If you're seeking the truth, READ from the beginning.

This is amaaaazing! Remembering Jesus by taking communion at home brought me here👍🏾👍🏾✝️👑

Thanks so much! God bless you and I pray that God may keep giving you wisdom and love! May Christ be with you.

1 corinthians 11:3 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Thank you so much for this!!!

This is just what I I was searching for. Thanks for sharing

Outstanding commentary for the cultural context! Thank you!

Thank you so much!!!

Thank you so much ❤️

Love This so much!!!!

I just finished reading this chapter, and came to the same conclusion! Thank you! This is comfirmation!

Appreciate the video, but there's a large chunk where Paul seems to make a biblical defence of head coverings, not simply repeat what was said to him by the Corinthians. I think it would've been fairer to address that

Thank you so much for this. Super helpful.

The first verses will tell you what Paul told the Corinthians about the teachings of God, including headcovering.

Hi Meeting Place! Your video explained chapter 11 excellently, and it truly helped me in understanding it with regard to the Corinthian church and culture of that time.

Thank you so much. This really cleared a lot of things up!!

I was so confused on this topic. Thank you so much!

Thank you 🙏

we really appreciate the content and explanation! God bless!

thanks!! i was very confused, this makes a lot of sense

1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11 VERSE 5 TO 6 VERSE 5 : " BUT EVERY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHESIED WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONORS HER HEAD _ IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING HER HEAD SHAVED ." VERSE 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 . '

Wow this is so informative♥️🙏 thank you so much.

You're right. We DO like to argue. That's the reason for me watching this. Haha 😢 But NOT to argue as to say I'm right but to get a better understanding of why I don't think it's not necessary. I'm sure we can find people who will agree with our views but I liked how this was illustrated. Thank you.

Paul's reasons for head coverings are because of the angels, because nature itself teaches us women should be covered and also to show submission to her husband. These are not cultural reasons. Read it for yourself. It's very clear Paul is talking about a literal cloth head covering (not just long hair). Paul never says that wearing a head covering is to keep you from being confused with a prostitute. Why are we letting our culture twist what the Bible really means? I would rather be overly scrupulous and go ahead and wear a head covering than to risk disobeying the Bible and offending God.

This is really helpful!!

Amen!

Perhaps you, like me, have been taught that having a shaved head identified a woman as a prostitute. Here are quotes from a couple of commentaries that take such an interpretation: “There is the local and contemporary custom that had prostitutes and the likes shave their head” [sic]. These women were “cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes.” (Notice that in both cases there is reference to the culture of the day to figure out Paul’s meaning; all commentators resort to culture in trying to figure out the local practices and what they meant.) But we have no evidence whatsoever that head-shaving was a practice done by prostitutes. We do, however, have evidence that doing so was associated with the punishment for adultery. In fact, we find such a connection in the Old Testament. In an academic article on the subject, Dr. Phillip Payne writes, “The article in 'the shorn woman' implies a recognized class of woman, probably the accused adulteress whose disgrace paralleled the symbolism of loose hair, since by it a woman places on herself the accusation of adultery. This allusion perfectly fits the ‘bitter water’ ordeal of letting down the hair of a suspected adulteress (Num. 5:11-31) and, if she is convicted, of cutting off her hair.… This custom is paralleled in non- Jewish customs cited by Tacitus (A. D. 98), Germania, 19; Aristophanes 3, 204-07; and Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 100), Discourses, 64.2-3.” The brothel art in Pompeii depicts prostitutes with full heads of hair, never shaved. Other erotic art from Pompeii shows sexually promiscuous women with their hair done up as the matrons wore it (see photo below). Prostitutes probably indicated their profession not by their hair style but by their dress, as is still true in most places today. So what does Paul mean if he’s not referring to prostitutes? Payne is probably right. Most likely the wives in Corinth were “letting down their hair,” a practice probably associated with spiritual freedom in Dionysus worship. But doing so was the equivalent to taking off their wedding rings, which shamed their husbands and suggested they were “available.” It’s not that what these women were doing was suggestive or immodest any more than taking off a wedding ring is sexy. But it was shameful and dishonoring because of what it communicated. And the instruction appears to be something applicable only to wives. The “head” of a woman” is probably her husband (cp. Eph 5), not all men everywhere. Notice, too, that Paul does not tell all the wives they need to do something about their hair (which was their covering, v. 15). He has in view only those marked as speaking to or for God (i.e., praying and prophesying, v. 5). This latter detail is often lost in the debate. Paul was not discussing whether or not women/wives should speak in the gathered assembly. That was a given. The question was only about how they should do so.

