1 corinthians woman wearing veils when praying

[manimal2878]

ok i never see any women with head covered in church except maybe catholic nuns

how is it that this rule can be ignored?

it is right there with premarital sex and all that other tripe.

if the rule was meant fior the time so were the fornication and marriage rules, if the fornication and marriage rules christian women should cover there heads. when praying.

[Boomeister]

Haven't you figured it out yet? It's called "picking and choosing" what one wants to believe. Many people will come up with rationalizations for why they pick and choose, but that's what they are doing.

Boomeister

[manimal2878]

yes i realize that

but i just don't see how they can apoligize their way around this one.

it's pretty much black and white I don't really see the room for wiiggleing on this one.

But i am sure somebody will show me wrong :(

[Coragyps]

When I was a kid - 45 years ago or so - almost all women wore hats and many veils to church. And that was a Presbyterian church, one of the progressive ones. The custom may have been dying by then, though, and by 1967 (??) women were not only abandoning hats and veils but actually wearing pantsuits not only out in public but to church as well. My mother was disturbed by this until she started wearing pants, too.....

[Revolutionary]

I've seen a few women in Catholic churches with headpieces, especially at the traditional Latin Mass. It's an almost dead practice otherwise.

[manimal2878]

yet the bible verse is still there.

what is there excuse not to follow it?

Come on fundies step up and answer.

I don't want to have to go to 123 christians and be told i'm going to hell for my blasphemous questions.

If you can excuse this rule as archaic and cultural then ALL of them can be excused in the same manner.

[Clivedurdle]

Clothes (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/clothes.html) .

[Joan of Bark]

Haven't you figured it out yet? It's called "picking and choosing" what one wants to believe. Many people will come up with rationalizations for why they pick and choose, but that's what they are doing.

Boomeister

My sentiments exactly. Who says you can't summarize Biblical beliefs in less than 25 words?

[Jackalope]

Clothes (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/clothes.html) .

from that site:
The loin- or waste-cloth ('ézôr) reaching from the waste to the knee was a common dress during the Bronze II and III ages,

The original Freudian Slip? :devil3:

Take what's written there with a grain of salt. The "shirt" they're talking about is more commonly called a T-tunic, cut as either one or two pieces, no seperate sleeves. Definitely not the inset sleeves seen in a modern shirt.

Bwhaha and this bit at the end sort of illustrates how suggestable some people are:

A few months ago I let my young son try on an old East German uniform I acquired in Berlin before unification. He was instantly transformed into a "soldier", strutting around as soldiers do. An international traveler remarked how when he wore the traditional Japanese yukata (the man's equivalent of a kimono) he found himself behaving as the Japanese do. When he was back in his suit, he found himself behaving as Europeans do. Put someone in the clothes of 19th century courtiers and they behave like 19th century courtiers.

Clothes do modify our behavior and we should never forget that. Not only are clothes expressions of our soul, but they affect our souls too. People who wear expensive clothes act "rich", and those who wear rags act "poor". When decent people put on soldiers' uniforms, they find themselves doing things they would never do in civilian attire. So stringently avoid the clothes of the "anticulture" as promoted by rock groups and listless youth, because your spirit will be changed by them. Don't wear suits because business men wear them -- the Christ's assembly is not a business organization (though many Churches are).


If a change of clothes is all it takes to make one act differently, I'd say one has some identity problems to begin with.

And if you read the whole thing through, you'll notice they still managed to avoid the issue of "should women cover their heads in church?"

[manimal2878]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1916548-women-and-veils.html#post17314227


Let the apoligies and excuses begin....

[Toto]

Previous thread on the question of whether Paul actually wrote that. . . (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114092)

[Xixax]

Another take from the old cultic Xtianity I was involved in:

Her hair style is again predicated upon the Word of God, which teaches her to let her hair grow uncut: "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? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11:13-15).

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/scriptures_modesty.asp

For more fun and amusing tidbits:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/

[Jenn6162]

Another thing I should repent for, I guess. I would say the we are under an age of grace, so it would be like any number of things I do that are outside of the will of God. That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.

[sharon45]

Another thing I should repent for, I guess. I would say the we are under an age of grace, so it would be like any number of things I do that are outside of the will of God. That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.Neither is the belief in jesus a requirement for salvation. Instead, it is yet another thing to repent for.

