Відео

God loves YOU

Jesus said rip out your eye if it makes you sin.

@@magnusasgeirsson7244what that got to do with the actions that come out from the heart. Before you put on something what is your intention? is it to make you look good or to catching attention. If we choose to stay Holy we are to love our dear brothers and sisters in the faith and do our best not to make any of them fall to sin but to uplift them in the way we carry ourselves and the way we approached them. What comes out of your mouth is from your heart so as what you shows in our outer appearance really demonstrate what in our hearts

@@sanalouis2620 ugh you bible thumpers and your judgment which is God's and not yours if we go by the bible. Jesus meant that you shouldn't blame another person for you sinning. Also known as don't victim blame. You are responsible for your self and no one else. Do good not because it is something god told you to do it because it is good. Also don't do bad just because you will go to hell, don't do bad because it is bad. This isn't hard

Um excuse me but the Amish are a cult. The do not believe in preaching to all the world, they have strict man made rules that are not from the Bible. You should read up on the Amish because I don't think you know them too well. Also the Bible says that long hair is the covering. (1 Cor 11:15)

​@@DianaLucero-lc9id They don't really preach cuz they exist in a Christian rural context where everyone they could already preach to is already Christian.

I agree it is simple Paul is saying that women ought to cover their head with long hair not a veil. Feminism is not going to change scripture. Feminists may or may not think they did something to hurt Christians but in fact they were attacking a false doctrine that was misinterpreted by others. Let us stick to the Word of God as it mentions hair 3 times and shorn and shaven 4 times and not once does it mention a veil. So what conclusion will a normal bible believing christian draw. That Paul was referring to hair obviously, Let's remove the religious legalistic glasses off and recognize God's truth. ua-cam.com/video/pez9U1vshAw/v-deo.html

@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj It is always the fault of the feminists for those who follow head coverings they cannot conceive the idea that maybe they were wrong because it was misinterpreted. That is why they cannot say say read here or look there to confirm this belief instead its always something else that is not of a biblical nature. Let's stop making excuses and READ what it SAYS.

This almost 4 hour video? m.ua-cam.com/video/TETe_QVqymE/v-deo.html

😂😂😂🥱🤦🏼‍♀️

Read all about it on UA-cam: "1 Corinthians 11:1-16: Head Covering Debate: The Greater Glory Revealed" Parts 1-6

Glory to God! Hallelujah! ❤️🌿👣

Amen Brother

Hi Peter, thanks for the comment. First, I believe that Moses wrote only God's inspired word, so I don't think Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is "humanly compromised." Mary's husband, Joseph, is called "righteous" for thinking of divorcing Mary rather than making her a public example (death penalty) which is what the truly hard-hearted thing to do would have been. I think what Christ is saying is that without the divorce exception, a hard-hearted man would have had his non-virgin, betrothed wife killed. (By having sex at the wedding, then accusing her, see Deuteronomy 22:13-21) The precept about divorce was written "for the hardness of their hearts" so that if a hard-hearted man couldn't stand that his wife was not a virgin, he would divorce her instead. The Hebrew in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, when following out the tenses of the verbs makes it more friendly to the prohibition of post-consummation divorce than it looks like on the surface in many translations. The passage uses past tense all the way up to "she shall be his wife" which is in the future tense. So the specific situation it speaks of is one in which the violation and the payment of the shekels has already occurred in the past and the "she is to be his wife" part is in the future. It parallels betrothal with the difference that they already had sex. Thus this plugs the loophole that a scoundrel might try to pull since non-virgins could normally be divorced during the betrothal. The fact that looking at the tenses shows it is specifically about a betrothal time frame is more evidence that prior to consummation is when a divorce would normally be given.

@@daringtheology2678 Thank you for your Hebrew cultural insights, I had been aware of the matt19:9 and 5:32 "exception clause" fornication might be specifically means pre-marital inchastity, since the same word was used alone with adultery in multiple occassions, which indicating the different scope of sexual sin that it covers. I wonder there actually by Torah the judgement for iadultery if no grace and forgiveness is to applied, is death, then if the grace of forgiveness is applied due to the redemption sacrifice of Yahshua, such as the case in John 8:3-11the woman forgiven and commanded to sin no more. should her former marriage be allowed to resume? because her legal husband is still living or her husband shall not accept her back due to the Deut24:4?

