Sounds pretty reasonable for another explanation, but that perspective would apply everywhere in public not just in "prayer or prophesying". Doesn't connect fully for me. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For 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.... 13¶Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
I always found it strange that I couldnt find a mandatory rule for headcoverings for females in the Tanakh and that Paul couldn't reference scripture there. Kinda reminds me of Peters error in human taboo of not sitting with the gentiles to eat.
And Paul also refers a lot to the philosophy and philosophers of that time, Greek, Roman and Egyption and their literature, in addition to other Hebrew literature and the Tanak(OT). A main reason why most Christians and pastors and preachers interpret his writings completely wrong.
This scripture is referring only to the time when a woman gets up in front of the church to pray or prophesy. At that time only is it saying she should cover her head. "Because of the angels" refers to the fact that as angels don't read minds they see this and understand that a woman speaking in public understands God's line of authority, making it possible for the angels to minister to her.
Exactly and the angels referred to aren’t spiritual beings but men disciples of the Lord who are his angels/messengers. We must remember they were men going through the transitional period from the old covenant into the new, the Lords first disciples were Jews who lived by certain rules and regulations, in order to not offend these angels/messengers when they came preaching the women were expected to cover their heads as had been traditionally done, as you stated the men seeing this would understand such a woman respected the authority she was under and was able to receive their message. Paul elsewhere speaks of becoming as those he preached the gospel to in order to win some, I believe the same principal applies here, in order not to offend those who were coming to them preaching the good news the women were encouraged to cover their heads as a sign of submission to the authority of the messengers.
This does not explain it away. My wife is an African cosmetologist. Women with nappy hair can't really grow their hair long and SPEND GOBS OF MONEY on extensions, weaves, and wigs. Why? I wish Dr. Heiser was alive so I could challenge this. Is it not because it is hardwired into them and into us that women's hair is SEXY? So Paul was UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION talking about a psychological human reality of the soul THAT STANDS TODAY and Dr. Heiser and this other scholar are reducing it to an archaic medical absurdity.
I agree with you. It's possible that the science of St Paul's times had an impact on his interpretation of matters however I just dont see St Paul forming his theology and interpretation of spiritual matters on it.... Furthermore, St Paul also goes on to explain modesty in detail by stating that women should not lavish themselves with fancy hairdos such as braids. Therefore making it evident that exposing hair was evidently a common daily activity. Ive also heard that in that era that the common people were not allowed to cover their heads in public as it was only reserved for nobility.
Still does not explain why Paul employs so many theological reasons as a basis for his exhortation. Is Dr. Heiser suggesting that the cultural outweighs the theological/biblical on this issue?
When understanding scripture was written in 1st and 2nd temple Jewish period makes complete sense. Was written in ancient times. Different culture influences different actions and behaviors. . Too many take the 21st century worldview and just cannot see. I had read this in an ancient historical article once. Thank u Heiser for confirmation. RIP Heiser. Blessings
Thank goodness, now I know the meaning of that strange practice of hair covering. But one thing still unresolved how long was the hair of men back then.? I understood all this time that man had long hair. Can anyone explain?
They had long hairs. Especially the Israelite and hebrews, judeans, nazareans. I already opened up the aspect of these hair restrictions being later invented human rules. Mostly of roman and greek origins and likely from the pharisees and gentiles. The Creator never told anyone to cut their hair. Why would he make it grow on mens heads otherwise. Isrealite and old testament people had no such laws or rules.
Men of that time DID have short hair.This is obvious from all the surviving statues. As for the jews,they did have rules on this but i doubt those were entirely scriptural.It was explained to me by someone who studies this type of thing that it was shoulder length or less.Except for the obvious nazerite vow situation
Roman law also dictated a lot of what Paul said. (See the 5th commandment on the Roman Tablets for a start.) By law all women at any age had to be at all times under a man. Adult female headcoverings were required in gatherings. It was illegal for prostitutes to cover their hair. "Angels" is the Greek word "messengers". Gatherings of more than 8 people had to have a permit. Every Roman town had moral police who could attend a Christian gathering undercover and report (messengers) infringements. Only a Roman citizen had a right to a trial. Going against Roman law or customs could incure beating or worse. At the very least, their gatherings could be shut down.
@@Hermany_CricketsFor free anyone can look these things up on Wiki or Google. Try " Roman Twelve Tables", "Manus", "Pudicitia", "infirmitas consilii", "Prostitute veil in Roman law" and other such searches involving Roman law and women.