[Weltall]

Another thing I should repent for, I guess. Not to mention wearing clothes of more than one material, you evil heretic you. :Cheeky: That being said it is not a requirement for salvation, all are sinners.And suddenly, the big, glaring problem I have with Christianity comes into focus...

[Fortuna]

Neither is the belief in jesus a requirement for salvation. Instead, it is yet another thing to repent for.

What ? I thought that was required in at least many Christian sects. I think the Roman Caths might be an exception.

To stay on topic here, I'm wondering, what were the requirements for Jewish women in the local Synagogues ? Were they required at that time to wear head covering ?(It could be that Paul was just transferring over a Jewish requirement). Also, what about women in the temple at Jerusalem at that time ?

[andrewcriddle]

What ? I thought that was required in at least many Christian sects. I think the Roman Caths might be an exception.

To stay on topic here, I'm wondering, what were the requirements for Jewish women in the local Synagogues ? Were they required at that time to wear head covering ?(It could be that Paul was just transferring over a Jewish requirement). Also, what about women in the temple at Jerusalem at that time ?
Modest Jewish or Greek women at the time usually wore veils in public. Not only in temple or synagogue.

Andrew Criddle

[Toto]

There is a long commentary on 1 Corinthian's requirement of a head covering on a site in favor of women priests in the Catholic Church (http://www.womenpriests.org/scriptur/1cor11.asp): If we analyse this passage, we find that Paul is really pleading for order and peace in the community. For that reason he does not want women to pray with their long hair hanging loose. But it is wrong to conclude from the text that Paul promulgated a law by which women of all times and in all cultures were required to wear a veil in Church.

This site also reprints Celibatarian Repression of Women (http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/ranke2.asp) by Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Chapter 9 from Eunuchs for Heaven . . .

Paul did not enjoin women to wear veils. He was alluding to a specific hairstyle affected by devout Jewish women and Pharisees in particular. ‘With her head uncovered’ was tantamount to saying ‘with her hair loose’ - the mark of a dissolute life. ‘Covering the head’ meant simply ‘doing one’s hair’, but Chrysostorn was not alone in misconstruing Paul here. In some countries, women may even today be compelled to borrow a hat or a veil before entering a church.

The heading ‘On the Veiling of Women’, a later addition found in many translations of I Corinthians 11, is equally erroneous. The passage refers to women’s coiffure. The respectable Jewish woman of Jesus’s day began by plaiting her hair and arranging the plaits atop a woolen cloth worn low over the eyes. Then came a headband and another small cloth over the plaits to hold them in place. Finally, the whole edifice was reinforced with a hair-net. The wife of the celebrated rabbi Akiba (d. 135) is reported to have sold her, plaits to finance her husband’s studies. This indicates that many women purchased a coiffure appropriate to their social status if not endowed by nature with sufficient hair of their own (v. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, ‘Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch’, III, p. 427f.). The great sinner who dried Jesus’s feet with her hair was a woman whose loose hair betokened a loose way of life. By contrast, the Talmud mentions that a woman whose seven sons were high priests never went around, even at home, with her hair loose (ibid p. 430). If a woman could not dress her hair respectably, Paul argued, she might as well complete her disgrace by having her head shorn completely (I Cor 11: 6). At all events, he was referring to hair, not to veils or hats, and he was not the last to confuse fashions in dress with questions of respectability and morality.

[Fortuna]

Thanks Andrew. I'd like to have some sort of support for that if you dont mind. Not that I doubt you, but only for my own curiosity.

[edit - Note to Andrew - Found some passages from the Jer Talmud supporting the covering of the hair for Jewish women of approx that time period (would have applied to Pharissee families). Still interested in more sources though, the more the merrier !]

What I find very strange about this whole women and the early church stuff women being submissive in the church, etc, is that, just about 100 years later we have the Pliny-Trajan letter (independent and from a non-Christian source) with Pliny telling us that he learned about Christianity by extracting (I assume by some sort of duress) the information from 2 female deacons.

In gnostic circles we have Mary Magdeline considered as an apostle equivalent to or perhaps higher in stature than Peter.

A little later We have the popular Christian authored story of Paul and Thecla (with Thecla being disobedient to both her fiancee and father).

About this same time we have Perpetua being martyred and she is also disobeying the menfolk of her family to accept this martyrdom.

It seems clear that there must have been (at the least in some areas) women in teaching positions in the early Christian churches and women instories disobeying their menfolk to follow Christianity, not to mention groups writing of female apostles as authoritative teaching.(Gospel of Mary).