@@peterzhu1329 I agree that Yeshua used a word other than adultery in the exception clause on purpose and that that fits well with divorce being allowed for pre-marital unchastity. Again I do believe that Moses faithfully wrote God's word and that Yeshua did not come to change "one jot or tittle" of it. So in the Torah, the adulteress should be put to death with the adulterer. When the woman in John 8 was brought to Yeshua, they brought only her and not the man. It isn't possible to catch her "in the very act" without also witnessing to the man involved. In bringing only the woman to judgement, they showed themselves false witnesses and the Torah penalty for that is to receive the punishment that would have gone on the woman, thus they all left. In our cultures where adultery is not punished with death, yes, we should forgive our wives if they sin and continue the marriage. There is no conflict with Deuteronomy 24 since that is a prohibition only against remarrying a wife after first divorcing her for marital unchastity. An undivorced, adulterous wife can be received again, as shown by Hosea taking Gomer back in the book of Hosea.

🤣

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj Men will never know this experientially. I take that back. If they are in a deliverance session where a screaming demon is desperate to rip the head covering off a woman that it is residing in, all those participating can see the effects head covering has on demons by observation.

@@Jubilant-dz3kh Sorry but I can;t be silent about this. With all due respect there is no verse to justify your twisting of the scriptures. There is nothing to back up that there is a spiritual warfare going on with head coverings. You are making things up and should seriously consider repenting because you are pushing a false idea.

@@Jubilant-dz3kh I would have to agree with the commentator here please repent before it is too late. Please refrain from making things up someone might take you seriously and then you will have to deal with God.

What commentator? The mocking emoji? I have no reason to make things up. I repent where I sin, not where I share truth. God bless you with wisdom and understanding.

Consider all of 1 Corinthians 11, particularly 5-6: “but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” If the long hair is enough, why does Paul say that if a woman prays uncovered, it’s as if she had a shaven head?

@@erincoughlin4187 - Yea, good question. It seems contradictory as per the 1 Corinthians 11:15 noted above. Maybe it is just married women who are required to cover their head, seems so. I like the veil, as I said in my comment above, I was just pointing out the full context regarding a woman with long hair. Another aspect of 1 Corinthians which speaks of men not having long hair etc; yet in every picture depicting Jesus <3, He has long hair and most times a beard as well. That aspect seems contradictory as well. Just things I notice is all, no biggie to me. I love God with all my heart, mind, body and soul no matter. It could be too, that Paul was trying to appeal to the Jewish people of his time in what he wrote, as Jewish women do cover their heads always. Thanks for responding.

also some translations say every woman i’m confided as to if this only refers to a woman and her husband only or women and man or single women with God being their head

@@All_Things_Made_New Why do some say these passages refer only to married people? Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to mean husband. Since we cannot find a place that says that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see we should set that theory aside. The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but some will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if one were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women. - FA

​@bonpearl5334 not contradictory Jesus was a nazarene. They don't cut their hair while they do God's work. They called him the nazarene, not a nazarite but still nazarene meaning he's like a priest without being levite. They put it avive him on the cross and the Pharisees git upset because it means Jesus is king. You also have to understand Paul is sarcastic. He writes put his sarcasm and conversation with all of tgat and asks questions that are implied. Jesus was Jewish he would have covered his head. It's in christ all things are complete and only then can man go before God as a priest himself uncovered. All glory except God's glory is covered when coming before God out of reverence

There are no specific details in the Bible about what size or shape of cloth that women should wear on their heads. Because of this the assumption is that there is room for creativity and adapting to the situation. Just as we see Christians of past ages wearing many different styles there is still much variety in headcoverings today. If you are not part of a denomination that has given guidelines to it’s congregants you can search “headcovering styles” and choose the type you think is best. The Bible seems to connect headcovering to married status so it’s likely that an unmarried woman doesn’t need to wear one. But if the Holy Spirit is leading you to cover your head then follow your conscience.