That is simply not true. It is factual that common people were not allowed to cover their heads, not just prostitutes, as it was reserved for nobility...
You have both taken a step forward into ignorance. He is speaking to the ORIGINAL understandings of the languages in their context. Contemporary teaching excludes and ignores what the Father would like us to understand about these things.
@@Boru1014 he actually isnt. the ORIGINAL writings were in hebrew. He is speaking of pagan greek translations and their etymology. You are the one in ignorance.
YHVH tells Moses the priests who serve in the holy place are to wear turbans, and written on the front of them 'Holy to the Lord's. Should I believe Paul rather...nope
Corinth was in Greece... not sure but maybe the Jews in Israel had a different concept. Maybe they didn't align with that thinking, like they didn't align with the idea of Greek gods. Just a thought.
@@lucyn2000 Ok maybee so. Thank you for your thoughts. But then christians should not think about women covering their hair anyways because Mary could wipe Gods feet with her hair.
@@Scybertine I think that only married women covered their hair. We don't know if Mary was married or not. And I don't know if there is any Jewish art work that gives us an image of life in the Jewish community. Like all the Egyptian and Roman artwork.
Mary( sister of Martha and Lazarus.. whom Jesus raised from the dead) used her hair w/ perfume and her tears to wipe Jesus feet in reverence to Jesus!!!
While the premise of this argument is that man writing the Scriptures has a faulty understanding of the bodies true functions based on the medical reasoning of the day, the Holy Spirit Himself would not operate under such misconceptions about the nature of the human body since He helped the creation of man. A man then by the same definition would only glorify God while in prayer in a public setting if and only if he prayed while his testicles are on display for all to see. You can’t have it both ways!
Rather than thinking of the conception of children in fleshly terms. Think of it like an unholy spirit putting a woman under its shadow like the holy spirit did for Mary to conceive Jesus.
@@humbleeagle1736 they infact did do it in the manner of flesh. They abandoned their post and took wives of the sons of men. This is also proven in the texts as they say "lusted after them". meaning wanting to have intercourse with them and start a bloodline.
What Dr. Heiser is simply ignoring is that women's hair is damned sexy, flashy, and a turn-on no matter what your medical / physiological explanations are.
Okay so an Adult woman has to cover her hair because it's like exposing herself. Why don't the young women doing the same? That is the common sense of the day. (Nothing new under the sun). We have our stupid ideas that if we actually thought about it would sound just as crazy to someone who knew that particular topic better than the common person.
The precepts of men stink. Thank goodness we don't have to follow the precepts of men. We only need to follow the Holy Spirit. And I personally know God doesn't look on outward appearance but on the heart. Over fixation on outward signs when the real reason for them is not really known is not fruitful. I personally believe the covering represents the veil. So if men are not to veil themselves then it means there are some things that happen behind the veil that only women see and are privy to. With this extra perception they can be a helpmeet.
Because young women didnt have pubic hair or bare children their long hair was irrelevant. It doesnt need to make sense to us.We just need to understand what they beleived
Paul was inspired to write to the church about the need for modesty and righteousness. He wrote in the context of that culture, of which he himself was also a part, in a way they would have understood and related to.
@@maranathasos3381 Not a surprising reply if viewed from within the "Institutionalized ecclesiastical box." The unmistakable point from the "New Covenant/Testament" view is this; "Jesus" made straight what the religious system of "His" day had corrupted. What they were teaching wasn't canonical either. "The conflict continues. "God" being outside the contemporary box will continue to clash with "Churchianity." Where modern "Christendom" suffers is in what they accept and what they refuse to accept. Case in point; The curriculum's chosen and accepted by school's and parents taught to student's meet little by way of opposition concerning validation to historical content. This incudes "Christian parent's" and their children as-well. Yet when extra "Biblical" writing's bearing validation to "The Scriptures" are in question, their corresponding action to the same reflects your comment above. Help is available for this. In Luke's gospel chp. 24: v.v. 13~27 "Jesus" addressed such questioning. The key concept for clarity in arriving at a correct corresponding action see v.v. 25~27. Best 2 you.
@@endoftheagereality I think the doctrine was falsified. The mssiah for example never said the old laws were abolished or that people did not need to obey them. its just told and translated to us in the modern age to seem as he did. He really said he came to hold people back to the old law. Remember also that he said that only those who keep the commandments of the Father inherit or enter the Kingdom.
