Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,293
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,706
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,293
Tom 3,300
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 16
John_C 3
Recent Posts
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Law and Grace
by Tom. Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:56 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#8198 - Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:37 PM Re: Traditions [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
I guess you used a different dictionary. grin

Coiffure [See Coif.] A headdress, or manner of dressing the hair. --Addison (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary).

Coif - a skullcap worn by nuns under a veil or by soldiers under a hood of mail or formerly by British sergeants-at-law (2001 Princeton University).

PS: your definition was listed as well and IMHO is the "normal" usage of the word, but you know writers.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#8199 - Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:55 PM Re: Traditions [Re: The_Saint]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


As a Messianic Jew, let me point out a piece of Jewish tradition that may help shed some light on this issue. In the same verses that Paul directs women to cover their heads in prayer, he also instructs men just as strongly to never cover their heads in prayer. However, Jewish men, today as then, ALWAYS cover their heads when they pray. (in fact, so do women) Consider the traditional "kippah" head covering, that little round ornate piece of cloth that only covers the top of your head, held in place with hair pins. In Yiddish it is sometimes called a "yarmulke" which means "respect for the Sovereign." It is a tool specifically designed for use by men in prayer, and it was probably in common use in the time of Jesus. But going back further than that, to the time of Moses, is the prayer "tallit," a shawl worn by men in more formal prayers at the synagogue or at home (such at the during the Shabbat meal). In lieu of either, any piece of cloth will do; I've even seen people reach for napkins at the dinner table! To a Jew, it is unthinkable, irreverent, strictly forbidden, a sin of the highest order, to come before God in prayer with an uncovered head. Because of this, I think we can safely assume that both our Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul practiced this "religiously" (since we have no clear statement that they rejected it as false).

What shall we say then? Was Paul a hypocrite? Was he placing demands on others that he himself did not follow? Or did he or someone else address the Jewish practice of head covering in more detail and expel it as false doctrine, and such documents being lost to history? I think the more plausible answer is that Paul is addressing here a more profound meaning than head fashion -- one of the heart. It is the same heart that is expressed by Jews by wearing the kippah: a heart of respect and submission before God.

Today, in our country, what does it mean to take off your hat when you pray? Or when you enter a church, or someone's house? It means respect. What does it mean when you leave your ball-cap on at the dinner table? Disrespect. What does it mean when a woman wears a mini-skirt or a low-cut blouse to church? Disrespect. It is believed that in first century Greece, a woman with loose, flowing, uncovered hair was most probably a prostitute. It was indecent in public, just as it is considered indecent by Muslims today. I think what Paul is saying is don't come to church dressed like a prostitute! Show some respect! Dress and act with appropriate decorum. Both men and women, act with respect! Women, show respect to your husbands, don't dishonor him by parading around in public half naked. Men, show respect and submission to God when you pray and take the leadership role in the home and in church.

In my opinion, this is the true message of this passage, and I think a message that is desperately needed to be emphasized and enforced in our churches today, as it has been apparently lost of many of the young worshipers that I see on Sunday mornings in my church.

Marcus

#8200 - Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:22 PM Re: Traditions  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
NH, USA
Marcus,

Thanks for the "history" lesson on Jewish culture and practice. I mean that sincerely. smile But, as I have stated before in this thread, the choice for a woman to either cover her head or leave it uncovered is to be determined ONLY by God's inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word. The issue MUST be decided by exegesis of God's written revelation. Thus, how do you deal with the following inspired passage?
1 Corinthians 11:3-5 (ASV) "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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven."
Paul writes that a man praying with his head covered dishonors his head, which from the preceding verse would apparently refer to Christ. Thus, for a man to pray wearing a "yarmulke", as is the common practice among Jews would be dishonoring to Christ. Unless I've missed something here, Paul's injunctions appear to fly in the face of this long-standing tradition practiced among Jewish men of having their heads covered?? scratch1 Or, perhaps, more likely, the "oral tradition" that has been passed down from some point in Jewish history is inaccurate, as is many of their traditions which they hold "sacred" and as was the case with the Pharisees of Jesus day.