@@daringtheology2678 1st Corinthians 11 says "every woman" not just married women.

@@JesusLightsYourPath The Greek word for woman is somewhat ambiguous and could be translated "every wife" instead of "every woman." Whether or not unmarried women should wear the covering has been discussed and debated from the early church on, so there is certainly a case to be made both ways. Rebekah putting on her covering once she saw her husband (Genesis 24:65) is part of what makes us personally, believe that it is a sign of marriage. Again though, there does not seem to be any prohibition against an unmarried woman wearing one, so those who are convicted to, should go ahead and wear them. "For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." (Romans 14:23)

@@daringtheology2678 I appreciate your advice. I see this is something God wants all of us to partake in. It also says "for the angels" mentioning the angels that lusted after women. I will always listen to what God says over what mankind says, people will debate scripture for the rest of our days but God wouldn't convict us of something that He hasn't already told us to do through the scriptures.

@@JesusLightsYourPath Just like Muslims

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

"unless at prayer or in church" Indeed. Women could also be uncoveredwhen not praying or at church

Sodality, Not sure what you mean by "historic" churches? Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that more churchgoers are following the interpretation of women wearing some kind of head covering. In fact, I'm seeing just the opposite even among those who tend to be well-known veil supporters like the Mennonites. The conference Mennonites have left this man-made "church" practice.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter lovely scriptural analysis, but this is exactly why sola scriptura is a serious issue. You can interpret and interpret to make the scripture agree with you even though we know it to be fact that traditionally speaking all Jewish and all early Christian women veiled, and it is a tradition that has passed down in the Orthodox and (up until recently) Catholic churches (which are the only two churches with an actual claim to apostolic succession). The Mother of God herself veiled, it is a know fact. No matter how much you contort scripture it's a known thing that at the time it was dishonourable for women to be outside the home without modest dress and veiling her head, and this is a tradition that we are expected to maintain at the very least in church today

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj i don't know where you got the idea that Mennonites are a historic church, they're about 5 times removed from the apostolic tradition. The Catholic church maintained the practice of women wearing veils in church up until Vatican II, and even still it's making a resurgence among traditionalists, and in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Chruches (as well as the Church of the East, I would assume) it has never 'gone out of fashion' and has been the expectation of all women in the Orthodox church since it's inception with the apostles

You can find some on Amazon. There are some links on the religious hippie channel

* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

I would not recommend the Head Covering Movement as they are a cult that has made head covering into a type of Idolatry.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter vs 5 if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved. But if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered be long hair. Your logic makes no sense. The arguement of hair being a testicle makes more sense than your logic (Dr Heiser podcast #86). Besides, these days it is not a shame to have short hair. So should I ware a covering because I have very short hair in the summer time.

@@Jana-fp8qp You don't explain why I'm wrong. All you did was criticize and not explain what the so-called RIGHT explanation should be. Do you hold to the explanation many veil promoters have told me over and over that verse 5 is to mean that a woman even if she has long hair decides NOT to wear a veil they should cut her hair off? If you do then I think what I stated makes more sense because the woman would have already had short hair and to shave the rest off would not be so extreme as opposed to some with very long hair. You made no effort to correct me but rather thought it better to make fun of me. Is that what you or your group teaches? So it's like its my way or the highway, right? If you TRULY claim to be a loving born again Christian then you owe it to me to tell me what the true meaning in verse 5 is to mean. Clearly, you made the effort to comment here therefore you must believe that you are in the right. So would you be so kind as to share that piece of information? Please note that most people I talk to almost never want to engage in a thoughtful discussion I can only hope you are different.

* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter brother/sister, it is a personal conviction that I have. I have not seen anyone wear it in my church or just because others wore it. The Holy Spirit convicted me 3 times about this and I understood I need to wear one, but it doesn't apply with anyone else. They must come with a relationship with Jesus, for He alone is the judge. God bless you.

