Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple Leaf
Not yet you haven't, if the second covering doctrine surprises you.
At least it may be argued from Scripture.
My personal favourite was the inspired old timer who preached against the Reader's Digest.
|
MY personal favourite is the BEARDS issue, I have YET to hear that argued from scripture aside from an attempt to imply that the phrase Paul wrote to WOMEN about being SHAME FACED equally applied to men (!) meaning NO BEARDS... Of course the term shame faced means for women to be demure, evidently MEN should adopt this feminine quality and become demure as well...Anyway. Yeah that would be my favourite almost borderline salvation issue (It most CERTAINLY is a fellowship issue.)
The real thing that gets me about this whole head covering discussion is that it NEVER starts at the beginning to come to a conclusion about what Paul is talking about here, but always jumps to the last verse, and then tries to define the whole of scripture by an INTERPRETATION of this one last verse.
The truth of course is that the reason we HAVE to do that is because we have built this HUGE H*U*G*E* doctrine that is mentioned in virtually every Jesus Name Articles of Faith compilation SPECIFICALLY, book after book after book being written about it, that the idea that there just MIGHT be more to the issue than a WOMANS grooming issue is something we absolutely cannot even entertain for a moment lest the whole house of cards come crashing down. Womans issue? ( IT MOST MANIFESTLY IS NOT! IT IS A MENS ISSUE CONCERNING PAUL TELLING MEN THAT THE VEILING OF MEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD THAT IS THE TRADITION UNDER THE LAW DISHONOURS CHRIST, we however have taken Pauls illustration of that point by referring to the natural creation of man and made HAIR the issue. The real issue being the doing away with the OLD covenant and the bringing in of the NEW due to Jesus sacrifice on Calvary, all symbolized by the UNveiling of men now when they enter the presence of God .) I was most interested to note that there was NO addressing on the other thread Why Apostolic Women Veil to ANY of the points made in the interpretation of verse 15 the "Her hair is given her for a covering" in the light of Roberts, Jamieson, et al., no just some implication that women who veiled were NOT Apostolic, not of the household of faith, NOT "true" daughters of Jesus Christ.
Maybe some day the great debaters (I mean that facetiously of course ) will begin this subject adressing what Paul actually had reference to when he said that men ought not to be veiled. That just might provide the real key to the whole issue.
Linear Mode
