Should women cover their hair?

Norbert L said:

No, I've just pointed out that 1. Dr. Heiser isn't breaking golden rules of hermetical analysis and 2. Paul did not have access to the knowledge we have today so his scripture on this topic needs to be understood in its' historical context.

The only brick wall in failing to answer a question twice is on you failing to state whether or not a Christian who believes in the rational presented by Dr. Heiser is saved or not.

Click to expand...

Heiser broke the golden rule of hermentics by ignoring the plain sense meaning of the passage. You have yet to explain why my common sense interpretation of the passage is not common sense. You have also abysmally failed to explain how Paul could be wrong believing that sperm is in the hair when he was guided by the Holy Spirit who is never wrong. Your explanation is required. If you continue to refuse to supply your explanation, don't waste my time any longer.

Oldmantook said:

Heiser broke the golden rule of hermentics by ignoring the plain sense meaning of the passage. You have yet to explain why my common sense interpretation of the passage is not common sense. You have also abysmally failed to explain how Paul could be wrong believing that sperm is in the hair when he was guided by the Holy Spirit who is never wrong. Your explanation is required. If you continue to refuse to supply your explanation, don't waste my time any longer.

Click to expand...

I admit and now it's extremely obvious, I have abysmally failed to explain the common sense understanding that hermentics involves having a comprehension of the historical context during the time the bible was written. The bible wasn't written to us, it was written for us.

That instead, God actually explained to Paul our modern understanding of physiology and how people like Hippocrates were crazy to believe that hair was involved with sexual reproduction.

Radagast said:

Your repeated mixing up of "hermeneutic," "hermetic," and "Hippocratic" has been confusing for me.

Click to expand...

It's because I'm trying to use the same spelling another poster is using in replying to him.

Norbert L said:

I admit and now it's extremely obvious, I have abysmally failed to explain the common sense understanding that hermentics involves having a comprehension of the historical context during the time the bible was written. The bible wasn't written to us, it was written for us.

That instead, God actually explained to Paul our modern understanding of physiology and how people like Hippocrates were crazy to believe that hair was involved with sexual reproduction.

Click to expand...

Yes you have abysmally failed how Paul relying on the inspiration of the Spirit could have possibly thought that that sperm is in the hair. May I suggest that you and Heiser go back to the drawing board.

Oldmantook said:

Heiser broke the golden rule of hermentics by ignoring the plain sense meaning of the passage.

Click to expand...

And the person whose analysis he copied got the Greek wrong.

As I read .. its was written for a reason for them. This is how it WAS back then. When they started to bring the word to the other nations of the word.. they knew GOD would not expect the world to obey all the things God said for Israel.

I knew a grand mother that prayed 4hours a day. Man she had so much power of God. She ALWAYS had her hair up. Never told anyone they should do the same.. she never told anyone why. It was between her and God.

For me.. as I read ..does not make one more holy or closer to God. If one wants to do it praise GOD. Does not matter what the WORLD says.. you do what you believe you should be doing. Thats what God will look at

FutureAndAHope said:

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

Click to expand...

FutureAndAHope said:

In church women (according to scripture) should have a head covering if they speak publicly to show that they are in submission, a) to God, b) to the spiritual head of the woman the man. This is due to the statment:

1Ti 2:12-14 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Click to expand...

Future&Hope, so in your church are women allowed to prophesy during the service when they are wearing a hat?

FutureAndAHope said:

In spiritual, not natural matters, the woman is more open to spiritual deception (according to the bible). Thus as a protection, he made the man the spiritual head of the woman.

Click to expand...

Just curious, do you think women could have possibly been more deceived, more sectarian or have messed church history up MORE than men did?

FutureAndAHope said:

The woman is to wear the head covering while praying in church to remind the church of God's order in spiritual matters.

Click to expand...

Have you ever wondered why a fish is not the king over a lion?

Radagast said:

Paul tells us his reasons in 1 Corinthians 11. Something about husband-wife relationships,

Click to expand...