@@servantjen Doing things out of personal convictions is not the same as scriptural convictions. I know people who follow cults, use all forms of Idolatry and claim that "God" convicted them to do it. As for me I have chosen to follow only God's words that even if something "spiritual" were to suddenly happen upon me regardless of the amount of times I would not listen to it if it is clearly not spelled out in the Scriptures. Galatians 1:8-10 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." One cannot just believe their experiences it must be confirmed in the Bible I will be praying for you.

@@servantjen Dear Madam, Personal conviction may seem to be a good choice of words in this modern age as it is now the norm to follow one's heart or beliefs with no need of tangible evidence. I'm sure you've heard people say that we should do things as long as it feels good. As Christians specifically Bible believing Christians we don't have that luxury. The Bible states to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. I also was convicted by the Holy Sprit many times about this topic and can confirm by him and through the Scriptures which fit perfectly that the covering for women in general is long hair. As you may already know God cares about the heart not whether something is worn on the body. This topic often is an issue particularly with those who come from some orthodox religion that often have many other differences in doctrines, therefore we need to make sure if we are following what we read or what someone has interpreted. And as you may also already know we as believers have the right to clarify and not be afraid to convey anything that may seem off to anyone especially a brother or sister. 2nd Tim 3:16-17. Therefore, the Bible must fit perfectly with whatever spiritual experience you may have, if it doesn't we need to re-evaluate what matters most the Scriptures or our experience. Remember 1st John 4: 2 and Galatians 1:8. May God bless you and keep you.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Agreed. It's so sad when people talk more about their feelings or emotions instead of clearly reading that the covering is hair in 1 Corin 11:15. It takes away the focus on Jesus and onto an object as interpreted by someone.

Amen

My bible says sho took the veil and covered her face.... 😊

Very astute. Many people like to ride on these two moments as some sort of proof or acknowledgment that women had to wear veils. There is no way to state with 100% certainty that what Rebecca did was because of a doctrine. Plus why would she wait UNTIL she approached Isaac's home? Was she not in the presence of men escorting her? Or even if they were all women wouldn't she be supposedly obliged to wear it anyway? Quoting this moment in time would seem more like a desperate attempt to make a point. Tamar, like you said, wore the veil which apparently Judah mistook for a prostitute. Giving us the idea that prostitutes normally did back then which implies that every other woman did not.

Indian preachers do cover their head.

Christian preachers should be men and therefore should not cover their head while preaching.

what does your believe says about these lgbt

In Christianity the only type of sexual activity permitted is between a married man and women everything else is sexual perversion. While many make mistakes and can seek the grace of God. Those who joyfully and willful practice and enjoy sexual perversion like men having anal sex with each other etc are sinning in a way that is deeply disgusting to God it is written about by Moses, Christ himself and the apostles. To make it worse I would say as an organization isn’t just Godless but Antichrist in nature in that it wars against the church and all norms that unite us to the point that saying there are two genders is now controversial. Because of these radical and satanic ideas there will never unity between peoples in are country again. In my first church the pastors affirmed and supported lgbtq. So I’m saying they are comprised and worldy acting contrary to scripture. My point is I’m noticing this now but as I learn history I’ve discovered this started before I was born probably going back to the 1920s but not really being to bad until the 1960s when divorce became no big deal, and feminism and sexual revolution exploded to the point we have gays parading down the street waving dildos.

Clearly, explained in scripture? If you are referring to 1 Corinth. 11, then you should note that it doesn't say the words hat or veil it says the words cover and throughout the verses they refer to the hair over and over. Therefore since hair can cover a head and given the context of all the surrounding verses they are referring to being covered or not covered in long hair.

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj it says if a woman won’t cover her hair then she should shave her hair off… so obviously he was referring to a head covering. This is so obvious and you just ignored the rest of my post that this was also understood by all Christian’s to mean literal coving until 1900s in west and is still the held belief by 100s of millions of Christian’s today. So was everyone wrong and we finally figured it or did feminism and American libertarianism water down the church? This so obvious lol just admit you don’t want to do it or teach it. That’s the honest thing to say.