Something is amiss here.

[Toto]

If you put a few key terms into google, you find a lot of muslim sites that try to justify the veil or claim that women are in fact treated better in Islam.

e.g.

http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-gupta281003.htm

In ancient times, Jewish women would go out in public in a full veil as well, as a bare head was considered "nudity" and the woman could be fined a serious amount (Numbers 5:18, Isaiah 3:17, II Maccabees 4:6, Sus. 32). A man could even divorce his wife if she was found bareheaded in public.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_comparison_full2.htm

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free [22]. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,"It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity".77

Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks Andrew. I'd like to have some sort of support for that if you dont mind. Not that I doubt you, but only for my own curiosity.

[edit - Note to Andrew - Found some passages from the Jer Talmud supporting the covering of the hair for Jewish women of approx that time period (would have applied to Pharissee families). Still interested in more sources though, the more the merrier !]

I'll try and provide some more sources tomorrow.

One general point: the question about women's role in Christian worship in the early church is probably separate from the question of women's head covering in the early church.

There were probably women who had some sort of authority position in the church but who wore veils, and women without any authority position who sought to demonstrate their freedom in Christ by not wearing veils. (See 'On the Veiling of Virgins' by Tertullian who disapproved of this sort of freedom.)

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

The usual explanation that Paul is arguing for the wearing of a veil is contradicted within the same passage (1 Cor 11:2-16) that says a woman's hair itself is given her as a covering.

Troy Martin in a recent Journal of Biblical Literature article (123/1 2004 75-84) sorts everything out (to my satisfaction anyway) with a closer look at the word "peribolaion" (v.15) usually translated as "covering".

The word is used by Euripides (Herc. fur. 1269) and Achilles Tatius (Leuc. Clit. 1.15.2) as a euphemism for testicles. Ancient medical texts by Hippocratic authors explain: hair is hollow and thus acts as a suction for semen, and semen is, of course, stored in the brain and that is why hair is most profuse around the head. After pubescence bodies are large enough for the semen to travel from the brain way way down to the genitalia. Men have to have hairy bodies because they have more semen and hotter bodies than women, so as the semen makes this journey it froths because of the heat of the male body and thence finds temporary escape hatches in the extra male body hair. Women by nature have longer hair than men because, being hollow and hence a good suction agent it is needed to draw up the semen the male attempts to implant in her.

And who can argue with Hippocrates? Certainly not Pseudo-Phocylides who wrote, "Long hair is not fit for males, but for voluptuous women". Nor Aristotle, who said the male testicles are weights that facilitated the drawing of the semen down from the brain to its place of ejaculatory exit, while women on the other hand need hollow bowls to collect it, assisted by the suction power of her longer hollow hair.

Knowing as the ancients did then that hair was part of a woman's genitalia one could easily devise fertility/sterility tests. If a perfumed device was placed in a woman's uterus the doc should be able to smell it through the woman's mouth. This would prove that her body channels for allowing her hair to suck up semen were in good working order. Naturally the woman could enhance her fertility by shaving her pubic hair which otherwise threatened to distract the semen from its correct path. Troy Martin cites Aristophanes and Soranus et al to indicate the widespread understanding of all this medical knowledge.

And this is why in the view of Tertullian (Virg. 11, 12, 17) prepubescent girls were not expected to wear the veil like adult women were. Only after puberty did hair become "a functioning genital".

So Paul, like his contemporaries, understood that a woman's long hair was a glory for her female nature -- it facilitated her true womanly nature of being the most efficient receptacle of semen -- but would of course be a shame for a man's nature. Martin gives reasons from ancient medical and more popular literature for us to believe that the woman's hair was the counterpart of a man's testicles. (He doesn't quite say it, but I guess one might conclude that the respective glories were in direct proportion to size and length.)

Paul is saying that it is just as shameful for a woman to pray with her long hollow suction-powered hair uncovered as it is for a man to pray with his testicles peaking through his garments somehow. This was obviously a quite ghastly problem in olden days since God even gave seraphim extra wings (total 6) to ensure they had the wherewithal to cover their "feet" (Isa 6:2); and while delivering the ten commandments he apparently saw enough to prompt him to issue a quick follow up command about this very thing (Exod. 20:26); and finally warned the priests that unless they took this sort of thing as seriously as he did they would surely die (Exod 28:42-43)!

