The beast that goes into Perdition

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, gdemoss said:

I see what you see.  If that was all Paul said I would agree but since he later goes on to say that her hair was given to her for a covering I concede that he was speaking about length of hair previously when he said what you quoted.  In other words "if she won't use the covering God gave her to cover her head then she may as well be shaven.".  

Then what did he mean by uncovered?

• 1 Cor 11. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head,

 

 

 

[gdemoss]

On 2/12/2016 at 11:51 AM, Ezra said:

No need to add or take away, but to understand why this is stated in the context in which it occurs.  It is BECAUSE the glory of a woman is her hair, THEREFORE that glory must be hidden in the presence of the church and the angels who observe.  The only glory that should be in view is the glory of God and of Christ.  

As a practical example, if a woman has beautiful hair which are open to view, many eyes will turn to admire those hair, and some may even lust after her.  Thus the head covering (if worn properly) prevents attention from being diverted from worship. 

Also, one must note that the head covering is called "power" (KJV) or authority (Greek exousia), meaning a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife (for unmarried women anticipated authority ). Her natural hair does not provide this at all.  And the Holy Spirit would not give us 16 verses of Scripture merely to say something that does not need to be said. If no head covering is necessary, then this passage is unnecessary also.

He says long hair is a glory unto the woman because 8t is given to her for a covering.  I take this to mean just that.  Style is nothing but to cover her head is glorious.  I see what you see but disagree on interpretation.  Thanks Ezra for sharing your veiw.

[gdemoss]

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

Then what did he mean by uncovered?

• 1 Cor 11. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head,

 

 

 

Good question.  I would think either short hair or hair put up after some manner.  Thanks for asking for clarity.

[thereselittleflower]

4 minutes ago, gdemoss said:

Good question.  I would think either short hair or hair put up after some manner.  Thanks for asking for clarity.

Either would still leave hair on her head, and so her head would still be covered with hair.

So I don't see those two possibilities fitting the word  "uncovered"

 

 

[gdemoss]

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

Either would still leave hair on her head, and so her head would still be covered with hair.

So I don't see those two possibilities fitting the word  "uncovered"

 

 

Ok.  You are welcome to interpret the passage as you believe God intends it to be read.  We must simply disagree.  Thanks for the discussion!

[simplejeff]

On February 12, 2016 at 10:51 PM, n2thelight said:

When? ....

Already, Today, and when it was written((Ephesians)), ever since then, and until Yeshua returns..

Every believer saved and redeemed and born again was once subject to the prince of the power of the air.   And people all over the world don't in the future all of a sudden get possessed or taken captive prisoners of sin and of the devil --- they have been and already are.   That's one thing they get saved from IF they seek Yahweh and turn to Him by grace through faith in Yeshua.

 

=====================================

concerning the head covering during prayer, for women only , it's never been the hair.

There's several good studies readily available online, besides just the plain Scripture, as well.

Nee has one of the best, and I saw another Jewish ekklesia page describing it better , but here's one sufficient for now: 

 http://theopenscroll.com/headcovering.htm

"If you are confused about what point Paul really made in the headcoverings address, see how the commands are very simply stated in verses 4-5a. Don’t let the supporting collection of what may seem to be rather esoteric discussions distract you from the simplicity of the command itself.

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.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5a

The practice itself is really very simple. During prayer and prophesying, what is proper is for the head of man to be uncovered and the head of a woman to be covered. No qualification is made as to the formality of the situation, and neither is any distinction made as to whether the context is public or private. The topic of headcoverings is addressed only once in the scriptures but from what is recorded we note that the churches were already practicing in the manner described, and we find no mention of whether the assemblies Paul referenced had been of Hebrew or other background. Any contention about the matter was settled with this argument; that neither those with Paul nor any others of the assemblies had any variant practice.