@@austinfurgason3634 The not covered part is meaning not covered in long hair for example: For if the woman be not covered (IN LONG HAIR), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (IN LONG HAIR). So the understanding is if the woman has her hair short then let it be shorn (shaved completely off). You seem to want to see covering to mean like a hat, hood or veil. You do know that long hair can ALSO COVER a head right? And that the rest of the passages keep referring to hair in one form or another right? You do recognize that it DOES NOT implicity state that the covering is to mean a hat or veil like you are thinking right? So instead of doing an exegesis of the verses you want to go outside of the scriptures and talk about history as though history can't be wrong If we were to adhere to historical understanding then you might as well claim that infant baptism is ok or making crucifixes because such teachings, as well as many many others, have been around for centuries so you will excuse me if I don't appear to have a problem with "historical evidence" even the Jews were wrong for building temples according to the scriptures for a long time (Acts 7:47-51) but they did it anyway but obviously God was not pleased. History shows they did it and that for a long time but it doesn't prove they were right. Therefore your logic fails in light of the scriptures. But according to you they must be right because many people accepted it and it was around for a long time right? SMH. Can you make a plausible argument using the scriptures or are going to going to start quoting some authors now?

all Eastern Orthodoxy (as can be found all the way from up in Russia down to Lebanon) is still influenced by Byzantine tradition, and going back from there Apostolic tradition. the Eastern Roman Empire may no longer have a spot on the map, but its religious rite is continued by all Eastern Orthodox christians today Edit: And of course byzantium is still in all our hears ;)

King James Version: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Your translation seems to be off it does not mention "while assembling" so that's strike one. Then you say that "If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers" but the scriptures states: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. They are saying that man ought not to have his head covered in LONG HAIR doing something LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying. It doesn't say they were exclusive they were examples. So it has nothing to do with something being put on or removed. Just don't have long hair that COVERS the head. That's strike two. You seem to not get that they are saying that the covering is long hair that hangs down and to be not covered means to have short hair, not shorn or shaven just short hair.

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj Amen well said!

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj If a woman has no hair because of illness, and the cultural environment around where she lives thinks that a female has no hair is very bad, then she should cover her head by something, is that right?

@@ojokagiso219 I think the issue is not about something out of our control like an illness. From the context of the passage it must be referring to those who choose to wear their hair long on men and short for women. That is why Paul said we have no custom. This is about choice. Not sure what cultural environment you are making up but I think if they are hanging out with fellow believers they would all understand the medical situation.

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj there's that lovely protestant line "I THINK" not "the bible says" or "tradition says" or "the church fathers say" or "Christ said" it's always "I, one flawed individual who thinks he knows more than all the fathers and bishops and councils and monks and apostles combined, have interpreted the bible to be saying this"

1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering just cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is further proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald...

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 The question for some who are against hair being the covering is usually this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The response to this is: Where did you read the word: Only? Such a person is assuming exclusivity instead of seeing it as simply two examples being given. If you truly believe in this exclusivity interpretation then a woman should be fine if they don’t wear a veil and speak in tongues or interpret the tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if a woman is doing this has her head uncovered. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also. please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. PS the word "assembling" is not in the KJV which you should read as well as all the other verses as it does not have all the words from the "NEW" versions that trip one up. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered" (Not covered meaning not covered in in long hair). 1st Corinthians 11:15 is the key please read it.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter You make good points that the intent is likely to be covered always, or nearly always and that "assembling" is not in the context. I don't get why so many people immediately assume this is only for church when the passage says nothing of the sort. Yet, when you look at the Greek, the word family (katakalupto) or "cover" is used throughout the passage except in one place. That one place is verse 15 where it says "her hair is given to her for a peribolaion." Paul carefully distinguishes her hair (peribolaion) from the type of covering (katakalupto) he talks about in the rest of the passage by using a different word in his comparison to nature. In fact, if you trace peribolaion through the quote of Psalm 102:26 in Hebrews 1 verse 12, you find that it correlates to the Hebrew word "leboosh." "Leboosh is the word used for Christ's undergarment that had lots cast for it in Psalm 22:18. So "her hair is given to her for an under-covering" would be a reasonable reading. An under-covering should be covered by another covering as Christ wore an outer garment over His "peribolaion." There is a reason why, as this video goes through, not wearing a veil has been pretty much unheard of throughout Christian history. The passage has been clear to every culture until relatively few decades ago.