No wonder 1 Cor 11:13-15 has never been put to rest with the usual explanations. As Troy Martin observes, it has been our ignorance of ancient philology and physiology that has led us to confuse Paul's references to testicles with head coverings!

Troy Martin is at St. Xavier's University, Chicago, but I don't know if any of this should have implications for Catholic teaching on birth control.

[manimal2878]

Is the above post for real or is that a sarcastic type writing, either way it is funny and is a better explanation than I am getting over at Christian Forums.

[Toto]

Is the above post for real or is that a sarcastic type writing, either way it is funny and is a better explanation than I am getting over at Christian Forums.

This is serious scholarly research, done by a PhD at a Catholic University. (Show some respect!) You can read the article online here:

Spring 2004 issue of SBL (http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1231.pdf)

Click on "PAUL’S ARGUMENT FROM NATURE FOR THE VEIL IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:13–15: A TESTICLE INSTEAD OF A HEAD COVERING" by TROY W. MARTIN, St. Xavier University, Chicago, IL 60655

This article interprets Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Cor 11:13–15 against the background of ancient physiology. The Greek and Roman medical texts provide useful information for interpreting not only Paul’s letters but also other NT texts. For other studies that utilize these sources for NT exegesis, see my article “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Gal 4.13–14),� JSNT 74 (1999): 65–91, and my forthcoming article “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts.� See also Annette Weissenrieder, “The Plague of Uncleanness? The Ancient Illness Construct ‘Issue of Blood’ in Luke 8:43–48,� in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 207–22, and her 2001 Heidelberg dissertation, “Krank in Gesellschaft: Krankheitskonstrukte im Lukas-Evangelium auf dem Hintergrund antiker medizinischer Texte,� which is forthcoming in English from Mohr-Siebeck. Dr. Weissenrieder and I are currently working on a multivolume work entitled Ancient Medical Texts and the New Testament, the purpose of which is to make these texts and their exegetical significance more widely known in the field of NT studies

[andrewcriddle]

Jewish conventions on veiling women have already been covered.
However, I found an interesting article online about veils in Pagan Ancient Greece. Veils (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-06-09.html)

Andrew Criddle

[manimal2878]

hmmm links in the above two links are very interesting.

Thanks.

[TrueMyth]

yes i realize that

but i just don't see how they can apoligize their way around this one.

it's pretty much black and white I don't really see the room for wiiggleing on this one.

But i am sure somebody will show me wrong :(

Hello! I'm new to this thread...

I would like to point out that this statement makes it impossible for any Christian to respond without facing the charge of "wriggling" around the issue. Perhaps this is not what you meant to do, however?

I am by no means an expert in ancient Jewish or Roman culture, so I will defer to the much more intelligent on that score, but since there seems to be some genuine desire by some athiests to be answered directly on this question, let me offer an ill-advised attempt:

Paul was giving a prohibition regarding the wearing of the veils which was pertinent to that time period and that setting due to either 1) the behavior of the women in that church, 2) the behavior of women in general in that part of the world, 3) the expectations of other Christians (refer to his "not let a brother stumble" passages), 4) the expected non-universal cultural norms of the time, or 5) a combination of all of the above.

I would also like to point out regarding the "picking and choosing" charge that if human beings were to pick and choose what they wanted and didn't, why in teh world would they pick prohibiting mass sexual intercourse with whomever one wants? This seems almost to be the exact opposite-- that Christians follow the prohibition against promiscuity (which is contrary to their desires) and ignore the prohibition against what could be interpreted as subjugation of women (and the feminists tell us that every man wants this, and the Church was of course run by men, so makes this prohibition also contrary to our desires). It seems that the Christian community as a whole has picked exactly those things which they do not want, which as any good Kantian would tell you, is the true test of virtuous and honest action.

Of course, as I am neither a Biblical literalist or inerrantist, I am not compelled to deny that Paul was simply being human and was making a universal prohibition based on his personal beliefs, and was simply wrong in that. :)

I hope this instills some measure of faith in fundys and other Christians!

[Toto]

. . .
I would also like to point out regarding the "picking and choosing" charge that if human beings were to pick and choose what they wanted and didn't, why in teh world would they pick prohibiting mass sexual intercourse with whomever one wants? This seems almost to be the exact opposite-- that Christians follow the prohibition against promiscuity (which is contrary to their desires) and ignore the prohibition against what could be interpreted as subjugation of women (and the feminists tell us that every man wants this, and the Church was of course run by men, so makes this prohibition also contrary to our desires). It seems that the Christian community as a whole has picked exactly those things which they do not want, which as any good Kantian would tell you, is the true test of virtuous and honest action.

