Women and head coverings.

[@RandallvanOosten-ln5wf]

Good show that includes lots of good information. However, I believe you are wrong in regard to head coverings for women. Without providing detailed references I will list a number of reasons why St. Paul really intended Christian women to wear head coverings in a church setting. 1. Though Paul writes about short and long hair, what he says about hair is only illustrative of his main points: Men are to uncover their heads at key moments in worship and women are to cover them. The issue does not just apply to women. 2. If the head covering was optional then it would not have been the standard practice of all branches of Christianity until the rise of 2nd Wave Feminism. It is seen as optional because of the resistance coming from Feminism. 3. All of St. Pauls essential reasoning about head coverings (for women) and uncovered heads (for men) is rooted in creation and not culture. This includes man was created first, woman was created for man, man is the head of woman, a woman's head is the glory of her husband, etc. None of these things are cultural artifacts. 4. St. Paul seems to indicate that the angels, who guard God's glory, are offended when men cover their heads when praying or speaking in church. Likewise the angels are offended when a woman uncovers her head (exposing her husbands "glory" before God) in church. Both are an offense against God's glory. Men tend to intuitively understand this when they take their hats off when praying. Christian women, though, have been highly impacted by 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminism so they do not think it necessary to cover their heads. This impact of Feminism also can be seen in that women are not taught to "obey" their husbands even though both Paul and Peter write that they should.

[@abbydab123]

i agree with you - what do you think about single women? im a 31 year old single woman and feel convicted to cover my head during corporate prayer and worship

[@RandallvanOosten-ln5wf]

@@abbydab123 This is anecdotal, but I am on staff at an Evangelical mega-church. Last Sunday, two women put scarfs on their heads in the service (which is your typical lights-and-smoke, contemporary Evangelical service). One is a single woman who converted from Islam about two years ago. She is a very gentle and, yet, elegant person. I did not know the other woman, but she was the only woman in that whole service with a head covering. My point is that you should do as your conscience dictates, even if you are the only one. In Eastern Orthodox churches both married and single women wear veils. At Catholic Traditional Latin Masses, married women usually wear black or dark veils and single women wear white veils.

[@paulpreston6701]

In my opinion, single women should do it as well. Until you are married, your father takes on the same role, from a hierarchy standpoint, as your husband will in the future. Also, regardless of what Paul was saying, all women are told to be modest. Covering your head is one more way of being modest. I do not believe a man can or should force a woman to cover, and I would never try. But I do think women should cover, as and when the Bible states

[@YeshuaMessiah777]

YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual. How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen? The head covered has zero to do with anything on her head or hair, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew, to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow. Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven. The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔

[@YeshuaMessiah777]

​@@abbydab123YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual. How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen? The head covered has zero to do with anything on her head or hair, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew, to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow. Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven. The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔

[@robertmiller812]

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.

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

John Calvin taught that headcovering was the cornerstone of modesty for Christian women and held that those who removed their veils from their hair would soon come to remove the clothing covering their breasts and that covering their midriffs, leading to societal indecency.

[@robertmiller812]

Thanks for mentioning this he sounds like a loon. Nothing he said that you mentioned are biblically true.

[@JohnYoder-vi1gj]

@@robertmiller812 Yes good to know. Sounds as if John was trying his best for people to follow his interpretation by stoking the idea that it would lead to something far fetched as uncovering the breasts simply because one doesn't walk around with a veil. I wonder what other crazy things he may have said.

[@jeffrachelburkhalter3783]

And it's so much worse than he imagined.

[@robertmiller812]

@jeffrachelburkhalter3783 That part is true. But obviously not because a woman doesn't wear a veil or hat.

[@jeffrachelburkhalter3783]

@@robertmiller812 Feminism is leaven. Casting off the veil is rebellion.

[@YeshuaMessiah777]

"christ-mass" this is a good start in understanding what we do in December. Deut. 12:29 Deut. 4:9 Deut. 18:9 Galatians 8:4 and 1 Cor. 10 is a direct reference to Exodus 32:5 Heres scripture, the catholic church adopted the ways of the heathen with their traditions and lunar and solar observances. We cannot Christianize pagan traditions and apply them to worshipping God. I don't understand why people can't see that, ask Google, you out of all people I thought would've seen this by now. It's not the way He wants to be remembered, this stuff is tied to child sacrifice to Satan, happens everyday people just don't see it, like for example abortion clinics are temples of child sacrifice to Ba'al in a modern look hidden in plain sight. God still sees it then and He sees it now and people don't care how they live, yet they proclaim the name of Yeshua. I love you all. EASTER IS NO EXCUSE, my Bible says that was Passover, which is the 1st week after the spring equinox, message me if you want to know more. Amen.

