Very helpful. Thanks 🙏

This might be one of the best short clips I’ve heard. In a world where people try to avoid stress and pain, it’s good to remember that we are built to cope and be resilient and heal. It’s so comforting!

LOVE the intro❤

This is false teaching and heresy.

Life giving!

Where does it say women are reffered to as prostitutes ... 🤦‍♀️ typical modern "change the meaning to fit your own narrative + justify your sin"

love you jesus appa 🙏

Hmm. Why a gender? (He) or (she). The creator of the universe is an (IT).

Amen almighty God 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Beautifully said. God is great and he is love and grace for all people

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

Amazing Nifemi!!! Good to see you teach the WORD!!!

Thank you may God bless you

This video is a bold faced lie and whoever made this video is an intentional false teacher - a wolf in sheeps clothing - who is under the curse pronounced in Luke 17:2. @ 1:33 he states verses 2-10 is reassuring their culture and gives prostitution as the reason to head cover. Please, listeners, go read the passage! Paul says absolutely nothing if production in this passage! This is a lie! Now again at the end, "if anyone wants to be contentious, we have no other practice and neither do any of the other churches." How, sir, do you get from the passage this possibly says what you say it says?! Do you speak language? Do you have any reading comprehension skills? This is saying, sir, that you may not be contentious towards this alcoholic teaching because it is the same teaching taught in all the churches. You are a liar and a son of the father of lies. I wish I could be more subtle here, but you have brought this on yourself and we have been commanded, again by Paul, to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Please, sir, retirement if your arrogant disobedience to the Word and go read and pray for Wisdom, having faith in God alone, not wavering, before you begin misleading others again.

This is an awful false teaching

This clown is a cloud without rain.

So good

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

Amen jesus is my savior

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!

"This IS my body," not "This is like my body."

42 minutes Highlights only please

Going to really miss you bud. Very Grateful.

This is hard news to hear. You are well loved and respected, and will be deeply missed. Simultaneously, though, it's always encouraging to hear the Spirits calling and to be led to new opportunities. Blessings to you, Paul and Kaylee!❤

God bless you June big hug from here to you for your love and concern you are awesome and beautiful ❤️

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

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"

Amen

🙏

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 Read It and Loved it ,So I Came here because I wanted more Knowledge,God Bless you for Summary 🙏🏽

Love This so much!!!!

Outstanding!!!

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 )

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.

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 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."

Thank you so much for this. Super helpful.

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.

I don’t know about this explanation

40:00 come on! thanks Brad

An atheist friend used to call me "Brother" every day. That meant alot to me.

This was so eye opening!! Thank you ❤

I LOVE your stripey socks Brad!!!!😁

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.

Brian an amazing message

"... Faith became each day deciding to give the story of a Jesus's love full reign over my heart." Amen. Amen. Praise God for this special moment. It means so much to me. IYKYK.