Actually, most people think/perceive this aspect into the writing but it is not there. Paul writes that Christ is the head of the MAN, and MAN is the head of the WOMAN.

The rationale of imposing authority into marital relationships into v.3 falls apart very quickly if you analyze where that takes you without preexisting filters/biases.

For example, who is a woman's head if she is unmarried? Many say her father but that is adding to the verse. What if she is widowed... is she then subject to her father again? Some say she is subjected to her pastor but that is a material speculation that is unfounded in the verse itself.

Did Christ deliver all of humanity from the bondage of sin, or did he pay this enormous price to only deliver the males from the bondage of their sins to liberty, while he delivered females from the bondage of their own sins but into the bondage of sinful males? If it's OK to subjugate women into the bonds of male sinfulness, then male sinfulness must not really be all that bad. Why did Christ have to come down to be crucified for sinfulness that's OK for half of the human race?

Where else in the gospel message does Christ imply that only half of the human race are freed from the bondage of sin? Do you see the dissonance of that occurs when you press marital authority into this this passage to the rest of the bible?

Also, the BCMW theologians who introduced the eternal subordination of the Son in their attempt to make the verse about marriage authority recently had to back down on that Arian heresy when it couldn't hold up to scrutiny.

I would encourage you to examine your preconceptions of the verse with a skeptic's eye. Press your preconceptions to their logical conclusions, and you will see how they eventually derail. You are missing the beauty of the verse if you assume martial authority into it.

Endeavourer said:

Actually, most people think/perceive this aspect into the writing but it is not there. Paul writes that Christ is the head of the MAN, and MAN is the head of the WOMAN.

Click to expand...

Not so.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul says that the head of a gynaikos is the andros.

Now andros can mean either "man" or "husband," and gynaikos can mean either "woman" or "wife."

But it is clear that Paul means "the head of a wife is her husband," because he writes that the head of a gynaikos is the (meaning "her") andros.

Paul is not saying that men, in general, are the heads of women, in general.

Endeavourer said:

Where else in the gospel message does Christ imply that only half of the human race are freed from the bondage of sin?

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that.

Endeavourer said:

Future&Hope, so in your church are women allowed to prophesy during the service when they are wearing a hat?

Click to expand...

You are clearly just contentious and not interested in what the word of God says.

Just curious, do you think women could have possibly been more deceived, more sectarian or have messed church history up MORE than men did?

Click to expand...

Men have certainly messed things up, and even i have had to deal with deception. But the bible says,

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".

This seems to imply that due to the differences between men and women, that a woman can become deceived more easily than a man, in spiritual matters. When talking of wisdom, Solomon stated that he only found one truely wise man among a thousand, but a woman among them he did not find.

Ecc 7:28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

This is not to say there are no wise women, Deborah was a prophet of God, and Hulula (how ever you spell it) one at the time of the exiles return from Babylon.

But the reality is that God has an order in spiritual matters and the bulk of the church today is ignoring it.

Have you ever wondered why a fish is not the king over a lion?

Click to expand...

?

Sophrosyne said:

Personally I believe that the culture back in Paul's time some women (not a majority) were causing issues in churches by wearing hairdos that were not mainstream at times that were drawing excessive attention to themselves.

Click to expand...

I believe you are half right. The second part, equally as important is that the men's hair was causing an issue.

The church of Corinth included Gentile converts from the temple up the street which worshiped a goddess of fertility and engaged in orgies and other forms of sexual expressions of worship, both hetero and homosexual forms. Some males would wear feminine hair styles - cross dressing, if you will. On the other hand, in that day, a woman's hair would be shaved off if she were accused of prostitution or adultery. This is why Paul references the shame of shorn hair for women.

Paul is urging the church at Corinth to comport themselves in a way that leaves no doubt that the Christian worship is different from the worship up the street. To not behave in a way that causes confusion that Christian worship might include male or female prostitutes as part of the worship activities, or be anything like the sexual commotion in that other temple.