Hmmm, and if the hair theory is what attracts the angels to women, what does the hair have to do with the other animals they sinned upon while creating other abominations.
there is no such thing as hair attracting angels anywhere. its a theory created by Heiser. Because he thinks pAul thought such crazy greek pagan theories. There is nothing indicating of such anywhere in hebrew texts that ive ever come across in 10 years reading them.
This is when I tell myself, "lean not unto my own understanding." Education is fine, but to understand such matters, much of it is needed, therefore, I try to stay away from drawing conclusions. But I will hold on to the curiosity the same way I hold onto the guilt of smoking. I don't expect the LORD to take away the difficulty of trying to quit, putting the guilt there I think, was His doing the same way He put the curiosity there.
This is a horrible explanation of powerful scripture teaching, is is wholly carnal. This is the worst teaching I've seen from Heiser. This is not a science issue and unacceptable. Take this false teaching down. Ridiculous Maximus?
Thank heaven these verses were from a good man who lived in a misogynistic culture and when medical science was beyond woefully lacking. I’m grateful we live in a time of much greater light and knowledge, as was foretold about the end times. Husbands and wives should be one. One heart and mind. A team. Neither one being dominant over the other. Wives should be valued and respected, and as important and worthy as husbands. Christ was a perfect example of valuing and respecting women. He chose a woman to be the first to publicly proclaim him the Son of God. A woman was the first to see the resurrected Son of God. This, at a time when women weren’t allowed to sit by men in the synagogue or be witnesses in courts of law. They weren’t allowed to own property…they were property, literally owned by their father and then her husband. Jesus knew punishing all women for what Eve did was a long held fallacy. How these scientists, doctors, and Paul deemed a woman’s hair as genitalia is utterly absurd, and covering her hair to pray is just as absurd, now that we know better. Many Biblical gender teachings were written and spoken based on the knowledge and culture of their time. They are not from Jesus, to be sure. He never taught any such concepts. Thank heaven.
Yet, the words of Paul are every bit as inspired as the words in the Gospels. So, to writing off Paul’s words as “able to be thrown away cause not Jesus” is the wrong approach to the Bible.
@ when Paul teaches those things Jesus taught, we can and do treasure them. But false gender rhetoric he gave for both men and women that are not the teachings of Jesus come from a good man who means well, but is basing those specific teachings on the cultural and scientific beliefs of his day, which were obviously quite flawed. This does not take away from his sacred calling. It just means that he wasn’t perfect in his teachings like Jesus was. No human is. Peter recognized this in both Paul and himself and thus, the contention between them. Even still, notwithstanding their weakness, we honor them for all the goodness and truth they correctly brought to the world that blesses us to this day. They are beloved servants of God.
Wrong. Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ. An apostle is one who has been given authority to speak on matters. They represent their king. If you reject the authority the king has given to his messenger then you reject the kings authority outright. You do not get to reject what Paul has to say. You must take it as having the same weight as if spoken by Christ himself. Take your post modern, third wave feminism view of scripture and toss it out the window.
Thank u “ As The Chais Dies” for posting Dr.Heisers teachings: keeping them alive!!! ! RIP Dr. Heiser.
Sounds pretty reasonable for another explanation, but that perspective would apply everywhere in public not just in "prayer or prophesying". Doesn't connect fully for me.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For 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....
13¶Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
I always found it strange that I couldnt find a mandatory rule for headcoverings for females in the Tanakh and that Paul couldn't reference scripture there.
Kinda reminds me of Peters error in human taboo of not sitting with the gentiles to eat.
It is mentioned in OT
And Paul also refers a lot to the philosophy and philosophers of that time, Greek, Roman and Egyption and their literature, in addition to other Hebrew literature and the Tanak(OT). A main reason why most Christians and pastors and preachers interpret his writings completely wrong.
This scripture is referring only to the time when a woman gets up in front of the church to pray or prophesy. At that time only is it saying she should cover her head. "Because of the angels" refers to the fact that as angels don't read minds they see this and understand that a woman speaking in public understands God's line of authority, making it possible for the angels to minister to her.
