I have a simple question for the men. Do you uphold the following verse which is stated along side all the others on head covering??

1 Corinthians 11:7
"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 you teach a women must cover her head at all times, do you NEVER cover your head? If not why not?
If you teach it is just when praying or prophesying, do you insist men ALWAYS have their head uncovered even when outside praying?

Are men rebellious to God if they wear a hat and spiritual harlots??

Why is this part of 1 Cor 11 never emphasized?
Is this selective interpretation? Or could it be that men realise that maybe it it is not just simply teaching a new outward dress code for them, but somehow cannot see that it is not for the women either??

_________________
Dave

In spite of all the explanations of man on this issue, I Corithians 11 still remains. Last I looked it is still in my paper Bible and those posted online. I still consider the WORD as being the final authority on this issue.

Sandra

_________________
Sandra Miller

If one wants to cover their head, and one doesn't, it's not some sort of unforgivable sin. God sent his son here to die for ALL our sins, because he knew we could not walk perfect by the word of God. No one on this forum is perfect, nor will they ever be, so unless you are perfect, please don't judge me. You can throw out all 31,102 verses, but again, until you're perfect don't cast them at me. Everyday, all I see here is threads looking to condemn someone of something, until you have paid the price that Jesus did, don't keep starting threads that condemn, like some sort of Sunday morning armchair preacher. Were all just dirty rags, not one perfect, not ONE, how can anyone here set back and condemn? who made you Jesus Jr!

This is whats the word say's about sin....

Matthew 12:31-32 says, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

_________________
Bill

Thank you, Lisa.

This is a Discussion Forum.

I was simply responding to posts and giving and explaining my own position.

Blessings.



Add:

It seemed to me that the head covering folks were bashing the non-head covering folks.

_________________
Jade

Jer. 2:13 -
For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.


It is not head coverings we must bring back but Christ.


Christ has been dethroned.

We must bring back the King.


2 Sam. 19:11-12 -- …… Speak to the elders of Judah, saying, ‘Why are you the last to bring the king back to his house……? Why then should you be the last to bring back the king?’

_________________
Jade

In this entire discussion the hermeneutics employed by the distractors is troubing, at best.

As expoused here Bible interpretation is subject to what I want to believe, not that Scripture informs me what I need to do, believe. When Scripture is view through these lens one will go off the rails quickly into relativism. Then when does a promoted teaching fall into the category of false doctrine?

I consider it very odd that the subject of the head covering evokes such serious opposition...apparently it must be more meaningful to the LORD given the opposition. No other doctrine besides headship evokes such a response, e.g. baptism, communion, feet washing (ouch?), meeting with the believers on a regular basis, loving ones neighbor. Why?

Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling and the man's unveiling as a symbol of Christ headship order? I so believe Jesus is the head of the church, or all creation, for that matter and I so want to honor Him! My hope of eternal life rests with HIM -` how can I do less - in face of all he has done for me?

Sandra

_________________
Sandra Miller

Sandra writes...

"No other doctrine besides headship evokes such a response, e.g. baptism, communion, feet washing (ouch?), meeting with the believers on a regular basis, loving ones neighbor. Why?"

Sister I say this facetiously. We haven't had a good King James argument in a while. That generally evokes some controversy on this forum.

But Sandra I would simply urge you to just go on and please Jesus as I know you do from the convictions of your heart. And the head covering is such a controversial issue I don't know why it evokes such opposition. In past discussions I argued against it until the Lord showed me that 1 Corinthians 11 is biblical. But there will be those who are in opposition of it.

Though I believe 1st Corinthians 11 does argue for the sisters to be covered in the assembly. I know there are many assemblies and godly women who don't wear the head covering. Thus I'm taking a middle-of-the-road approach and saying that in all things let there be liberty and love one another.

I'm having to learn this in a church I'm visiting with a friend of mine. I do believe there are Christ-centered brothers and sisters in this assembly. They would affirm that one is saved only by the atoning work in the blood of Jesus. They would affirm that faith in Christ is that which saves. They would affirm that the scriptures are the authority and rule for our life. They would also argue that Saturday is the Sabbath in which we worship. On that last point I try to give them grace and extend them liberty and love. I choose to affirm with them that on which our faith rest. And that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

My sister I hope this makes sense. I appreciate the wisdom in the charity you bring in your posts. The Lord Jesus bless you richly.

Your brother Blaine.

//Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling//

There would be no opposition if proponents did not try to proselytize non-proponents, as if they are disobeying a major Christian doctrine based on a very nebulous passage of scripture from a letter written to a specific culture at a specific time with a specific issue that Paul wanted to address. It is absolutely not clear what the passage means exactly or what Paul meant by a veil or what is meant by “because of the angels.” There is no instruction whatsoever how this practice should be implemented today. There is no clarity as to what the covering or veil meant or looked like. It was not unclear to those in that church at that time because they knew exactly what Paul meant.

To make a doctrine for today out of such vague statements is fraught with difficulty. If God meant this to apply to all cultures in all ages He would have provided much more explicit instruction in more than this one little passage from a letter to a specific church.

_________________
Todd

"Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling"

Every one is familiar with John 3:16, but not as familiar with Genesis 3:16.

Therein lies the answer to the mystery of your inquiry!

You see, there's more to the picture than meets the eye...this opposition will never die.

You see, even the F word began in Genesis!

I have already said that I do not oppose women wearing head coverings.

But for myself, I do not wear a head covering. I stand on these words of our Lord Jesus:

John 4:23-24 -- But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

_________________
Jade