George Murphy wrote:
> John Neal wrote:
> > In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. Him is
> > the key word.
> > Look at what the Apostle says about the differentiation of a man and a woman -
> > for this is with whom you are in contention with. Also, beware of 1Cor 14:37 -
> > "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge
> > that the thinigs that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." So,
> > let me rephrase that, it is the Lord with Whom you are in contention with. And
> > again, heed Revelation 22:18,19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the
> > words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God
> > shall add unto him the plagues tht are written in this book: And if any man
> > shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
> > his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
> > which are written in this book."
> No, it is John Neal with whom I am in contention.
> > Now, here's the information: Paul says in 1Cor 11:6-9 - "For if the woman
> > be not covered, let her be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn
> > or shaven, let her (and, not him) be covered. For a man (a man, and not a
> > woman) indeed ought not to cover his (his, and not her) head, forasmuch as he
> > (he and not she) is the image and glory of God: but the woman (the woman, and
> > not the man) is the glory of the man (man, not woman nor God). For the man is
> > not of the woman; but the woman of the man (Imagine, - Paul believes Genesis).
> > Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
> > - The
> > woman IS to be covered. However, the man is NOT to be covered because "HE IS
> > THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD." Again, the man is NOT to be covered because HE IS
> > THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD, but the woman IS to be covered, because SHE IS *NOT*
> > THE IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD.
> No, you have put words into Paul's mouth. He clearly avoids
> saying anything about what woman is or is not the image of. His whole
> emphasis is on _glory_ (_doxa_).
> . She is to be covered for modesty's sake. Modesty,
> > because of the lust of the flesh.
> No, thetre is nothing at all about lust in the text. The notion
> of some of the fathers that v.10 has to do with avoiding the gaze of the
> evil angels (a la Gen.6) has no basis at all, especially because it does
> not say there that she is to have a "veil" but "authority" (_exousia_)
> on her head - probably a sign of the authority she has to "pray or
> prophesy" in the assembly.
> As to the rest of your post, take a look at Gal.3:28 & note that
> it is in the present, not future, tense.
> George L. Murphy