To veil or not to veil

Which verse says that it was only for the Corinthians?

 

It is in Pauls letter to the Corinthians. Apostolic Letters addressed to specific people are usually meant to be delivered to those specific people. By virtue of the fact that the letter was preserved and included in the Canon of Scripture, the principles and lessons Paul was giving to the Corinthians in the letter are instructive to us all, Corinthians first.

 

Really, that's interesting.

My Bible says: 1 Corinthians 1:2, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

 

check out this tid bid of info:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/facecovered.htm

 

Good find Trust in the Lord,

The principle is worthy of discussion however!

 

Thank you for agreeing! Case closed!!!

MEE

 

Here is a neat article I just found about what the early Christians believed about veiling:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/headcovering.html

It is interesting to note too that in Noah Websters Dictionary, (1828,) the word covering meant a headcovering and there is even a reference to 1 Corinthians 11. It seems that in 1828 most Christians knew that Christian women were supposed to be veiling.

 

I think it needs to be left to the individual christian if they veil or not. I do not think anyone should push someone in either direction, either by telling them what they should do, or shoving books at them that tell them what they should do. True conviction comes only from God, not others, false conviction comes from satan and those trying to casue conviction.

 

Another thought is that everytime I see a chrsitain woman with a veil, it isn't even covering their head, but only the back of their hair, it isn't on any part of the top of their heads at all. So technically they aren't even veiled at all, the length of their hair is.

 

It is interesting that you mention that Katie. When I began veiling I was only covering my hair, the length of it. But, then someone pointed out to me that the verse says *head* covering, not *hair* covering. So, that is when I switched to a headcovering that covers the head, not just the hair.

 

HCL, I am glad you said that. Nice to know you are doing it right then. I hope you know what I mean, some just cover their hair. I can not call that a head covering. These could learn something from you then.

 

Veil on a DL??? Nope, it's a matter of identification. One's face must be visible in the picture. I believe that the DMV also requires men to remove their hats, but not religious headresses (such as Jewish yamulkas). Therefore, would think that a headwear of religious significance, so long as it does not subvert the purpose of the photo for DMV purposes, can be allowed.

 

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

States have the right to set the requirements for holding a drivers license.

If she is unwilling to meet those requirements, she is choosing not to have a drivers license. </font>[/QUOTE]And when your faith requires something of you and you must give it up or forfeit something the state routinely provides to everyone else, be sure not to squawk at that time. Be sure to just say, well that is your right as the state and I do not have the right to have my religious liberty interfere in any way with how you dole out privileges like being able to get to work.

The Free Exercise Clause was drafted in the First Amendment for this specific kind of law or regulation (at the federal level--the Fourteenth applies it to the states). See O'Connor's correct historical analysis in the concurring opinion in Employment Div. v. Smith (1990).

 

I agree with the growing view that driving in our society and depending on location is more of a necessity than a luxury--and thus more of a right than a privilege. However, to answer your question, until relatively recently, driver licenses did not have photos in all states--and some make exemption for conscientious objectors.

 

Bravo!!

 

I can't think of a polite way to correct that mistake, so I'll just come out with it. If you read the passage carefully, Paul spent 14 verses arguing from creation itself and the order of sourceship between God and Christ as well, that veils were to be worn by all Christian women unless they chose instead to be shorn (the word is that used for sheep--essentially, the Sinead O'Connor look), even resorting to nature itself for a comparison to provide support for his position. He did not go to all that trouble--and being well-regarded for his reasoning powers and logical argumentation--to suddenly make a complete 100% about-face and say, "Never mind!" Verse 16 was the capstone to his argument, not a reversal of it: if anyone is contentious about the issue of veiling, we have no other custom--than veiling--neither do the churches of God. It is basic exegesis and face-value reading of the passage that Paul taught that all the churches of God in the whole world (which only comprised parts of the Roman Empire at the time) required women to veil their heads (not just their hair, but their faces as well--that is, their whole heads). It is not up for argument by the opposition--Paul settled it, that nobody was to argue against the veil.

If you disagree, you need to find some argument about the verses not applying to today's culture or society or something, but not try to negate the words of Paul themselves in the context of his whole point. He insisted on veils--whether you think his teaching applies today or to you is a different issue.

 

I agree with the growing view that driving in our society and depending on location is more of a necessity than a luxury--and thus more of a right than a privilege. However, to answer your question, until relatively recently, driver licenses did not have photos in all states--and some make exemption for conscientious objectors. </font>[/QUOTE]Those photos are for identifaction purposes, how could a womn be identified if her face is covere up and you can't see her. It could be any woman in that picture so any woman can drive with that license. Plus if she were interseted in following her religion she shouldn't be driving anyway, it isn't her womans place.