Some claim that the covering is just the hair itself, as we read in the 15th verse, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Let me first demonstrate that hair is NOT the covering of verses 4-7 with some plain thinking. We read in verse 6, “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off.” Consider this rendering: “For if a woman does not cover her head with hair, let her also have her hair cut off.” That's absurd! If she has not covered her head with hair, she has already cut it off, and how could what is not there be cut off? Such an argument utterly fails to convince in this test of logic. What may surprise you to learn is that this argument wouldn't even be made if the popular versions didn't mistranslate the text!

Consider how the Young's Literal Translation renders verse 15, which E. W. Bullinger affirms as a correct rendering.

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 (YLT)

While it's obvious to anyone that hair may naturally appear to cover her head, hair is not to be considered a covering in this context because “the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her.”

For many of you, perhaps most, what I just addressed may be sufficient to satisfy your interest in this subject. It's not required of us to understand why we should obey the direction given because there is a benefit for simple compliance, the ever present promise of blessings for obedience. For those who are seeking deeper insight into the passage there is so much more to be discovered! If you're not already convinced and convicted that this practice is for you, let me encourage you to continue reading,... ... "

[gdemoss]

30 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Already, Today, and when it was written((Ephesians)), ever since then, and until Yeshua returns..

Every believer saved and redeemed and born again was once subject to the prince of the power of the air.   And people all over the world don't in the future all of a sudden get possessed or taken captive prisoners of sin and of the devil --- they have been and already are.   That's one thing they get saved from IF they seek Yahweh and turn to Him by grace through faith in Yeshua.

 

=====================================

concerning the head covering during prayer, for women only , it's never been the hair.

There's several good studies readily available online, besides just the plain Scripture, as well.

Nee has one of the best, and I saw another Jewish ekklesia page describing it better , but here's one sufficient for now: 

 http://theopenscroll.com/headcovering.htm

"If you are confused about what point Paul really made in the headcoverings address, see how the commands are very simply stated in verses 4-5a. Don’t let the supporting collection of what may seem to be rather esoteric discussions distract you from the simplicity of the command itself.

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.

1 Corinthians 11:4-5a

The practice itself is really very simple. During prayer and prophesying, what is proper is for the head of man to be uncovered and the head of a woman to be covered. No qualification is made as to the formality of the situation, and neither is any distinction made as to whether the context is public or private. The topic of headcoverings is addressed only once in the scriptures but from what is recorded we note that the churches were already practicing in the manner described, and we find no mention of whether the assemblies Paul referenced had been of Hebrew or other background. Any contention about the matter was settled with this argument; that neither those with Paul nor any others of the assemblies had any variant practice.

Some claim that the covering is just the hair itself, as we read in the 15th verse, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Let me first demonstrate that hair is NOT the covering of verses 4-7 with some plain thinking. We read in verse 6, “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off.” Consider this rendering: “For if a woman does not cover her head with hair, let her also have her hair cut off.” That's absurd! If she has not covered her head with hair, she has already cut it off, and how could what is not there be cut off? Such an argument utterly fails to convince in this test of logic. What may surprise you to learn is that this argument wouldn't even be made if the popular versions didn't mistranslate the text!

Consider how the Young's Literal Translation renders verse 15, which E. W. Bullinger affirms as a correct rendering.

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 (YLT)

While it's obvious to anyone that hair may naturally appear to cover her head, hair is not to be considered a covering in this context because “the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her.”

For many of you, perhaps most, what I just addressed may be sufficient to satisfy your interest in this subject. It's not required of us to understand why we should obey the direction given because there is a benefit for simple compliance, the ever present promise of blessings for obedience. For those who are seeking deeper insight into the passage there is so much more to be discovered! If you're not already convinced and convicted that this practice is for you, let me encourage you to continue reading,... ... "

Thanks Jeff, this is akin to Therese's point but it appears to be in error through the possibility of missing information.  The woman in question could simply have her hair pulled back.  The covering spoken of is as a veil and a veil is no veil when it is placed back over the head and tied off.

