/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>536782

>But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

>>536786

Quickly, what does this imply?

>>536788

Long hair is a valid headcovering.

>>536789

Funny that, the link mentions the SAME verse in a different context.

>>536790

So, we either take the word of Paul, who said that long hair on a woman is as good as a veil OR we take the word of "fisheater.com", which is a site written by a woman.

I think I'll stick with Paul on this one.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 1 Tim. 22

>>536786

This verse makes no sense if you think this way.

>>536782

https://www.fisheaters.com/abouttracy.html

Oh boy …

>>536796

This "WHO WOULD YOU TRUST, [CANONIFIED PERSON] OR THIS RANDOM PERSON ON THE STREET?" argument is really confused. Even the Pope makes sure he is being guided by the Holy Spirit before showing his "Papal Infallibility". As I said before, you're not Paul, so why are you saying, "We either take the word of Paul"? You are actually in the same position as this random website, seeing as you are a random anonymous person too. You could even be a woman yourself.

>>536802

Paul wrote what he wrote and I'll take his word for it over, especially, someone who identifies themselves using Myers-Briggs horoscopes and hasn't even graduated college.

>>536804

Once again,

>I am literally Paul

What?

Paul hated women though, it's pretty obvious that his gospel is the least reliable. Most of the recovered 'hidden' manuscripts show that the Justinian early christian church attempted to destroy references to Mary of Magdala as the J-man's closest living confident.

If you read into it it seems pretty obvious women were expected to play a greater role. In any case whatever Paul said about it should hold lower value than anything written in the other gospels.

Don't forget Paul was the first to question Mary's account of the resurrection and she was the first one he appeared to. inb4 its because she's a prostitute.

>>536805

Who are you quoting? I never said that I am Paul, but I can read what he wrote. It's right there in front of me. I have eyes and I am literate.

>>536807

>Who are you quoting?

Back to jp with you.

> I never said that I am Paul, but I can read what he wrote. It's right there in front of me. I have eyes and I am literate.

By that logic there would be no schisms or arguments over texts in the bible, ever.

Almost all christian woman wore a head covering in church until the 1960s. If you think the hair itself is a covering you're too stupid for me to argue with.

>>536782

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

Too bad you're wrong sweetie

>>536807

You are reading what was vetted by the early Justinian church so that they could ostrasize, arrest and execute dissenters/heretics who had different (ancient greek) ideas of the J-man's divinity.

>>536812

So, stop reading the Bible because it might be wrong? That's what you're telling me.

I must admit, I find Paul a little confusing in his directions there. On the one hand he says this >>536786 but at the same time, also writes this

>but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

which implies that "head uncovered" and "head shaven" are two different things, and that

>For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short.

which implies that "head uncovered" and "short haired" are two different things, as well as

>But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

… all of which seem to say hair is not the same as "covering", ergo Paul was continuing the Jewish custom of women's heads being covered.

Consequently, I cannot see how we justify ignoring that. In this modern world, which of you men is brave enough to tell your sisters "cover your head"?

>>536811

Boom goes that dynamite, again. Nice find.

This isn't an argument over what the bible says, it's an argument over what Canon law says. Protestants, kindly GTFO.

The Church is still required to protect property rights pursuant to the Magna Carta.

>>536811

This is confusing as canon 20 seems to contradict it.

>>536825

There are two possibilites, either canon law teaches the same thing as the bible or it contradicts the bible. If it teaches the same, we should look at the bible because it will give us the same teaching. If it contradicts, we should look at the bible because in that case canon law goes in the trash.

>>536837

We'll see if any non-protestant here actually dares to agree with this principle of sola scriptura.

>>536837

The Catholic church does not contradict the Bible in any way shape or form. It is only YOUR interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the church.

>>536840

>The Catholic church does not contradict the Bible in any way shape or form

Ok, good, so then

<we should look at the bible because it will give us the same teaching

>>536841

And it does. But many times your interpretation of it is wrong.

>>536847

We'll let scripture be the judge of that.

>>536851

And it does. Church is right, others are wrong.

>>536837

Canon law is external to the matters of doctrine, since it's a fallible, human law, an exercise of the Church's authority over her subjects - just like a country's law is a fallible, human law and an exercise of the state's authority over its inhabitants.

>>536829

Canon 6 seems to be this express abrogation Canon 20 talks about.

>>536782

cuz women r dum

>>536786

This, long hair = other covering not needed. Women, young and old, need to stop cutting their hair length. They are more pretty that way anyways.

>>536875

Scripture addresses the same practice this thread is about.

>>536921

>>536925

It isn't about being pretty.

>>536931

Isn't the requirement only to be modest?

Ugly women with bad hair dont need to cover it up.

>>536937

Even muslims aren't this blatant with their desire.

>>536925

Was this image supposed to be of a woman with short but pretty hair? I think you accidentally posted an image of an old woman rocking the "let me speak to your manager".

>>536937

Modesty is important, but it isn't about being pretty.

>>536782

Only time i've seen head coverings was during a Mass in Rome.

Where did the idea come from anyway? Was it Paul?