Those whom Paul was addressing were professing Christians and his injunction was directed for the Christian Church. And although the majority of church members at Corinth were Gentiles, he makes it quite clear that this practice of men not covering their heads and women covering their heads in the assembly was the universal practice in all the churches. Comments?

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#8201 - Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:31 PM Re: Traditions [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


I would never dream of denying the infallibility of scripture, don't get me wrong. I think that the words of 1 Corinthians are perfect and complete, but our understanding of them may not be. We must seek the right interpretation of these words, IN CONTEXT. That's linguistic context, theological context, and cultural context.

The point of the historical background was to show that we have every reason to believe that Paul himself practiced covering his head when he prayed, even as he wrote these words. What's more, it's equally probable that Christ Himself likewise covered His head with some kind of skull cap, or, even more likely, a tallit. See Numbers 15:38. The garment with the tassels on the corners is the tallit; this is not a matter of oral tradition, this is a "mitzvah," a non-negotiable holy command. We know that Christ wore a tallit because of the occasion where a woman touch it in order to be healed as He walked through the crowd, and He felt the power leave Him. (Luke 8:44, the word translated as "fringe" or "edge" is actually "tassel.") If this was a piece of the old Law that was done away with, I think it would have been given more and direct attention by the apostles, as with other Jewish customs (unclean meat, circumcision, etc.). It is permissible to still be Jewish and practice Jewish customs and still worship the Jewish Messiah, who was Himself Jewish and practiced Jewish customs. Christianity is first and foremost a Jewish religion, a completion of Jewish prophecy, into which Gentiles are welcome to come as well. (I don't mean to sound militant, I'm just trying to put the entire Gospel into context.)

That the man is the "head" (the boss, the supervisor) of the woman, and that Christ is similarly the head of the man, is unambiguous. I am no feminist. Only men should pray in church (unless that assembly is of all women), and only men should teach (with the same exception). Women must submit to the leadership of men, as men submit to Christ. I'm not trying to explain away this passage for political expediency. But I do think it would be theologically inconsistent of Paul to place such a legalistic and superficial command on the body of Christ as a particular article of clothing. Look at the whole issue of the meat sacrificed to idols to see how he transcends petty legalism. Everywhere Paul is concerned with what's in the heart of the believer: a heart full rebellion or a heart of submission, one of works or one of faith. To consecrate or forbid a single article of clothing like a hat sounds to me to be exceedingly Pharisaical and in stark contrast with the rest of Paul's teachings. There must be a deeper, more heart-centered explanation. The context clearly shows that he is speaking of outward showing of respect, submission, authority, and conformity. And since the way in which respect was shown was different even between the divinely inspired author and his audience, we can conclude that it is permissible if the showing of respect is in a slightly different form to our culture.

On what basis do you find it to be "quite clear that this practice of men not covering their heads and women covering their heads in the assembly was the universal practice in all the churches." Is it mentioned in any other letter except this one to the church in Corinth?

#8202 - Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:01 PM Re: Traditions  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,293
NH, USA
In reply to:
The point of the historical background was to show that we have every reason to believe that Paul himself practiced covering his head when he prayed, even as he wrote these words.

If you believe this is true, then please give me a reasonable explanation of Paul's words here:

1 Corinthians 11:4 (ASV) "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head."
Perhaps I am dense, but to me there is a clear contradiction between what you are claiming Paul must have done, i.e., cover his head when he prayed in the assemblies and what he exhorts to the saints at Corinth.

For those of us who have spent time trying to exegete this portion of Scripture, which admittedly the interpretation of which is a disputed one, Paul's argument is perspicuous and linear, starting with God's intent in His creative order in regard to men and women, then appealing to reason, and lastly showing that the practice of men not having a head covering and women wearing a head covering is the universal practice of all the churches. It seems to us, therefore that this three-fold argument is a most difficult one to refute. Turning to the consideration of Jewish custom, if were true that it was the practice of men to wear head coverings in the Temple and Synagogues; one which if not done was as serious a matter as you have stated, then would it not be reasonable to assume that Paul would have said something in this passage to the contrary to what he actually wrote by inspiration? Help me out here... !! wink

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#8203 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:58 AM Re: Traditions [Re: hisalone]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
hisalone

Where in the text do we have a clue that the author was talking about custom?
If it isn't there, do we have a right to presume that about the text?