Radagast said:

But it is clear that Paul means "the head of a wife is her husband," because he writes that the head of a gynaikos is the (meaning "her") andros.

Click to expand...

Clear to who? Then who would be heads of the unmarried women? Of widowed women? Do only married women have heads? How do you justify that verse addressing only the portion of men and women who are married? You would be adding to that verse if you said that andros meant only married men and gynaikos meant only married women. Does the rest of humanity not fit into the verse?

Radagast said:

Paul is not saying that men, in general, are the heads of women, in general.

Click to expand...

You are reading/assuming the plural when Paul actually did use the singular. So that is adding your own bias to the verse.

Further, you are assuming that the Greek work "head" has the same multiple meanings that the English word "head" has.

In English, the first meaning of the word "head" is the item that rests on your neck. The second meaning is something that resembles the item on your neck. The third meaning is source, as in head waters. The FOURTH English meaning of the word head is authority.

The Koine Greek did not have all of the same meanings to the word kephale as the English language gives to head. Just like the Spanish language doesn't have all of the same multiple meanings to a word that the English language does, etc etc.

Endeavourer said:

You are reading/assuming the plural when Paul actually did use the singular.

Click to expand...

Umm, no.

I was, in fact, pointing out that the plural is not there. I said "Paul is not saying that men, in general, are the heads of women, in general."

Endeavourer said:

Further, you are assuming that the Greek work "head" has the same multiple meanings that the English word "head" has.

Click to expand...

Umm, no.

I read Greek. I interpret the word kephalē the way that it is defined in the dictionary and used in other literature.

FutureAndAHope said:

You are clearly just contentious and not interested in what the word of God says.

Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to be contentious. It was a sincere question. My Bible references women praying and prophesying. How do you apply this verse to your church? Are women allowed to express the gift of prophesy in your church?

FutureAndAHope said:

Men have certainly messed things up, and even i have had to deal with deception. But the bible says,

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".

This seems to imply that due to the differences between men and women, that a woman can become deceived more easily than a man, in spiritual matters.

Click to expand...

Be careful with implications or assumptions. One person can imply things one way and another read it entirely differently. The historical context of the verse provides a deeper understanding of the message. As it happens, Paul and Timothy were contesting for the gospel amongst a matriarchal pagan worship, where the goddess of fertility was highly revered. They were pointing out that women do not have a special status of reverence vis a vis the men. Somehow, modern thought has twisted that into teaching the verse as though men have a special status above women.

FutureAndAHope said:

Ecc 7:28 Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

This is not to say there are no wise women, Deborah was a prophet of God, and Hulula (how ever you spell it) one at the time of the exiles return from Babylon.

Click to expand...

So the exception proves the 'rule' incorrect. God certainly used wise women, including Deborah and Hulda in the OT, as you referenced above. Did you know that Isaiah's wife was a prophetess?

FutureAndAHope said:

But the reality is that God has an order in spiritual matters and the bulk of the church today is ignoring it.

Click to expand...

Have you ever studied skeptical views of what you believe, to test your beliefs to make sure they are of God? When I did that on this very issue I was blown away at how quickly my position crumbled over things I had never considered. I noticed you never did answer my question about the fish and the lion.....

Radagast said:

Umm, no.

I was, in fact, pointing out that the plural is not there. I said "Paul is not saying that men, in general, are the heads of women, in general."



Umm, no.

I read Greek. I interpret the word kephalē the way that it is defined in the dictionary and used in other literature.

Click to expand...

If you construe "head" as "authority", you either have to ADD to Paul's words to say that he's referring to marriage and leaving all of the rest of humanity out of his comment, or you have to say he's obviously not saying what he's saying, that all men are the authority over all women. That's the only two ways using "head" as authority work in this verse.