[thereselittleflower]

18 minutes ago, gdemoss said:

Thanks Jeff, this is akin to Therese's point but it appears to be in error through the possibility of missing information.  The woman in question could simply have her hair pulled back.  The covering spoken of is as a veil and a veil is no veil when it is placed back over the head and tied off.

Do the customs of the period not play a significant role in helping us understand Paul's words, especially since at the end of that subect he says 

• 1Co 11:16

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

HEAD, COVERING OF THE

• Women

  It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32).

  In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6). Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts (Ber. 24a), and forbade the recitation of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman (ibid.). The rabbis praised pious women such as Kimhit, the mother of several high priests, who took care not to uncover their hair even in the house (Yoma 47a; Lev. R. 20:11). Nevertheless, covering the head was a personal imposition and restriction from which men were glad to be exempt. According to Sotah 3:8, men differ from women in that they may appear in public "with hair unbound and in torn garments." In Eruvin 100b, one of the disadvantages or "curses" that is cited as an inevitable part of being female includes being "wrapped up like a mourner." Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin (Gen. R. 17:8; ARN² 9; Er. 100b and Rashi ad loc.; cf., also, the opinion of Paul in I Cor. 11:1–16). Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony (Ket. 2:1). It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., EH 21:2).

  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08618.html

 

BAREHEADEDNESS:

• Biblical and Mishnaic Times.

  In Mishnaic times, however, it was regarded as an inviolable Jewish custom ("dat Yehudit") that women should not be seen in the streets with uncovered hair (Ket. vii. 6); and the infringement of that rule by a married woman was deemed sufficient ground for divorce, a view stated also in Roman law (Marquardt and Mommsen, "Handbuch der Römischen Alterthümer," vii., part 2, pp. 554 et seq.). Accordingly, the Mosaic law (Num. v. 18) mentioned above is taken by the Septuagint and the Rabbis to mean "the priest shall uncover the woman's head"; and, consequently, R. Ishmael derives from it the law forbidding the daughters of Israel to walk abroad with uncovered hair (Ket. 72a; Sifre, Num. 11). The great importance of the traditional custom may be inferred from the following story, related in Num. R. xviii. 20:

  "On, the son of Peleth, companion of Korah, was saved through the device of his wife, who, having made him so drunk that he fell asleep, sat with her daughter in front of the tent, both having their hair uncovered. When On's companions came to call for him, and saw the women in such an attitude, they turned away; for no one would enter a house where this Jewish custom was so openly disregarded."

  The distinction of Ḳamḥit, who saw seven of her sons made high priests, and two officiate on one and the same day, one of them being Simon ben Ḳamḥit, mentioned by Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 2, § 2) as"Simon, the son of Camithus," is ascribed by the Rabbis to the fact that even the ceiling of her house had not seen the hair of her head (Yer. Meg. i. 72a).

  Married and Unmarried Women.

  Bareheadedness in a woman was, therefore, considered to be an indecorous form of "'ervah" (nakedness, Deut. xxiv. 1), an incentive to improper glances, and it was declared unlawful to recite the Shema' in the presence of a woman whose hair was uncovered (Ber. 24a; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 75, 2; Eben ha-'Ezer, 21, 2). Originally, this custom included both married and unmarried women, as may be learned from Ned. 30b. Nor does the law (B. Ḳ. 90a), which sets a fine of 400 drachmas upon a man who tears off a woman's head-gear in the street, make any distinction between a married and an unmarried woman. Also Paul (I Cor. xi. 3-12), when declaring that the woman should have her head covered in recognition of the man being her lord, refers to women in general, not to married women exclusively (see also "Apostolic Constitutions," i. 8). According to Pirḳe R. El. xiv., it is a result of Eve's curse that women must go about with the hair covered like mourners. Still, instances are given in the Talmud of unmarried women going about bareheaded, as when the Mishnah speaks of the bride being carried in the procession in her litter, with her hair hanging down (Ket. ii 1); or when the daughter of Naḳdemon ben Gorion covers her face with her hair when seen by Johanan ben Zakkai in her humble condition (Ket. 66b). Later, particularly in Occidental countries, it was not considered indecorous for unmarried women to go about bareheaded (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 75, 2, against "Yad," Issure Biah, xxi. 15).

