/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7933

He's wrong and inconsistent, and he doesn't even have a reply to the honest objections people are levelling against his conclusion.

Once he says it's not a biblical requirement for Christian women, then it comes out that he told his wife to and she says the Bible instructs it.

He answers the objection "the covering given to the woman is her hair" with "well, why are you all cutting and dying your hair?", which is not an answer.

This is a perfect example of mistaking zeal for sound doctrine. He looks to a post Christian west and starts being pharisaical in response, just like the Anderson cult.

>>7934

Corinthians 11:5–16

>5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

Pretty clear that head covering is not referring to hair. The two things are identified separately and being compared analogously. This is how it has been historically interpreted as well. So both scripture and tradition align here. Head covering also underscores the submissiveness of the woman, which complements all that which the Bible tells us, as the pastor says.

>>7947

1 Corinthians 11:15-16 NASB — but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no fnother practice, nor have the churches of God.

Explain why the covering here (hair) is not the same covering ten verses earlier.

>This is how it has been historically interpreted as well

Like where? Who in history interpreted it your way?

>>7949

>Explain why the covering here (hair) is not the same covering ten verses earlier.

Because it literally isn't the same, it is a totally different word. This is why you must read the scripture and understand it, not just read a translation, which is someone else telling you what they think it means or what they want you to think it means.

11:5 uses ἀκατακαλύπτῳ

11:6 uses the related κατακαλύπτεται and κατακαλυπτέσθω

11:7 uses κατακαλύπτεσθαι again

11:15 uses περιβολαίου, which is a completely different word, not from the same root as the others. So clearly the meaning is different or they would have continued to use the same word.

>>7956

>So clearly the meaning is different or they would have continued to use the same word.

Wrong

Peribolaion is a noun

akatakaluptos is an adjective

Katakalupto is a verb, as are the other variants in v 6 and 7

>>7949

>Explain why the covering here (hair) is not the same covering ten verses earlier.

You seem to be operating on the premise that there can only be one covering. However a natural reading of the verse shows that he is referring to two separate things and comparing them.

>6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

It is the natural reading of the verse that he's talking about two different things. If someone spoke these words to you, that is how you'd interpret it. Indeed, even the modernists agree on this interpretation; they argue against head coverings by saying that since it referred to a cultural norm of the Corinthians, that it is no longer required by our modern culture (which rejects submission of women).

For example,

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

>In today's culture, we no longer view a woman's wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories. A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. However, it is a personal choice and not something that should be used to judge spirituality.

>>7961

περιβολαίου is a completely different word. It isn't in any way related. Saying "nu uh" won't change the language.

>>7964

I am identifying another reason that a different word was used to refute the claim "the meaning is different because the word is different". Your responsibility is to prove from a different reason that the remark on hair being a covering in v 15 does not satisfy the requirement to cover from verses 5-7.

>>7963

This is a consistent argument.

>You seem to be operating on the premise that there can only be one covering.

I'm not, see above. I agree that these are two different remarks, but I'm asking for a reason to believe that they are different instructions instead of related.

I agree with the gotquestions presentation. Do not call them modernist though, they are explicitly not modernist. I think you meant "contemporary".

The consistent reading is that using a covering can be a healthy practice that Christians should not reject, but we have no such obligation to adopt it. This is against what based Canadian black preacher man is saying.

In Baptist churches is it quite common for a woman to wear a hat as a matter of conscience during church, but a man is forbidden.

>>7966

So you are abandoning your argument here >>7949 that the text is not referring to a separate covering besides the hair? I'm simply interested in what Paul's semantics, not cultural context.

>>7968

My mistake, I did deviate from my first statement. What I should have said is "explain why the hair as a covering doesn't satisfy the first instruction".

>>7970

>explain why the hair as a covering doesn't satisfy the first instruction

I'm sorry but maybe I wasn't clear: can we agree, as even gotquestions.com does, that Paul is referring to a covering other than the hair in verses 11:5-6?

>>7971

Yes

>>7966

>I am identifying another reason that a different word was used

You did no such thing. There are noun, adjective and verb forms of both words. You simply pointed out a random irrelevant thing.