You didn't answer my question about whether or not Christ delivered women from sin or unto sin.... if women were delivered from the bondage of their sin only to be placed under the bondage of men's sins, then that wasn't much of a deliverance for women was it? Can you find any evidence anywhere in the Gospels or in other doctrinal writings that half of the human race was intended to be subjugated and in bondage to the sinfulness and depravity of the other half of it? Or is that a doctrine construed from the marital verses by some that is dissonant from the rest of the doctrines in the Bible? Is it possible you are misconstruing some key understandings of the liberty that Christ suffered and died to procure for all people, and not just men? Or, did Christ only come to deliver half of humanity from the bondage of sin?

The more I have studied the issue of creation order and hierarchical roles, the more I realize the scope of filters you need to engage to keep these doctrines disconnected from the rest of the Bible. Interesting stuff.

Endeavourer said:

If you construe "head" as "authority", you either have to ADD to Paul's words to say that he's referring to marriage and leaving all of the rest of humanity out of his comment, or you have to say he's obviously not saying what he's saying, that all men are the authority over all women.

Click to expand...

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul makes the comment in regard to a question about worship. In Ephesians 5:22-33, the idea of "the anēr is the head of the gynaikos" is developed in more detail.

There the phrase "the gynaikes to their own andrasin" makes it crystal clear that Paul is talking about husbands and wives, specifically.

Endeavourer said:

Can you find any evidence anywhere in the Gospels or in other doctrinal writings that half of the human race was intended to be subjugated and in bondage to the sinfulness and depravity of the other half of it?

Click to expand...

Since I've stated clearly twice that that's exactly what the verse does not say, I don't think you're debating in good faith.

Radagast said:

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul makes the comment in regard to a question about worship. In Ephesians 5:22-33, the idea of "the anēr is the head of the gynaikos" is developed in more detail.

There the phrase "the gynaikes to their own andrasin" makes it crystal clear that Paul is talking about husbands and wives, specifically.

Click to expand...

My lexicon says:
kephale de gynaiko ho aner
head now woman the man

You haven't answered how the rest of the humanity fits if this verse is about authority.

The only way this verse makes sense is if head is interpreted as source (as in headwaters), rather than authority. Then you don't have to read anything in to it:

Christ is the source of man (he created man); man is the source of the woman (from his rib) and God is the source of the Son (the only begotten Son).

Easy. With construing head as authority, you have the problem of #1 head wasn't used that way in Paul's Greek, and #2 it offers a nonsensical result unless you greatly add some filters to the verse.

Further, v. 8 & 9 elaborate on Paul's reference to the creation/source earlier in v 3:

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.

@Radagast

Could you please answer the following... I've posted along this question to you twice:

Endeavourer said:

You didn't answer my question about whether or not Christ delivered women from sin or unto sin.... if women were delivered from the bondage of their sin only to be placed under the bondage of men's sins, then that wasn't much of a deliverance for women was it? Can you find any evidence anywhere in the Gospels or in other doctrinal writings that half of the human race was intended to be subjugated and in bondage to the sinfulness and depravity of the other half of it? Or is that a doctrine construed from the marital verses by some that is dissonant from the rest of the doctrines in the Bible? Is it possible you are misconstruing some key understandings of the liberty that Christ suffered and died to procure for all people, and not just men? Or, did Christ only come to deliver half of humanity from the bondage of sin?

The more I have studied the issue of creation order and hierarchical roles, the more I realize the scope of filters you need to engage to keep these doctrines disconnected from the rest of the Bible. Interesting stuff.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
E.

Endeavourer said:

My lexicon says:
kephale de gynaiko ho aner
head now woman the man

Click to expand...

You seem to be quoting something that you don't quite understand.

And, as I said, Ephesians 5:22-33, makes it clearer, where it talks about "the gynaikes to their own andrasin."

Endeavourer said:

The only way this verse makes sense is if head is interpreted as source (as in headwaters)

Click to expand...

The word kephalē, in the singular, never means that. See here.

One can't simply make up meanings for Greek words to suit one's theology.