  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7432-head-covering-of

 

[gdemoss]

11 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Do the customs of the period not play a significant role in helping us understand Paul's words, especially since at the end of that subect he says 

• 1Co 11:16

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

HEAD, COVERING OF THE

• Women

  It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32).

  In talmudic times, too, married women were enjoined to cover their hair in communal spaces (e.g., Ned. 30b; Num. R. 9:16). In a society so highly conscious of sexuality and its dangers, veiling was considered an absolute necessity to maintain modesty and chastity. If a woman walked bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repaying her dowry (Ket. 7:6). Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts (Ber. 24a), and forbade the recitation of any blessing in the presence of a bareheaded woman (ibid.). The rabbis praised pious women such as Kimhit, the mother of several high priests, who took care not to uncover their hair even in the house (Yoma 47a; Lev. R. 20:11). Nevertheless, covering the head was a personal imposition and restriction from which men were glad to be exempt. According to Sotah 3:8, men differ from women in that they may appear in public "with hair unbound and in torn garments." In Eruvin 100b, one of the disadvantages or "curses" that is cited as an inevitable part of being female includes being "wrapped up like a mourner." Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin (Gen. R. 17:8; ARN² 9; Er. 100b and Rashi ad loc.; cf., also, the opinion of Paul in I Cor. 11:1–16). Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony (Ket. 2:1). It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., EH 21:2).

  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08618.html

 

Thank you for the offering to consider.  

The first portion had a couple of scripture references that do not support the claim.

The second comes from a source related to thise whom crucifed the Lord.  I don't think I will take their word for anything.

The Isaiah passage does reveal that it was common place for people, not just women, to wear head coverings but it appears that these were more a symbol of wealth and godliness than anything else.  I associate it more with what Peter said women ought not to do and I find it interesting that God threatened to take all of it away from them in Isaiah. 

Thank you for helping me to solidfy that I have made the right decision concerning the interpretation of 1 Cor 11.

[MorningGlory]

On 2/11/2016 at 5:28 AM, Sister said:

Gary

I want to share with you my view on a woman covering her head.  I have really being praying about this before I answer because it has always got me STUMPED!

The man is the glory of God.  The woman is the glory of man.  God has made woman for the man so there is order.  A woman's place is not above the man.

So when a woman prophesies or prays she is to humble herself before the Lord.  By covering her head, she is not displaying her glory on her head (presenting herself with nice well set hair), for she is to come as who she is and not a woman of the world, but a child of God.

When her head is covered, she is not just presenting herself as a woman, beneath man, but equal as a child of God.  In the spirit world there is no male and female.  When we pray or prophecy, we step into Zion, God's holy City, (his realm) and it's the same laws for both man and woman and that is the things of the spirit.  There is no separation there.

I noticed a lot of women preachers on t.v. with makeup and beautiful hair.  I don't think God likes this for it is mixing spiritual things with the worldly.  The woman needs to humble herself and hide her attractiveness for God does not want people admiring her for her outward beauty, because she has stepped into Zion where there can be no vanity.

This covering on her head protects her from the bad angels.  If vanity is found in her, she leaves herself open to be corrupted.  This is where the bad angels can get a foothold in her spirit.  The spirit has to be true worship.

Any woman joined with the world is still in Babylon, caring for the things of the world, and not for God.

This is how I understand it brother.  A woman has to be most holy when approaching the Lord and humble herself.

 

 1 Timothy 2:9   In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

  1 Peter 3:3   Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

 

 

 

 

Why does a woman need to be any more humble than a man?  Men also adorn themselves, after all.