Lots of cults prohibit promiscuity. Keeping a level of sexual tension is part of their method of control.

Of course, as I am neither a Biblical literalist or inerrantist, I am not compelled to deny that Paul was simply being human and was making a universal prohibition based on his personal beliefs, and was simply wrong in that. :)

I hope this instills some measure of faith in fundys and other Christians!

If you are not a Biblical literalist or an inerrantist, you are not a fundy (a fundamentalist), so what you say has nothing to do with anyone's faith in fundys.

Of course, then you have to explain why you pick some parts of the Bible to follow and not others. If the Bible got it wrong about women's fashion, why should you believe it on homosexuality? But that's a topic for another thread.

And welcome to BCH. :wave:

[neilgodfrey]

This is serious scholarly research, done by a PhD at a Catholic University. (Show some respect!) You can read the article online here:

Spring 2004 issue of SBL (http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1231.pdf)
Damn. All that writing when I could have just entered a link to the online original. Oh well, it was at least an interesting exercise to write up my own notes on it.

[manimal2878]

I would like to point out that this statement makes it impossible for any Christian to respond without facing the charge of "wriggling" around the issue. Perhaps this is not what you meant to do, however?

By wriggling I mean trying to interpret it to mean something it does not. It means women are expected to wear head coverings in church. There is no other way to read that passage. If you were to read it plainly you can't deny that it says women should wear headcoverings.

Thus if you agree to this meaning, which is the only one possible, then you have to be able to tell me why christians don't have to wear headcoverings anymore.

There are two possible answers unless you try to wriggle out of the meaning of the passage.

1. I choose not to follow that for whatever reason...

To which I then ask then why can't anyone choose not to follow other bible parts for the same reasons.

2. You could point to scripture chronologically revealed in the bible after this which renounces what Paul says


Paul was giving a prohibition regarding the wearing of the veils which was pertinent to that time period and that setting due to either 1) the behavior of the women in that church, 2) the behavior of women in general in that part of the world, 3) the expectations of other Christians (refer to his "not let a brother stumble" passages), 4) the expected non-universal cultural norms of the time, or 5) a combination of all of the above.

So it looks like you are going with option one which leads to my further question should you choose option one. Why is any of it relevant anymore since all of what he said falls under points 1-5 of your above statement.


Of course, as I am neither a Biblical literalist or inerrantist, I am not compelled to deny that Paul was simply being human and was making a universal prohibition based on his personal beliefs, and was simply wrong in that. :)


Well then how do you know the parts you do believe are not more of Paul or the other authors errors or cultural biases instead of god's instructions?

[Fortuna]

One general point: the question about women's role in Christian worship in the early church is probably separate from the question of women's head covering in the early church.

Andrew, I do agree that these are separate issues but, once again in these passages we see women being relegated to second class status in the church.

There were probably women who had some sort of authority position in the church but who wore veils, and women without any authority position who sought to demonstrate their freedom in Christ by not wearing veils. (See 'On the Veiling of Virgins' by Tertullian who disapproved of this sort of freedom.)

That's exactly my point. Other texts indicate that there were women in positions of authority in the early church, this supported by a non-Christian source and Christian ones ( I do consider those early gnostics as Christians).

But I do have to agree with something said earlier in this discussion that this whole chapter looks like what would result from a blind person cutting and pasting document sections in Word. These passages seems very difficult to read. Verse 10 seems to be completely out of place and incomprehensible.

9.Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

I have no idea what the "this" refers to, and the words "power on [her] head" are strange here, and it is due to angels ? (wtf?). This part seems like there should be a sentence preceeding it that the "this" refers to and introduces something about power and angels. I assume that by this time Enoch's horny angels have all been locked up, bound and punished (parhaps not), so it seems strange. (maybe Paul is afrraid of other angels being tempted, it's difficult to tell just what this is supposed to mean).

But, I note that as a previous poster noted and referenced, that you could remove 3-16 or 17 and it reads better. Further down, 22-29 seems out of place, especially considering what 30 says.(does 30 seem better proceeding 21 or 22 or 29 ?) Consider that 33 seems to refer to 21. At this point I'm just thinking out loud, but it certainly seems to me to be re-arranged and/or perhaps badly translated. Perhaps because of this wierd arrangement the translator was equally confused.