BRILLIANT!!! God revealing his wisdom through you 🙌🏾

Praise God for KZfaq and channels like this to help a guy like me understand the Bible better. 😅

You left out the part about a woman having authority on her head when she covers it. When a woman covers her head she is protected by the heavenly angels.

I was crying thinking I wasn't important

Interesting conclusion, since Paul mentions neither prostitutes nor patriarchy. It's actually pretty simple: verse 7; since man is the image and glory of God, when the church comes together to glorify God, should the man keep his head uncovered? Or cover his head (and symbolically, cover the glory of God?) Also verse 7; since woman is the glory of man, when the church comes together to glorify God, should the glory of man be displayed? Or covered? That is the essence of the passage.

A lot of what Paul says confuses me. Like the head covering thingy, reading it literally, he says it makes angels happy. NOT about culture. Then in chapter 14, he says women are to be quiet and not speak in the church. Not even to ask questions. It confuses me a lot.

This completely ignores Church history even in America up until 100 years ago. The church universal (Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Orthodox) took this to mean women should actually wear head coverings in church until very recently. I’m sorry to break it to you, but your interpretation is a really recent interpretation. See RC Sproul, Tim Bayly, Joel Beeke on this.

It sounds all good and I would actually love to see that text in a similar way, but I am not sure about it, as you are, because when you read that- from the 2 verse to 11, then I would say, there is Paul actually saying to them those words in a way of authority and teaching them something more than just repeating what they already do believe. In a sense that you made a point, it was more like a summarizing what they (corinthians) already believe and not wanting to be any cultural offense to them, but in the text, it is more in a style of: This is what are my directions that I’ve given you and it is good that you hold on to it. So I am pretty confused - when I am being honest to the text (more than the actual interpretation that you’ve made). Nothing against you, because neither I want to argue! It is just that I would love to understand, when I want to be also honest to the text (if I am the one who wants to teach others to read the bible - I want it to make sense )

Like the Bible says satan knows the Bible well

This video is offering THEIR interpretation of the passage in question. He is very mistaken to believe that Paul addressed an issue about "women wearing head coverings during worship" This whole line is false. The host uses the word head coverings when Paul doesn't phrase it that way. It is disingenuous to say :head coverings because that implies a foreign object. Paul says a women's head ought to be covered and given the context of the passage he is referring to long hair (see verse 15). Then the idea of worship is NOT mentioned, but that is the HOST'S interpretation of what he thinks praying and prophesying to mean. When do we read that prophesying is equated to worship and given that praying is to be done in secret according to Jesus where one can possibly worship God during prayer but to think this is all in all a worship moment doesn't make sense. In short Paul was giving a couple of examples that when women have short hair (uncovered) and men have long hair (covered) it looks wrong and is wrong. Paul was not being exclusive to two instances. Are we to then believe that Paul was intensely focused on two instances? Why not mention singing or praising? So can a woman be without a veil if she is singing, praising, casting out demons, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues? Also if Paul was really talking about a veil why didn't he use the word veil or maybe even hat. Why say "cover"? If it were really that important why did he not mention how it is suppose to cover the head? (Length, size, color, type?) If we cannot determine that Paul was referring to a hat or veil then it makes sense to believe he was referring to hair, esp given the context (long hair 2x shorn 2x shaven 2x - KJV). If you go along with modern versions you might think they are referring to a veil, but not if you read the reliable King James Version.

This is simple but it's a power play a pride thing.