Exactly and the angels referred to aren’t spiritual beings but men disciples of the Lord who are his angels/messengers. We must remember they were men going through the transitional period from the old covenant into the new, the Lords first disciples were Jews who lived by certain rules and regulations, in order to not offend these angels/messengers when they came preaching the women were expected to cover their heads as had been traditionally done, as you stated the men seeing this would understand such a woman respected the authority she was under and was able to receive their message. Paul elsewhere speaks of becoming as those he preached the gospel to in order to win some, I believe the same principal applies here, in order not to offend those who were coming to them preaching the good news the women were encouraged to cover their heads as a sign of submission to the authority of the messengers.
This does not explain it away. My wife is an African cosmetologist. Women with nappy hair can't really grow their hair long and SPEND GOBS OF MONEY on extensions, weaves, and wigs. Why? I wish Dr. Heiser was alive so I could challenge this. Is it not because it is hardwired into them and into us that women's hair is SEXY? So Paul was UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION talking about a psychological human reality of the soul THAT STANDS TODAY and Dr. Heiser and this other scholar are reducing it to an archaic medical absurdity.
Did Roman women have kinky hair?
I dont understand what you're saying. I get the part where some women can't grow long hair,but what does that prove? Can you explain more?
Are you saying they should cover their hair like a Burka? So men wont lust after them in 'church'?
I agree with you. It's possible that the science of St Paul's times had an impact on his interpretation of matters however I just dont see St Paul forming his theology and interpretation of spiritual matters on it....
Furthermore, St Paul also goes on to explain modesty in detail by stating that women should not lavish themselves with fancy hairdos such as braids. Therefore making it evident that exposing hair was evidently a common daily activity. Ive also heard that in that era that the common people were not allowed to cover their heads in public as it was only reserved for nobility.
Google it and you will find out that's exactly what they thought in those days 🤷🏽
Brought to you by the people who came up with heliocentric model in complete contradiction with the occurrence described in Joshua 10:12-15
Enjoyed the discussion and references. Thank you
Still does not explain why Paul employs so many theological reasons as a basis for his exhortation. Is Dr. Heiser suggesting that the cultural outweighs the theological/biblical on this issue?
Right……..am I to conclude Paul was wrong because he allegedly is basing this passage on ignorance of physiology?
I feel absolutely SICK.
Fauci’s “ follow the science” is kindergarten to this lot!
The syunce is settled…lol
When understanding scripture was written in 1st and 2nd temple Jewish period makes complete sense. Was written in ancient times. Different culture influences different actions and behaviors. . Too many take the 21st century worldview and just cannot see. I had read this in an ancient historical article once. Thank u Heiser for confirmation. RIP Heiser. Blessings
Thank goodness, now I know the meaning of that strange practice of hair covering. But one thing still unresolved how long was the hair of men back then.? I understood all this time that man had long hair. Can anyone explain?
They had long hairs. Especially the Israelite and hebrews, judeans, nazareans. I already opened up the aspect of these hair restrictions being later invented human rules. Mostly of roman and greek origins and likely from the pharisees and gentiles. The Creator never told anyone to cut their hair. Why would he make it grow on mens heads otherwise. Isrealite and old testament people had no such laws or rules.
@ wow! Thank very much. Very logical!
@ thank you very much. That’s a logical explanation.
Men of that time DID have short hair.This is obvious from all the surviving statues.
As for the jews,they did have rules on this but i doubt those were entirely scriptural.It was explained to me by someone who studies this type of thing that it was shoulder length or less.Except for the obvious nazerite vow situation
@ your are correct. Hollywood sent mixed messages.
Roman law also dictated a lot of what Paul said. (See the 5th commandment on the Roman Tablets for a start.) By law all women at any age had to be at all times under a man. Adult female headcoverings were required in gatherings. It was illegal for prostitutes to cover their hair. "Angels" is the Greek word "messengers". Gatherings of more than 8 people had to have a permit. Every Roman town had moral police who could attend a Christian gathering undercover and report (messengers) infringements. Only a Roman citizen had a right to a trial. Going against Roman law or customs could incure beating or worse. At the very least, their gatherings could be shut down.
Wow interesting. Where can one read this originally
@@Hermany_CricketsFor free anyone can look these things up on Wiki or Google. Try " Roman Twelve Tables", "Manus", "Pudicitia", "infirmitas consilii", "Prostitute veil in Roman law" and other such searches involving Roman law and women.
I would also love more resources on this.
That is simply not true. It is factual that common people were not allowed to cover their heads, not just prostitutes, as it was reserved for nobility...
Wow! My problem with this, is that the Spirit is supposed to be scriptures inspiration, not Hippocrates .