It might be interesting to try some different re-constructions to see how they come out. I'm not very strong in greek either, but if the english translation is accurate, these verses seem somehow to be out of proper sequence.

Very interesting post about ancient physiology. With this in mind, maybe it would help with a reconstruction.

[TrueMyth]

By wriggling I mean trying to interpret it to mean something it does not. It means women are expected to wear head coverings in church. There is no other way to read that passage. If you were to read it plainly you can't deny that it says women should wear headcoverings.

Thus if you agree to this meaning, which is the only one possible, then you have to be able to tell me why christians don't have to wear headcoverings anymore.

There are two possible answers unless you try to wriggle out of the meaning of the passage.

1. I choose not to follow that for whatever reason...

To which I then ask then why can't anyone choose not to follow other bible parts for the same reasons.

2. You could point to scripture chronologically revealed in the bible after this which renounces what Paul says

Hello mammal2878! Thanks for your reply!

I would challenge your definition of "wriggling". For one thing, there is the question of whether or not a prohibition given in the Bible is meant to be universal or only local. Perfect examples abound in the Book of Leviticus. Instructions on what to eat, when to have sex, whom to have sex with, what to wear, and the like, were all given to the Israelites as instructions with a specific local and temporary purpose: to help them understand the Holiness of God. We no longer need that, although some of them might be helpful as a reminder! ;) Therefore, we can conclude that while the text of Leviticus clearly states without equivocation that the children of God should not wear clothes with more than one fabric n them, that this is intended as a local and not a universal prohibition. This is not wriggling, it is defining more clearly. This is but one example of how the "clear meaning" of a verse can be a little less clear and a little more through a glass darkly.

Yes, I am choosing the first option. My reason for choosing not to enforce that prohibition is that I believe it was either culturally encapsulated to the point where it would be meaningless to follow it anymore, or it was stipulated for reasons which no longer apply (or both). Regarding what sort of consequences this commits me to, is outside the scope of this thread. I direct you to a thread which I have begun specifically to address this issue:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2597450#post2597450

I look forward to discussing this with you and others!

[manimal2878]

Perfect examples abound in the Book of Leviticus. Instructions on what to eat, when to have sex, whom to have sex with, what to wear, and the like, were all given to the Israelites as instructions with a specific local and temporary purpose: to help them understand the Holiness of God. Therefore, we can conclude that while the text of Leviticus clearly states without equivocation that the children of God should not wear clothes with more than one fabric n them, that this is intended as a local and not a universal prohibition.

It is only clearly meant for those people and that time because we have the book of Hebrews which tells us why those laws have been nullified. Unfortunately Paul was a teacher of the new law and his words on every other subject are considered universal and applicable today and his teaching were not rebuked by later scripture as the old testamnet was.



Yes, I am choosing the first option. My reason for choosing not to enforce that prohibition is that I believe it was either culturally encapsulated to the point where it would be meaningless to follow it anymore, or it was stipulated for reasons which no longer apply (or both). Regarding what sort of consequences this commits me to, is outside the scope of this thread. I direct you to a thread which I have begun specifically to address this issue:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2597450#post2597450

I look forward to discussing this with you and others!

Sweet! I'll be right over, tell mom I'll be back before dark.

[TrueMyth]

It is only clearly meant for those people and that time because we have the book of Hebrews which tells us why those laws have been nullified. Unfortunately Paul was a teacher of the new law and his words on every other subject are considered universal and applicable today and his teaching were not rebuked by later scripture as the old testamnet was.

Very true. This, however, does not make Paul's words necessarily universal and infallible, but more difficult to contradict. There are other ways of determining that commands are local besides later revelation (I listed five in an earlier post)

And I will give your mom a call and set a plate of cookies out for you :)

[manimal2878]

Awesome, chocolate chip?

Well you said clearly related to that culture, the words of Paul would not be clearly related to that culture only, but yes could be voided by the 5 reasons you said.

[andrewcriddle]

That's exactly my point. Other texts indicate that there were women in positions of authority in the early church, this supported by a non-Christian source and Christian ones ( I do consider those early gnostics as Christians).