Can you share where you got that information about the prostitutes? From my understanding that was a story that was made up in the 1900s. Also, Paul GAVE his reasons for the headcovering, and that is NOT one of them.

Its interesting how much of the bible makes sense when you know what prostitutes looked like at the time, and that its essentially saying "dont dress like a prostitute"

Yooooo

I see this more and more goodness 😳

This is deceiving. Paul is absolutely affirming in the first verses. Read 1 Cor 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

7 “Woe upon the world for all its evils.[b] Temptation to do wrong is inevitable, but woe to the man who does the tempting. 8 So if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Better to enter heaven crippled than to be in hell with both of your hands and feet. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. Better to enter heaven with one eye than to be in hell with two.

This video makes a lot of assumptions and make statements with no proof. The following is an essay on this subject: If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse 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 many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is 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.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. 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 give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

Where are you getting the idea that Paul is repeating anything? Verse 3 says "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." How is "I want you to understand" a repition.

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Matthew (27:46)

I don’t know about this explanation

Look how the Apostle Paul addresses the Church in Corinth. it wasn't just a letter to Corinth but to all Churches everywhere for all time.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse 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 many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is 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.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. 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 give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

Men and women were created equally in the image of God, but given different roles. God created Eve as a helper for Adam (Genesis 2). God expects men to love their wives as "Christ loved the church, laying himself down for her" - a sacrificial love (Ephesians 5). But God does not give the same expectation to women, instead, he charges wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, Colossians 3). In no way does this diminish the value of women or amplify the value of men. We are all co-heirs in Christ (1 peter 3). However, God does give us different roles to amplify the importance of marriage and its relationship to Christ. Christ is the head of man (the church, 1 Corinthians 11), and Christ lays his life down for the church (Ephesians 5). God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of Man, and Man is the head of Woman (1 Corinthians 11). Head coverings during prayer (and men uncovering their head) are an outward display of these differences, and serve to glorify the differences between men and women, and therefore, the marriage relationship between Christ and his church. Snidely suggesting that this position is "patriarchal" and should be dismissed is mocking the timeless, trans-cultural word of God and equally as bad, denying the marriage relationship between Christ and the church.

I think the head covering is a cultural thing, but women preaching is NOT. At all. Also, patriarchy isn't a bad thing, stop implying that it is.

Why does he say this epistle is to be read in all the churches? This is obviously not a cultural issue! An what about the angels, are they affected by culture? Your reasoning is way off!

The Apostle Paul made it clear he was commanded to pass down an Order in the Church that should be practiced by all Churches everywhere for all time.

no.

Go read 1 Corinthians 14:34 and see if you think this guy is right. I think you’ll find that he’s wrong. Also, go read 1 Corinthians 10:1 and you’ll see that Paul wasn’t referring to Corinthian culture, but he was referring to Israelite culture as the people in that scripture referenced were all Israelites.

This is a lie, the head covering was practice in the Church up to 1960, so your saying if a woman prays without long hair she should be shorn?

[54:3] They disbelieved, followed their opinions, and adhered to their old traditions. [54:4] *Sufficient warnings have been delivered to alert them.* [54:5] Great wisdom; but all the warnings have been in vain. 17 “Don’t touch me,” he cautioned, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them that I ascend to 🧨 *my Father and your Father, * ⚔ 🎉 *my God and your God.”* 🎈John 20:17 Living Bible (TLB) 26-27 Like a thief, the only shame that Israel knows is getting caught. Kings, princes, priests, and prophets-all are alike in this. 🗿*They call a carved-up wooden post their father, and for their mother they have an idol chiseled out from stone.* ⚱🎎🏦 Yet in time of trouble they cry to me to save them! Jeremiah 2:26-27 Living Bible (TLB) 7 ... *God’s glory is man made in his image, and man’s glory is the woman.* 1 Corinthians 11:7 (TLB) 1 Corinthians 11:10 So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority, a fact for all the angels to notice and rejoice in.* Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 11:10 So a woman . . . is under man’s authority, literally, 💥“For this cause ought the woman to *have POWER on [her] head.”* 💥 a fact for all the angels to notice and rejoice in, literally, *“because of the angels.”* 🥰😎🙃

🐄 MU'MEN (MOO MEN) ARE BELIEVERS 🐄 Psalm 146:3 ESV Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to 🔥 corruptible man, 🔥 and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 🔥 Galatians 3:13 (KJV)💫 13 Christ...being made a curse for us..💥 🌈☔ 36 *“I am not an earthly king* ....John 18 (TLB)

I strongly recommend you all read the epistle to the Corinthians by Clement. You will be astonished at the difference, you will even begin to wonder was Paul even a real apostle.