Exactly, God the Father, the Creator certainly knows this hollow hair idea is not right. I do not agree with this goofy sexual covering argument
You have both taken a step forward into ignorance. He is speaking to the ORIGINAL understandings of the languages in their context. Contemporary teaching excludes and ignores what the Father would like us to understand about these things.
@@Boru1014 he actually isnt. the ORIGINAL writings were in hebrew. He is speaking of pagan greek translations and their etymology. You are the one in ignorance.
@@nicechockNT was not written in Hebrew.
YHVH tells Moses the priests who serve in the holy place are to wear turbans, and written on the front of them 'Holy to the Lord's. Should I believe Paul rather...nope
And how do we interpret the story about Mary who dryed Jesus feet with her hair?
Corinth was in Greece... not sure but maybe the Jews in Israel had a different concept. Maybe they didn't align with that thinking, like they didn't align with the idea of Greek gods. Just a thought.
@@lucyn2000 Ok maybee so. Thank you for your thoughts.
But then christians should not think about women covering their hair anyways because Mary could wipe Gods feet with her hair.
@@Scybertine I think that only married women covered their hair. We don't know if Mary was married or not. And I don't know if there is any Jewish art work that gives us an image of life in the Jewish community. Like all the Egyptian and Roman artwork.
Mary( sister of Martha and Lazarus.. whom Jesus raised from the dead) used her hair w/ perfume and her tears to wipe Jesus feet in reverence to Jesus!!!
While the premise of this argument is that man writing the Scriptures has a faulty understanding of the bodies true functions based on the medical reasoning of the day, the Holy Spirit Himself would not operate under such misconceptions about the nature of the human body since He helped the creation of man.
A man then by the same definition would only glorify God while in prayer in a public setting if and only if he prayed while his testicles are on display for all to see. You can’t have it both ways!
What I find strange is why an angel would have been created with semen anyway if our God had not intended for them to have wives in the first place
Rather than thinking of the conception of children in fleshly terms. Think of it like an unholy spirit putting a woman under its shadow like the holy spirit did for Mary to conceive Jesus.
I mean the Bible tells you already. man is created in their image. We just arent immortal anymore because of Adam and Eve.
@@humbleeagle1736 Angels appear almost always in the old testament in the form of men or a man.
@@humbleeagle1736 they infact did do it in the manner of flesh. They abandoned their post and took wives of the sons of men. This is also proven in the texts as they say "lusted after them". meaning wanting to have intercourse with them and start a bloodline.
@@nicechock Some of the fallen are seen as winged women.
Dang!
What Dr. Heiser is simply ignoring is that women's hair is damned sexy, flashy, and a turn-on no matter what your medical / physiological explanations are.
This is the stupidest reading into Scripture I have ever heard.
Yeah, it seems the simplicity of The Gospel Message is not enough. That’s why we have the NAR reprobates and their signs and wonders clown shows.
So, if it's talking about the genitals, then Paul is basically recommending women to pray while clothed, and men should pray naked.
Okay so an Adult woman has to cover her hair because it's like exposing herself. Why don't the young women doing the same? That is the common sense of the day. (Nothing new under the sun). We have our stupid ideas that if we actually thought about it would sound just as crazy to someone who knew that particular topic better than the common person.
The precepts of men stink. Thank goodness we don't have to follow the precepts of men. We only need to follow the Holy Spirit. And I personally know God doesn't look on outward appearance but on the heart. Over fixation on outward signs when the real reason for them is not really known is not fruitful. I personally believe the covering represents the veil. So if men are not to veil themselves then it means there are some things that happen behind the veil that only women see and are privy to. With this extra perception they can be a helpmeet.
Because young women didnt have pubic hair or bare children their long hair was irrelevant.
It doesnt need to make sense to us.We just need to understand what they beleived
So why aren’t women covering their heads?
And I thought God was not the author of confusion.. boy was I off!
How do we deal with Paul being wrong in his medical reasoning while taking into account inspiration?
Paul was inspired to write to the church about the need for modesty and righteousness. He wrote in the context of that culture, of which he himself was also a part, in a way they would have understood and related to.
