item. So this part is not about observation or experience but and outright claim of something all men and women are to do. Now I will take back the "timeless principle" that I mentioned as it could mean something else. For that I do apologize. I do like your clarification by mentioning: "1Tim 2:9: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." Because one commentator put it in another video. How is it that if a woman is supposed to be covered yet Paul mentions seeing broided hair which implies not all women were covering their heads. Just wanted to add to that as it reminded me of the comment and helps to show that veiling was not likely a doctrine. Not that I am saying that you are saying that, just to be clear. Also, I think for the most part I think you are correct, particularly about obeying the husband unless it is sinful like you said, except for what I mentioned before and one more part when you stated: “my understanding of this scripture is that hair doesn't count as a cover” Yet the Bible states: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” Q: what was given to woman? A: Her hair, particularly long hair Q: For what reason? A: for a covering So that is pretty much all that is needed to be said, don’t you think? If God gave woman her long hair to cover her head for a covering then why would long hair not be logical thing to cover her head? A woman should cover her head with long hair and a man should not be covered in long hair meaning it should be short. So just to reiterate it is all fine for me if anyone wants to wear a hat or bonnet or scarf or veil. But as believers we should know if there is a doctrine in this or not because if there is one should preach it BUT if it isn’t then one should lovingly clarify the error. We are here to EDIFY the church not just let allow people to believe whatever they want to believe when you know the facts. That’s what brothers and sisters are supposed to do help understand and become edified in the word.

@@robertmiller812 Ok, I see where you go. By "observations and personal experience" what I mentioned is just the practice in our church; I have explained that it's actually not like what you just said, that some claim women HAVE to wear a cloth or something, and I even went further by sharing examples of some women including my own wife and mother that decided for THEMSELVES to wear a cloth cover. I did actually say that I don't find the scripture saying 100% that hair = cover, but on the same breath, I am not going around telling women "you must put a veil" because, as I also said in regard to obedience - that's up to every couple to decide. I liked that response of one pastor on that, a very short answer that summerise pretty well: "I don't think we should understand it hyperliterally, and it's not sinful, if you don't (cover with a cloth)" As I said myself, I'm not claiming that it's a matter of sin, so either way a woman is not sinning, but she might sin by disobeying her husband. I think we can agree that the secondary thing (head cover) becomes pointless if the primary thing (obedience) isn't fulfilled. God bless.

@@Kot1026 I appreciate the comment and clarification. I am for the most part pleased on the question that doctrinal mandates on veiling is not an issue. God bless and have a good night.

Receive it as a gift. 😄 Quite a huge blessing for us considering what all we do- I'm very thankful to have been gifted this a couple years ago!

I was always an android user and my mom upgraded and gave me her I phone! And added me to her plan so we are also saving bc it’s 20 a month instead of 40 now! Very thankful!