>>536806

>If you read into it it seems pretty obvious women were expected to play a greater role.

I remember reading or hearing this in a documentary once.

Anyone here think Mary had beef with some of the Apostles?

Do you think Jesus may have been married at some point?

>>536971

Yes, it was St. Paul's writings.

>(4)Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5)And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. (6)If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

>>536806

>>536974

>Actually insinuating that the Bible itself is already flawed

If so, what did the lord give us as a replacement? Certainly nothing good can come out of this discussion.

>>536875

Canon 6 makes canon 20 a redundant and pointless law. Needless confusion.

>a woman's long hair is a covering

>a woman should pray with her head covered

<w-wh-what d-does this i-imply?!

That a woman with long hair can pray without needing a veil. Conversely, a woman with short hair must wear a veil.

>>536984

>>536977

>>536989

>>536786

>>536996

Telling women to covert their faces because they're using their hair incorrectly doesn't seem very modernist to me.

>>536939

>rocking the "let me speak to your manager".

exactly this

>>536925

>James Joyce, a false teacher and exploiter of troubled women

Thanks for proving my point :^)

>>536931

Did I say it was numbnuts? The key word is "anyways". Besides, the Lord cares about beauty.

>>536977

>>(4)Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. (5)And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. (6)If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Why's he saying this? Where's he getting it from?

Why is a woman's cut hair not suitable to Paul?

>Certainly nothing good can come out of this discussion.

I just asked for you opinion on those somewhat weird rumors about Jesus being married or not.

>>537007

Friend, the Lord has given you one little dictate about the Bible: (Revelation 22)

I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Would you take Paul's writings out of the bible? If not, then why are we having this discussion? If yes, what the fuck?

>>536981

>Needless confusion.

Don't you love modernism?

>>537008

>Would you take Paul's writings out of the bible?

That's a very strong assumption to make of such an unformidable question.

Paul's my G. I was just asking a question , if you wont converse with some good temperament then someone else will either IRL or on this site. Calm your tits.

>>537011

Alright, sorry.

>>537016

I'm sorry too.

>>536786

OP abszolutley anihiliated

>>536782

Which church does this now n' days?

>>537007

Nowhere in scripture does it claim Jesus married anyone. That is the domain of fiction and fantasy authors. Some secret knightly orders in feudal France believed, roman cults etc that Jesus did in fact love Mary Magdelene and some of the secret orders and in Feudal France that they had a descendant together. That is basically HERESY though. Seems to me like it was invented for various French kings to claim their right to rule as a descendant of Jesus.

It's preposterous to the point of where its like most accounts say Mary (the disciple) lived and died in a cave away from civilization after the resurrection. But for some reason these guys think she and the illegetimate descendant of Christ fled to France. You have to be pretty nutty to believe it seems highly unlikely. It's pretty far but you can see how the idea spread along with eastern religious beliefs along the mediterranean coast past greece and into western Europe. The greeks were prolific writers and philosophers after all.

There are however recovered accounts that claim Jesus kissed her on the lips which are fairly authentic and appear to have been attempted to be erased. That is where the real controversy comes from. (its not implying a lustful kiss, just that Jesus liked her more than the other disciples)

Then there is the idea that in his resurrection he revealed himself to her first, and also loved her more than the other disciples according to even the church sanctioned testimonies. The claim that she was a prostitute seems to be incorrect and invented later also. The Paul centric byzantine christianity probably wrote that to defame her. "oh she's a prostitute and never became a real disciple" even though jesus appeared to her first and there's an account of her kissing him on the lips the early church tried to destroy. (True or not the evidence shows they tried to suppress it.) They were obviously very afraid of women as a concept of priestesses, and writers of scripture. because it might lead to equality lel they were right to be afraid

Obviously the bible intends women to be subvervient to their husbands. But the idea that they cant play leadership roles in the church I think is a latter byanzite christian patriarchs invention and not what jesus acted out. He seemed to treat Mary as an equal to the other disciples. In fact he was actually inappropriately close to her for the day. Letting her wash his feet wasn't appropriate for that society. These inconsistencies are a problem for me at least. Orthodox is still less pozzed than the rest though.

>when you find out its literally muh byzantine patriarchy and its not actually just a socjus buzzword.

>>537064

Reminder Paul was a Roman that persecuted Christians before he converted by his own admission. He went to Rome after the ressurection to found a church, the circumstances of his death aren't exactly clear but apparently he failed and was executed. His conflict with Mary appears to be driven by envy and he wasn't even one of the original twelve.

>>537136

>

>>>/out/

>>536811

>>536875

>>536981

It would be nice if at some point some house cleaning could be done with the goal of removing needless confusion. Obviously not now as there are too many people pushing for negative change, it would have to be done the road when morality is front and center again.

>>537134

Just because people try to suppress something and erase it doesn't make it true. A perfect example is Hitler and the new rise of Nazism. Governments try to suppress information that does not vilify hitler, or anything that Jews don't like, as a result people believe the claim that Hitler was actually the good guy and the Jews rule all world governments. Just because a peice of information is suppressed and people that espouse it are persecuted, doesn't make it true.

>>536782

Modernism.