😳
Hidden comments^^
So how can this information be considered “canon?” This really supports my doubts about the whole teaching of Paul the 13th “apostle”
@@maranathasos3381 Not a surprising reply if viewed from within the "Institutionalized ecclesiastical box." The unmistakable point from the "New Covenant/Testament" view is this; "Jesus" made straight what the religious system of "His" day had corrupted. What they were teaching wasn't canonical either. "The conflict continues. "God" being outside the contemporary box will continue to clash with "Churchianity." Where modern "Christendom" suffers is in what they accept and what they refuse to accept. Case in point; The curriculum's chosen and accepted by school's and parents taught to student's meet little by way of opposition concerning validation to historical content. This incudes "Christian parent's" and their children as-well. Yet when extra "Biblical" writing's bearing validation to "The Scriptures" are in question, their corresponding action to the same reflects your comment above. Help is available for this. In Luke's gospel chp. 24: v.v. 13~27 "Jesus" addressed such questioning. The key concept for clarity in arriving at a correct corresponding action see v.v. 25~27. Best 2 you.
@@endoftheagereality I think the doctrine was falsified. The mssiah for example never said the old laws were abolished or that people did not need to obey them. its just told and translated to us in the modern age to seem as he did. He really said he came to hold people back to the old law. Remember also that he said that only those who keep the commandments of the Father inherit or enter the Kingdom.
Hmmm, and if the hair theory is what attracts the angels to women, what does the hair have to do with the other animals they sinned upon while creating other abominations.
there is no such thing as hair attracting angels anywhere. its a theory created by Heiser. Because he thinks pAul thought such crazy greek pagan theories. There is nothing indicating of such anywhere in hebrew texts that ive ever come across in 10 years reading them.
I don’t know if they actually did that kind of deed with them besides for a test drive.
This is when I tell myself, "lean not unto my own understanding." Education is fine, but to understand such matters, much of it is needed, therefore, I try to stay away from drawing conclusions. But I will hold on to the curiosity the same way I hold onto the guilt of smoking. I don't expect the LORD to take away the difficulty of trying to quit, putting the guilt there I think, was His doing the same way He put the curiosity there.
All scripture is from God. Submit to the Word and stop putting your will ahead of the Lords will.
This is a horrible explanation of powerful scripture teaching, is is wholly carnal. This is the worst teaching I've seen from Heiser. This is not a science issue and unacceptable. Take this false teaching down. Ridiculous Maximus?
Thank heaven these verses were from a good man who lived in a misogynistic culture and when medical science was beyond woefully lacking. I’m grateful we live in a time of much greater light and knowledge, as was foretold about the end times. Husbands and wives should be one. One heart and mind. A team. Neither one being dominant over the other. Wives should be valued and respected, and as important and worthy as husbands. Christ was a perfect example of valuing and respecting women. He chose a woman to be the first to publicly proclaim him the Son of God. A woman was the first to see the resurrected Son of God. This, at a time when women weren’t allowed to sit by men in the synagogue or be witnesses in courts of law. They weren’t allowed to own property…they were property, literally owned by their father and then her husband. Jesus knew punishing all women for what Eve did was a long held fallacy. How these scientists, doctors, and Paul deemed a woman’s hair as genitalia is utterly absurd, and covering her hair to pray is just as absurd, now that we know better. Many Biblical gender teachings were written and spoken based on the knowledge and culture of their time. They are not from Jesus, to be sure. He never taught any such concepts. Thank heaven.
Yet, the words of Paul are every bit as inspired as the words in the Gospels. So, to writing off Paul’s words as “able to be thrown away cause not Jesus” is the wrong approach to the Bible.
@ when Paul teaches those things Jesus taught, we can and do treasure them. But false gender rhetoric he gave for both men and women that are not the teachings of Jesus come from a good man who means well, but is basing those specific teachings on the cultural and scientific beliefs of his day, which were obviously quite flawed. This does not take away from his sacred calling. It just means that he wasn’t perfect in his teachings like Jesus was. No human is. Peter recognized this in both Paul and himself and thus, the contention between them. Even still, notwithstanding their weakness, we honor them for all the goodness and truth they correctly brought to the world that blesses us to this day. They are beloved servants of God.
2 Corinthians 13:1
13 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established
Wrong. Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ. An apostle is one who has been given authority to speak on matters. They represent their king. If you reject the authority the king has given to his messenger then you reject the kings authority outright. You do not get to reject what Paul has to say. You must take it as having the same weight as if spoken by Christ himself. Take your post modern, third wave feminism view of scripture and toss it out the window.
@ I can only pray you don’t have a wife.
2 Corinthians 13:1
13 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established