Also when you said "I didn't see anywhere where our Lord established the rule about head coverings." I almost fell out of my chair. Am I to assume that you also believe that because it wasn't Jesus Himself that penned the words of the text on head coverings, that it wasn't inspired by God Himself? With that kind of reasoning, we could disobey any Scripture passage that wasn't said by our Lord Himself. Something that unless I miss my guess even you would dismiss.
Please clarify yourself.

Tom

#8204 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:34 AM Re: Traditions [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,300
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim

I think what you have said to Marcus, is a great approach to take. As much as I want to take the word of people who believe that the head coverings were just a culture practice to show submission. I don't see a clue in the passage that would indicate this.

In this particular case, what message would Paul be sending if he said ("Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.") if he was indeed wearing a head covering?

Pilgrim you are not the only one that might be dense in this case, I too would like a reasonable explanation of this.

Tom

#8205 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:28 AM Re: Traditions [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
hisalone Offline
Member
hisalone  Offline
Member


Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
Eastern Maryland
Tom,

I will let Marcus continue the conversation about the head coverings since his explanation is far superior to mine. I was going on what I have read in manners and customs as to the place of coverings. I really appreciate everything Marcus has added to the thread. Also, as to the matter about our Lord establishing the rule about coverings, I was just stating that we can not compare this with the ordinances of Baptism or the Lord's Supper. I believe making external dress as a requirement for proper worship is wrong, period. We are missing the whole point of the Gospel when we start imposing dress rules. I can see the objections already bash. I will not continue to argue the point, I spoke as plainly as I can about it, and at this point I cannot be convinced otherwise concerning this issue. I'll continue to read the threads on this topic but do not intend to reply flee.

Mike


Hisalone
Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
#8206 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:06 AM Re: Traditions [Re: hisalone]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
In reply to:
I believe making external dress as a requirement for proper worship is wrong, period. We are missing the whole point of the Gospel when we start imposing dress rules.

Should women wear bikinis to Church--or at all? Is this allowed in your Church? Some people have to be instructed in sanctification and what it looks like. It does not come "naturally" too many, if any:

Example: There is a man I know that was saved. He was previously a cocaine addict and he ran a Tanning Bed supply house (which he later sold). These individuals (his wife was saved app 3 weeks before he was) knew nothing about the church. Never, I mean never had attended one. The first Sunday his wife attended she wore a ball-gown--a nice one, but it was sort of out of place in a small country Church (she did though have the right intent). He was accustomed to wearing real short shorts where certain things would sometimes appear (I am putting this as delicately as I can, ok). He wore these to Church on Wednesday's (and throughout the week at work). Until he was taken aside and shown it was improper, he did not have a clue. After he was shown the inappropriateness of such dress, not only did he stop wearing these "things" to Church, but to work as well.

IMHO, there is a difference in being instructed in sanctification and being legalistic, which is what actually I believe you are attempting to defend against. I would never throw someone out for wearing blue jeans, or the like, but none-the-less the teaching of the Word of God would go forth in love to teach people to "respect" a holy God, whom they claim they serve, with what they wear--but, not legalism.

If your best "dress" is not meant for God, then whom is your best for?