[@TerryChambers7]

“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;” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭15‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

[@robertmiller812]

Well said thank you for being faithful to the scriptures.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

Culture, culture, culture, bla, bla, bla... The word "culture" is not used by Paul. It is not about hebrew culture, Not about greek culture, Not about roman culture, It is all about HEAVENLY culture. Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 11:5: But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is one and the same as if she were shaven. She dishoners her head. From context we see her head is the man. 1 Corinthians 11:3: 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

[@Bringbackheadcovering]

Amen yes!!!

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@Bringbackheadcovering Head covering from 1Cor.11 and beeing subject to the husband from Ephesians 5 fit together. Ephesians 5:24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. That way a women is victorious over the devilish spirits of feminism and genderism. 1 Timothy 2:12: But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter This comment is long. Much longer than Paul's teaching in 1.Cor. The author covers Paul's words by his word. That is what unbelievers and "pastors" do. Ofcourse should a woman praying in church cover her head. Ofcourse should a married woman submit to her husband. Ofcourse is Adam created before Eva. Silly questions come from the serpant.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

@@bernhardbauer5301This comment is too short with no explanation. That is what unbeliever's and pastors do also. They keep it short so as to not be able to explain in detail and keep the masses in check in ignorance. Of course a woman does NOT need to cover their head if she were praying in church or any other place. Church is not mentioned in the passage but you want to make it relevant. Of course a married woman should submit to her husband who ever said otherwise? Why even mention this unless you are looking for filler? Of course Adam was created before Eve why again are you even mentioning this? I never questioned this so why are you bringing up that topic? You are a very strange person. You obviously didn't read my essay and offer no detailed explanations and apparently because in your mind that is like a sin to explain things. You seem to want people to accept your interpretation without any critical thinking like cults do. You seem to either be in a cult or have created your own little cult in your mind that blocks critical thinking.

[@angelajoy6789]

I really don't understand how the bible believing church comes to this conclusion. It saddens me. First, this passage was praising the Corinthians for practicing this instruction. V16 shows that all the churches practiced head covering and men not covering. That the churches were not contentious about it. Second, it is clear that there are 2 coverings from the Greek and try replacing the covering in most of the passage with hair. It makes zero sense. There is no mention of modesty here nor of hair being up. Corinthian prostitutes having anything to do with believing women covering (or men not covering) is not mentioned nor is there historical evidence of such. Add in almost 2000 yrs of church history. I suggest taking a look at the work of Jeremy Gardner. He breaks down all of the scripture as I just highlighted a a few things to consider. Do we really think that if we bring back the practice, women will exit the church? Are we so prideful that we can not obey this simple instruction? Why do we hold what the reformers did in such high esteem and then ignore what they taught on this passage? Are you saying they were wrong in this? Please take a closer look. Be willing to tell us women that we should cover our heads. Trust that the faithful will remain faithful.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@angelajoy6789]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter It makes no sense if long hair is the covering Paul is referring to. A little phrase replacement helps. "but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (short hair) dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven".... "If a woman will not cover/ 'have long hairdoesn't make logical sense for the hair to be the covering Paul is referring to.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

​@@angelajoy6789 You say that this makes no sense but what veil promoters have told me makes less sense. Veil promoters have literally stated that Paul (and likely others at the time) viewed unveiled women as though they were shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Why would anyone think that a woman, who typically has long hair, be equated to being shaved if they simply did not wear a veil? It doesn’t make sense and when confronted the typical response is that that is just the way it should be accepted. To them, it simply doesn’t matter if it seems illogical. So, let’s follow the logic of verse 5 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. Looking at this woman would you really think that you are looking at someone who is shaved, just because she is not wearing a veil? Do you really think Christians really looked at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem unrealistic and odd? But if “uncovered” means “short hair” like a typical man’s haircut, then it would make much more sense. It seems more feasible that a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) is likened to being “shaven” than someone who has long hair and without a veil. Don't you think? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal (or “likened”) to being shaved as veil promoters claim. I am almost always shocked when people don’t understand how their view is more unrealistic and illogical.

[@angelajoy6789]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter They say if a woman doesn't wear a veil during prayer or prophecy it is as if she were shaved because it's WHAT PAUL SAID lol. They aren't promoting the idea, Paul is. He is making an equivalence statement. He was saying that if a woman goes about unveiled in prayer in prophecy, it holds the same shame of being shaven or shorn. Even today, the idea of being shaven or shorn makes most women cringe. That is how strong Paul is stating it. A woman who doesn't veil in prayer in prophecy is so shamed (spiritually at least); as if she had her head shaved. Paul said what he did and it's inspired by the Holy spirit and our pride keeps us from accepting it.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

@@angelajoy6789 Paul never said any such thing. Perhaps you are reading from some modern version of the Bible. Ok so here is the proof from the KJV. 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. Paul said veil? Where is the word veil? Do you see that because I don't? When does the word uncovered ever meant to be not covered in a veil? This is adding to the Word of God. You say there is an equivalency statement here and yes I agree in that a woman who is not covered in long hair (aka short hair) is likened to being shaved. So where my understanding makes sense becaue there is little hair your understanding is regardless if the woman has LONG flowing hair as long as she is not with a veil she is equivalent to being shaved. LOL now that is hilarious. And I agree again that Paul said this about women with short hair was inspired by the Holy spirit and that pride keeps us from accepting it. But I would guess not only pride in your case but perhaps the sect that you belong to might have something to do with that as well.