@@joshuawilliams5348 When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements (like the feminist movement) people started to drift away from it. There are several videos online of lengthy discussions of as to how long women had been wearing something on their heads for centuries and then show how only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil or something. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. Please note that Evidence that is OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of headwear. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. Again, length of time of a practice cannot be used as proof. For example: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES and performed INFANT BAPTISMS for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google this.) Wouldn’t those who believe in this use the same reasoning as those who point to history to lend credence to wearing veils? Of course they would. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes and infant baptisms) that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years. What matters is what the Scriptures teach. When some people refer to the idea that it was the culture of the day to wear veils it is often to disprove it. Meaning it was a true thing to follow at the time but not for today. They will sometimes also add that since it was written in 1st Corinthians the “covering” doctrine was ONLY meant for those who lived in Corinth. This is also a flawed interpretation, because first it accepts the misinterpretation of veils as a covering when it is long hair. Second, it is wrong to think that these passages were meant for a specific group when it is clearly understood it was meant for all men and women by the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman…” in verses 4 and 5. Add to this the fact that it mentions the creation order in verses 8 and 9 then there is no doubt IT MUST BE APPLICABLE TO ALL! If you go online and listen to others about this subject you will find an array of unsubstantiated stories of how people thought about wearing or not wearing a veil meant. As an example one UA-cam video has someone relaying a story about how some believe that the first century church viewed women going without a veil as equal to being topless! Shocking as this may sound this is what some denominations believe with no biblical proof whatsoever. Another shocking story (based on a book) is that some believe that the only women that went around without a veil on their heads were prostitutes and was the reason 1st Corinthians 11 was written. Some use the story in Genesis that Rebecca covered her head when she approached Isaac’s home, as though they knew exactly what she was thinking when she did this. Others believe that married women had to wear veils to show their marital status. Some will point to a “historical” book which “opened their eyes” that women had to wear veils. In one instance I found online an individual who would rightly say that we don’t need other books to understand the Bible, but then quote so-called “Christians” like Tertullian for a lengthy amount of time as though what they wrote was law. (See 2nd Tim 4:3) This is a contradiction. Besides how can we trust what they wrote was true? Or, how can we be sure there wasn’t any bias in the author’s writings? Or if what the people did was because of a misinterpretation? If such ideas cannot be biblically substantiated or if they require a lot of biblical manipulation to try to fit into their narrative then it should not be received as truth. So what does it imply that one has to go BEYOND THE SCOPE of the Bible to prove their point? It implies that READING THE BIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND certain truths. I cannot stress this more because this is very important and that for ANY topic not just about head covering. If someone asks you to read or hear something historical than what is in the Bible to get a better understanding, then they are implying that their argument is so thin that they have to resort to other sources.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter First off, I did not appeal to history as a REASON for veiling. I appeal to history to show that most Christians throughout time have had understood this passage as being about a cloth covering. I agree that there have been persistent errors in church history, so this evidence carries less weight, yet to contradict an understanding that dates back to the early church should not be done lightly or without significant biblical evidence. I listed the historical position last in my previous comment, because it is less weighty, though it should still be considered. I also agree with you that Paul was talking about something that was more than just culture and should be applied through the ages, just like I agree with you that the passage is not talking about solely within the church assembling time. Another passage that can be looked at to show that Paul meant it to apply beyond ancient Corinth is 1 Timothy 2:8-9 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" Men are to pray in a specific way and then "In like manner" (meaning pray again) "the women adorn themselves in modest apparel" and "not with broidered hair." Notice that the modest apparel is contrasted with decorating the hair! In other words, to wrap the hair modestly makes sense as what he is recommending and it is in the context of praying while so covered just like in 1 Corinthians 11. The Greek word for apparel there (katastole) is also sharing a root with "Katakalupto." On top of that, in the law of jealousy in Numbers 5, the woman is to have her covering (which according to 1 Corinthians 11 is associated with her husband) removed in order to answer directly to God regarding the accusation of her infidelity. Also, your response seems to have ignored the points I made regarding the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 11 making a distinction between "katakalupto" with a cloth and the hair being only a "peribolaion" which is really the strongest argument for veiling. When one looks at these other scriptures and the Greek words used, the argument for veiling is quite strong just from scripture alone.