I really don’t think the chapter was literally talking about head coverings. It’s symbolic. I do love how you explained verses 11-12 though

go back to the early Church and see how they seriously took this. these people hide the early Church because it puts a strangle hold on their theology.

This doesn’t make sense

Is it common that people/ Christians believe what they hear without doing any research for themselves? I think this would be a foolish move on your part. Just as Catholicism has done to the poor people that relies upon whatever they say it must be true! Is it just pure laziness and apathy that people do not research for themselves and study. Not that this teaching will determine your Eternal salvation. But I believe it it's a practice of far too many people that will hear something that sounds good and run with it without any investigation for themselves. The apostle Paul wrote to the evangelist Timothy, Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)..

You should know you fell into the Gentile understanding that has been warped by the lack of knowledge. Yes, it is true that prostitutes and Goddesses wear bald and uncovered. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with head coverings. This actually goes back to Eden. In a nutshell Paul [v3a&b] is saying that man is the head of woman and Christ is the head of Man. If man prays or prophesizes as if Christ/God is NOT his headship then he dishonors Christ/God. If a woman does the same not being covered by her husbands headship she dishonors her husband and with it Christ and God. In fact it is so bad she may as well profess to be a prostitute or goddess. It is worth noting that if the man abstains from his role as headship of the family or the woman fills it either in his abstention or his relinquishing it because she took it the shame falls upon both. V10 - like a lot of verses appears to have had a few words added; common in the 4th and 5th century. Specifically it should read: For this reason the woman ought to have authority ON her head, because of the angels... WHAT?!? Last part 1st, Because all Angels have authority over them so should a woman as there is an order to everything. Now to the section people get lost. I made the word "on" capitalized for the specific reason of fixing it; removing translator bias. The Greek word is "EPI". While it can mean on any of the following would be more accurate and take away the confusion: during the days of, under, among, with, after (as in after a learned or shown pattern ie Genesis order), before judgment or in addition to. For me, I prefer with or in addition to. That is while her Husband is her Headship, together they have [should have] authority over the kids and decisions and what they would like to collectively pray for. "With" also carries a reminder that in marriage you are NOT in it alone, separate but together as one. A reminder that if she brings dishonor to her husband she has brought it to the all from God down just as a man who does not obey Christ's teachings in his ways {including how he treats his wife} brings dishonor from the top down and to his wife. I know you get click credit for this and it drives funding, but this one far from sound doctrine and should be removed/replaced. blessings on blessings

Actually it didn't seem patriarchal to me

1 Corinthians 11:6 GOD’S WORD Translation 6 So if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should *cut off her hair.* 👴 If it’s a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should *cover her head.* 🧕👰

[24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed.*

This is false scripture wtf

Men still can not go into a Church with a head covering. I know It's still common practice for a man to take his hat off. But if a man is to pray without ceasing then he should never cover his head, which is more than a hat but Jesus Christ Himself. The woman bein the glory of man is covered because Christ covered His glory while here with us. Do you see why the Lord commanded this tradition in the Church, His Kingdom. Just saying if it was just a culture thing in Corinth then why does the Apostle Paul say all Churches for all time?

This is false teaching and heresy.

This is an awful false teaching

Matthew 5:27-30 GOD’S WORD Translation *About Sexual Sin* 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Never commit adultery.’ 28 But I can guarantee that whoever looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart. 29 “So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose a part of your body than to have all of it thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand leads you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose a part of your body than to have all of it go into hell.