Reformed and Always Reforming,
#8207 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:28 AM Re: Traditions [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Not in direct response to your comments yet, but one other thing occurred to me this morning. I mentioned two examples of Jewish law/tradition that were dealt with at length by the Apostle Paul and shown to be no longer applicable -- circumcision and unclean meat. However, point Paul was making in both those cases was that gentiles should not be held to these traditions, yet in neither case did he forbid Jewish believers from continuing to practice them. It must not be demanded of anyone to be circumcised; however, he did not say that circumcision was forbidden. Anyone may be permitted to eat meat that was previously considered unclean; however, he never suggested that Jews be compelled to eat unclean meat. Overall, Jews were permitted to continue to act like Jews, and gentiles were permitted to continue to act like gentiles, as long as they both believed in Christ and Him crucified. So if this head-covering issue is, as you say, a case of a reversal of Jewish law, that it is absolutely forbidden for any Jew to continue to observe the head-covering as a sign of submission to God, then this issue is of paramount significance and stands starkly alone among all other teachings by Christ or any apostle. Something that significant and unique would have been dealt with, I think, with more than a single verse. This leads me to suspect that if we are reading this, only looking at the surface, reaching this unlikely conclusion, then we must be missing something. Now, I say that, acknowledging that this is the first thing in the morning. :-) So if I'm forgetting another issue that would add precedence to this one, please remind me.

#8208 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:09 AM Re: Traditions [Re: hisalone]  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
The_Saint Offline
Enthusiast
The_Saint  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
Mike, I personally think we're missing the point of the gospel when we make ourselves judges over it.


"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." - Jonathan Edwards
#8209 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:17 AM Re: Traditions  
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
The_Saint Offline
Enthusiast
The_Saint  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 146
United States
Marcus you said about taking the scriptures in context, but you have yet to truly give a contextual rebuttal to Pilgrim. Or rather, to Paul in my opinion. Paul spoke very clearly and I would personally appreciate a better answer to the scriptures in question, in context of what is written.


"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." - Jonathan Edwards
#8210 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:54 AM Re: Head Coverings and more [Re: The_Saint]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
E_F_Grant Offline
Addict
E_F_Grant  Offline
Addict

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
Go Purdue! So guess at it alre...
Recently I have begun covering my head in corporate worship. Some other godly women were discussing it in another Forum, and I became convinced that I needed to do so. Here's why:

-My husband is a FANTASTIC guy. Why would I not want to honor his headship over me? He's the sort a woman would follow to...well, wherever.

- On the cultural argument. ISTM that the cultural part of this practice is not WHETHER we ought to be covering our heads, it is HOW we cover our heads. The Scripture gives the command and the reasons. I think it is left up to us as to the how. There are lots of ways to do it that are inconspicuous, inexpensive, and honorable. I make my own hats, but some wear snoods, and others wear kerchiefs. Whatever. Just do it, already. Such a little thing, you know?

-The second half of 1 Corinthians 11 deals with the Lord's Supper. Are we to make a sudden change in the middle of the chapter and say, THAT was cultural, THIS isn't? If I can say that headcovering is "only" cultural, then what's to keep me from making the same argument about the Supper?

-I like to shock people in my church. [Linked Image] No, seriously...actually it occurred to me that as a woman of an, ahem, certain age, I need to be setting an example for the younger women in godliness. Someone out there may be reading that Scripture and thinking, why don't we...but, oh, I am too shy..I could never stand out like that...well, here's That Woman Over There with the Purple Hat on. In fact, I always seem to see her with a hat! So maybe if SHE does it, then I wouldn't be alone....so, OK, I'm the only woman in my 2000 member church that does this so far. What can I say? I like being eccentric.

-Plus all of the good reasons already given.

-Yeah, my hair is flattened after church. Maybe it makes the Lord grin. I grin, too, seeing it. But I count it a badge of honor.


Stand Fast, Craigellachie!
#8211 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:54 AM Re: Head Coverings and more [Re: E_F_Grant]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Dear Eleanor:

What a pleasure it is to read a post like yours and though it rarely ever happens where I live, to meet and speak with a godly woman is a rare priviledge and delight. When I have had the priviledge they radiate grace and are an honor to Him and a wonder to all around them.

Hang in there sister!

In Him,

Gerry

#8212 - Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:56 AM Re: Head Coverings and more  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
E_F_Grant Offline
Addict
E_F_Grant  Offline
Addict

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
Go Purdue! So guess at it alre...
{looking up} That's for You, Lord!


Stand Fast, Craigellachie!
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (chestnutmare), 17 guests, and 88 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
650,082 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.052s Queries: 16 (0.002s) Memory: 2.7196 MB (Peak: 3.0329 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-18 04:38:50 UTC