[@PlagueNurseOpal]

I have a hard time following the “temple prostitute” argument… because I don’t see it argued in scripture. .. I see creation used as the basis. I have a hard time following that hair is a covering alone when most Christian cultures around the world and through out history have supported women wearing head coverings in one way or another.

[@robertmiller812]

Well let's first look at the basis of your argument in that because there "existed Christian cultures around the world and throughout history" that this is a reason you would have a hard time believing hair to be a covering alone. Now, your previous sentence was logically reasonable in that you read in the Bible that creation is a basis (or a reason) against the “temple prostitute” argument… and that because you didn't see it argued in scripture. So the first sentence was evidence through scripture the second sentence is evidence not by scripture but by how many people practiced a doctrine for a long space of time in history. If that were the foundation of how to judge something to be true then the RC's would gleefully be in agreement with you. As they have practiced many strange and distorted doctrines for centuries and by millions of people in their churches (purgatory, infant baptism, popery, ecumenicism, worshiping or venerating saints, use of rosaries or crucifixes, etc). One can even read in the Scriptures how the practice of a belief (eg temple building) by God's people for a long period of time does not equate to truth (Acts 7:47-52) though God allowed it to happen. Given the logic and scripture cited we must not assume that what people practiced were truly biblical doctrines.

[@PlagueNurseOpal]

@@robertmiller812 I appreciate your response and agree with you on the basis of truth being based on Gods word and not on history alone.

[@PlagueNurseOpal]

@@robertmiller812 I’ve heard it argued that feminism in America is the reason why women in America stopped wearing coverings in the 50’s and wore them up until then.. this of course isn’t scripture .. but I think it’s a pretty big deal. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think if all Christians around the world throughout history (not just the RC) have interpreted this verse as “wear a covering” .. that an argument that argues for no covering without scriptural basis should raise some red flags? Do you think the argument given using “temple prostitutes” to support no fabric covering may be wrong with this assumption? Especially with as hostile as the political left and egalitarians are toward submission AND head coverings?

[@robertmiller812]

@@PlagueNurseOpal As you correctly noted that some have argued that feminism in the 50’s is a reason why “some” women stopped wearing them in America isn’t scriptural, therefore we can only go so far as to how one, as a Christian, should take this. Because I think it is evident that many women who chose to wear something “in general” were not doing so because they were following scripture. If we look back, for many it was worn more for a fashion statement and it showed others what class you were in. Looking back, you will find a slew of them wore big elaborate hats and not a simple veil. So, in essence it was more for vanity rather than showing alleged submission or they were holding onto alleged biblical doctrines. Ok so here is the quick version that occurred in 1968 and not the 50’s which you can google called the Easter Bonnet Rebellion. In 1968, the NOW task force called for a “National Unveiling” to protest the Catholic tradition of requiring women to cover their heads in church. A protest took place on the following Easter at a Milwaukee RC church after a “priest” criticized a woman for her uncovered head. That’s when 15 women with outrageously large hats on approached the communion rail, removed their hats (in protest), and received communion, aka the Eucharist (look up transubstantiation). So that supposedly sparked something which allegedly caused many women to stop wearing hats. But this they did because they believed it would hurt the Catholic church which was their main focus. But in the end neither the RC church nor any other church who interpreted the verses in question as synthetic coverings, properly understood Paul’s teaching. What I believe was always lacking “across the board” in churches of all kinds is scriptural verification and confirmation on a doctrine or belief. Red flags should have been up a long time ago when people began splintering into different denominations, but even today very few people bat an eye on the number of denominations. Yet no one seems to care or remember that we are not supposed to create divisions (see 1st Corinthians 1:10-13). We are all supposed to be in the same mind and judgment, not embrace the differences like some ecumenical hippie gathering. Sirens should have been going off for years when suddenly preachers were taking wages to preach the gospel, and nobody stood up and said anything. (Matt 10:8) The creation of unbiblical church titles and rules. The misuse of the OT tithing that was solely food to give before the Lord then given to the Levites in the OT but has been horribly converted to money and that people are to allegedly supposed to continue and that somehow churches were the receivers of this money. Where in the Bible is that? Reading Malachi won’t help (as some point to) because it proves it was food. Jesus confirmed it in the NT (Matt 23:23). (1 Tim 6:10) How is it if we are all supposed to be following the Word of God, yet when one reads 1 Corinthians 14:23-31 and doesn’t see this happening in wherever place they go to, that one cannot logically assume that most if not all churches are not following this standard. There is so much more that I can’t write it all down. So I hope you can perhaps understand that churches in general have deviated from the Scriptures in so many ways. People today seem not to care anymore about these and other deviations because the diversity of beliefs, the creation of man-made regulations and churches are so huge, that, I assume, people think it is too big to do anything about it. So given all this and more I hope you will excuse me if I do not find it strange that many churches have followed similar beliefs on head coverings.