It is not clear how frequently Gnostic Christians actually did give women positions of authority.

a/ The fact that a 2nd century group used Mary Magdalene as an alleged source for an alternative tradition to the mainstream church doesn't necessarily mean that contemporary (ie 2nd century) women occupied prominent roles in that group.

b/ Orthodox opponents of Gnosticism may have exaggerated the role of Women in Gnosticism as part of their polemic against the gnostics.

c/ Some gnostic groups had strongly anti-women attitudes see for example the final saying in the Gospel of Thomas.

Andrew Criddle

[luminous]

The usual explanation that Paul is arguing for the wearing of a veil is contradicted within the same passage (1 Cor 11:2-16) that says a woman's hair itself is given her as a covering.

Although I'm part of a fundamentalist church where the women do wear a covering such as a hat, I always thought hair WAS the covering Paul was talking about. Nobody in church ever agreed with me so I'm glad I found someone! :thumbs:

1 Corinthians 11:15
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. NASB

So what I always understood from this text was that Paul was saying that women must have long hair and men should keep their hair short.


p.s Since this is my first post, let me introduce myself. My name is Liviu, a 23 year-old guy. I've been raised in a baptist fundamentalist church and am "born-again", but I have doubted christianity for years. Since people from church generally never question anything, my questions have become a nuisance for leaders and peers alike. I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is true, and sometimes wish I was ignorant. But since I'm not, I seek answers to nagging questions I've long suspected don't have a satisfactory answer. I've read through some threads and am happy to find such knowledgeable people on this form! :notworthy
I'm looking forward to discuss issues and learn from you guys.

[Toto]

Welcome liviu. Hope you enjoy your time here.

Feel free to drop by the Lounge (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=52) and introduce yourself to the people who don't hang out in BCH.

[Toto]

I came across another paper on this topic: Amorous Archons (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_amorous.htm)

A preoccupation with the textual minutiae of Scripture may stem from either a strict belief in verbal inspiration or simply the scholarly love of trivia, but in any case few Bible students can resist a good exegetical puzzle. One of the most intriguing of such puzzles is Paul’s command for women to remain veiled while prophesying "because of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10). I would like to consider the advantages of what I believe to be a new explanation of Paul’s cryptic sanction. To anticipate, I believe that the best guess is that Paul is referring to a myth according to which the naked (unveiled) Eve was taken from her husband for whom she was created and raped by lustful angels in the Garden of Eden, a myth attested by its later docetizing reinterpretation in the Nag Hammadi texts The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World.



It seems quite likely that Paul knew the more commonly attested version in which Eve was sexually seduced by Satan. I refer to 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, "I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ." The language of Paul’s analogy suggests that Eve was led astray from her pure virginity instead of saving herself for her fiancee Adam. What kind of purity is possessed by a virgin awaiting her betrothed that can be seduced away from her? What form must such seduction take? And note the very close similarity of the language here to that in 4 Maccabees 18:7-8, where the point is that the serpent deceived Eve out of her virginity.28

It seems likely, then, that Paul did know the tradition of Eve’s seduction by Satan. Would he also have been familiar with an alternative version of the story, one in which Eve is not seduced but raped? Presumably not, at least insofar as he took either version literally. Each version excludes the other, unless one had an awfully good reason to try to harmonize them. But in view of the fact that the rape of Eve story is attested only in Nag Hammadi documents usually dated sometime in the second century, we might wonder if the intertextual kinship of our passage with these writings should suggest to us a post-Pauline author and date for this section of 1 Corinthians. We must reject the knee-jerk reaction that would cause some to repudiate the interpretation simply because the result would be an anachronism in the text. There is indeed (quite possibly) an anachronism, but it is present in 1 Corinthians, not in our exegesis of it.

[andrewcriddle]

The Hypostasis of the Archons and On the Origin of the World are probably late Gnostic texts On the Origin of the World is probably late 3rd century CE and The Hypostasis of the Archons late 2nd or early 3rd century.

The Apocryphon of John which represents an earlier form of this story has Eve seduced not raped.

Unless one is suggesting a late 2nd century interpolater it is unlikely that Eve being raped is part of the background to the passage.

Andrew Criddle

[Clivedurdle]

I always thought hair WAS the covering Paul was talking about. Nobody in church ever agreed with me so I'm glad I found someone

Dake's Annotated Reference Bible argues exactly that women's hair is her covering! How can a church call itself a church if it doesn't use Dake!!!

Dake ignores the angel comment though! :)