and yet some christians call muslim women “oppressed”

@@za1d80 Only the ignorant ones, void of Spiritual Judgment!

No. You don’t understand Christianity.

And when Muslims convert to "Christianity", they seldom retain the veil or modest clothing.

Not true head covering is not veil/cloth covering, it is God given, natural covering which is hair. Covering means long hair.

⁠@@ojokagiso219No you do not. If we see the headcovering be worn by Christian women way after Christ’s death then clearly there was an importance to it.

hi do you wear head covering when in public just doing like maybe shopping or catching up with friends ??? its been a question for me , i have read the 1 corinthians so im asking if wear head covering everytime

@Lunae Wow thankyou for reminding me for not making the Holy Spirit sad and the warning too . Thankyou so much ... ive been reading the Bible and to be honest ive been transformed but there are still some failures like not having patience and not being gentle in action and speaking , youre right we should keep an eye on our actions , the words we say but since im new to head covering never really heard about it until few weeks and then yesterday me and my cousin talk about it and i got curious whether to wear everytime or just in prayers . I think i should learn more by the guidance of the Holy spirit . Thankyou for this respond

@Pielun12 STILL, women must veil up or cover their heads in accordance with Scripture teaching. Do not try and pursued people differently. Where there is an instruction, there is no other righteous choice for the faithful. It is our duty to obey, not argue or undermine the Divinely approved instruction for the faithful.

@Pielun12 It's very simple, when a brother or sister is publicly disobeying the Word of God the brethren have a duty to bring it to the notice of the offending party. So they can repent and see the error of their ways, and so warn others of falling into the same error of judgment.

And obey the written Word of God.

Same God, same basic commands throughout the Abrahamic religions, just in a different language and adapted to cultural nuances. But facial coverings like the Niqab were born out of environmental necessity from sand storms, as the men wore them and head coverings as well. Spent 2 years of my life in Afghanistan. Day 3 I was in a full scarf and niqab as well because that sun plus the sand storms are PAINFUL.

Niqab maybe in Afghan culture thing but in Islam is not, it was a command just for prophet Muhammad's wives to wear it for their rank and position as the prophet wives... While prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima was not commanded to do that she never were niqab only hijab.

@@margauxf4321 Muslims believe in really one only God Christians believes in 3 different gods Muslims believe each person is responsible for his own act Christians believes jesus is responsible for their act and therefore he must die to forgive their sins Muslims believe that jesus was saved as he was praying for God Christians believe jesus was crucified There are many differents , I'm open for discussion

You got this and other beliefs from Christians as the Old Testament was the first book to be given

​@@notyourbusdon't mislead

Thank you Lord Jesus ❤️ I'm so happy for you sister welcome to the truth , I know heaven is rejoicing.

Lol you changed Your religion To get citizenship in Europe, I've seen a lot of people like you 🤣🤣🤣

@@wid2297 Im in USA idiot and Im eligible to get citizenship here but im refused because of oath you have to deny Jesus to get citizenship. So we leaving back to my country. Europe, USA is Sodom and Gomorrah you can keep it yourself. There is no Morals here. You guys turn in to zombies.

@@wid2297 Never has she mentioned moving from one country to another.

@@ehh5812 don't mind her. Just pity her and pray for the Lord Jesus Christ to show himself to her.

Not if it becomes popular again.

​@@kensigregory361 Let's make it popular then🎉

Religous freedom means let people do what they believe. So women should have the freedom to choose to cover their hair or not.

* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.