[@ChrisTisking12256]

@@robertmiller812You make some good points, while obfuscating others. 1. The christian church (churches) collective, have what you will has maintained head coverings as proper for close to the entirety of the Church till roughly 200 years ago. To break from this is breaking from history, not the inverse. 2. Your final argument seems to be apathy because there’s so many regulations. While I can respect how you got there, please don’t try and use apathy to dictate whether one should try and do what’s right. That’s a bit deceitful and arrogant. It’s either required or not required. That is the question. The question is not whether or not the scriptural mandates seem to convoluted to follow. That is an argument from the serpent

[@ChrisTisking12256]

It’s always a blackpill seeing christian leaders succumbing to the idea that a mandate, this is a mandate entirely or not one at all, is optional…

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

Head coverings, Head coverings, Head coverings, bla, bla, bla... The word "Head coverings” or “veil" is not used by Paul. It is not about Hebrew culture, Not about Greek culture, Not about Roman culture, It is all about what the BIBLE states. Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Therefore, if covering is long hair then being uncovered means not having long hair ergo short hair But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (NOT COVERED IN LONG HAIR) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. Makes sense because a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) would be like someone shaved. Otherwise the logic of a woman without a hat being the same as shaved makes no sense.

[@defendingthegospel721]

Amen

[@john146istheonlyway8]

Let’s hear what God says about head coverings. 1 Cor 11 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 New American Standard Bible 1995 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that [a]Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of [b]Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman [c]whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover [d]her head, let her also [e]have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to [f]have her hair cut off or [g]her head shaved, let her cover [h]her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man [i]does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman [j]independent of man, nor is man [k]independent of woman. 12 For as the woman [l]originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things [m]originate from God. 13 Judge [n]for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no [o]other practice, nor have the churches of God. Notice verse 2 he says the traditions he gave them, who, The Church…. He gives examples to the CHURCH. Correction, God’s Word is timeless. Read the chapter, and pray on this…. Wretched again letting down the Word of God. He just skates over this carelessly and trusting in others rather than submitting to the Word of God.

[@robertmiller812]

May I suggest that you read that passage in the KJV? You will get a better understanding as to what Paul was really saying about the topic of covering the head.

[@David-ul4l]

Read the real truth, with Bible verses: Please view on you tube: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: Head Covering Debate: The Greater Glory Revealed: Parts 1-8

[@YeshuaMessiah777]

YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual. How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen? The head covered has zero to do with anything on her head or hair, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew, to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow. Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven. The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔

[@godswarriors7543]

Should a man wear a head covering? Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man. The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son. A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve. If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority. A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for. To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it.

[@robertmiller812]

I noticed that you are all over the place trying to push the idea that men should wear a head covering except when in church. To be honest you are not going to get too many converts here not even from the legalistic head covering movement who only care that women wear something. But I see from your comment that you have several flaws in your logic. First of all you are under the mistaken idea that “…women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse…” Nowhere in Scripture are you going to find that idea, especially if you read from the KJ version. In that version it never uses the word spouse or wife or husband. Paul’s teaching was meant for everyone both married and single. Proof of which is in verses 8-9 when it mentions the reason a man should not be covered and that a woman should be is because he is the image and glory of God that woman came from man (order of creation). Therefore, this is more than enough proof that this is not concerning one’s marital status. You also make a non-scriptural reason that because the woman is covered so also should the man be covered to “show they need to submit to God”. This is definitely not taken from any scripture. You seem to be making things up as you go. You seem to have created a doctrine that if the man “…has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering…” But there is no scripture that backs this up so I don’t understand why you would even say this? Then for some reason you have taken Deut. 6:8-9 and arbitrarily combined that with Jesus saying that one should keep his words, even when there is no reason to connect the two. Then you make another doctrine that “To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.” This is borderline heretical that you are imposing a doctrine that if a man does not wear a hat or veil or whatever it is you are thinking that he has not chosen to serve Jesus. This is a cause for concern because not only are you making up a doctrine, but you are playing with God’s plan of salvation. I seriously suggest that you repent of this folly as you have no proof to back up your claim and the enemy is playing with your mind. I will be praying for you.

[@ChristmySavior3]

Love my boy Todd but bad take tbh.