It is shameful for a woman to be uncovered

[steve]

I have to stew some.

I hereby dub thee Sir Stewberfreeze

 

[steve]

Christ's headship (Male covering)

I reject that doctrine in the strongest of terms.
That is exactly what destroys husband headship.

He didn’t die to give them an alternative to human male headship.

 

[Paulsen]

So are you saying that Paul did not condone any women remaining unmarried in order to serve the Lord?

 

[steve]

So are you saying that Paul did not condone any women remaining unmarried in order to serve the Lord?

9 ¶ Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

Evidently not under 60 yrs of age.

 

[steve]

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I just realized, only males can become eunuchs. You cannot remove something that you don’t have.
There is no comparable verse that says that a woman has a way to remove her sex for the sake of the Kingdom.

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

I will try to find a link later but I heard a brief excerpt on the radio that noted that single, Millenial women (30 and under?) are one of the largest, and perhaps largest, demographic to openly support socialism in the US.

This demographic is delaying and refusing marriage as an independence from the shackles of the "toxic male" but intuitively still wants an authority figure to provide protection and provision. It's just a different version of a "Big Brother" watching over them.

That is a very interesting piece to put together and it makes so much sense.

 

[Paulsen]

9 ¶ Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

Evidently not under 60 yrs of age.

So, over 60 is Christ a widow's covering?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

In Western society, your assumption would make sense.
But ask yourself, why did Yeshua feel the need to do what he did?

Hint: because with Yeshua being removed from the scene it was necessary.
(When people read headship, they see “power over”. In reality it’s about responsibility for what you have headship over.)

Bear with me @steve , because I have a very western mind

I really don't know why Jesus had John do that. I know Mary had other male children that could have taken care of her. Unless they were all very young and moved in with John as well?

I really do see headship as 'power over'. I have a very responsibility oriented philosophy (I prefer inalienable responsibilities to inalienable rights after all) but how can I be responsible for something I have no power over? Doesn't the head, by definition have authority over the body?

So I guess when you say "In reality it's about responsibility": Do you mean Headship is about responsibility and not power (authority) at all? If so I have no idea what I can do with that. It's like headship without headship. Or do you mean Headship is primarily about responsibility and to a lesser degree than usually advertised, power? If so then I'm right there with you. All of my authority I naturally derive from my responsibilities anyways.

 

[steve]

So, over 60 is Christ a widow's covering?

No, the elders of the church were, because it was all about who the church would be responsible to support.

 

[steve]

I know Mary had other male children that could have taken care of her.

Mary didn’t.
The brothers were his half-brothers from Joseph’s other wives.

 

[steve]

I really do see headship as 'power over'. I have a very responsibility oriented philosophy (I prefer inalienable responsibilities to inalienable rights after all) but how can I be responsible for something I have no power over? Doesn't the head, by definition have authority over the body?

Now, now.
Don’t get legalistic on me.
Of course the power exists, it’s just not the focus.
When you obtain a fine animal (horse, bull, dog, whatever) you don’t think “Oh boy, I have the control over this animal”, no, you start thinking about what it’s needs are and what you are going to provide for it. Shelter, food, saddle? Does it need grooming?
Of course training it will be part of the program, and that involves control, but if you don’t start with providing water it’s not going to last very long.

 

[steve]

Or do you mean Headship is primarily about responsibility and to a lesser degree than usually advertised, power? If so then I'm right there with you. All of my authority I naturally derive from my responsibilities anyways.

Bingo

 

[Paulsen]

No, the elders of the church were, because it was all about who the church would be responsible to support.

I have trouble seeing that as accurate. I think it would mean multiple heads or coverings.

Also it seems the pledge women had been breaking was to Christ and not to the elders.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Mary didn’t.
The brothers were his half-brothers from Joseph’s other wives.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!? You're pulling my leg. You've got to be.

Now, now.
Don’t get legalistic on me.

lol I would never. It's just how I arrange my thoughts.

Bingo

Well that's cool then. I'm on board with your definition of headship. Now what I'm puzzling through is how much training/authority was in view between Mary and John. Where it hits the road for me is I might just be taking care of my ma some day. I was already planning providing for her, but would I really be her head? It's weird to think about. I suppose I'm the head of my household no matter what, even if my ma lives under my roof.

Cuz ya know ma definitely does not need a saddle BUT SHE MIGHT COULD DO WITH A MUZZLE

* A percentage of the above statement was a joke.

 

[FollowingHim]

Mary didn’t.
The brothers were his half-brothers from Joseph’s other wives.

Plausible, but unlikely.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Plain reading - didn't sleep with her until after Jesus was born, then probably made up for the wait with great enthusiasm.
After which she'd have most likely ended up pregnant unless she was rendered infertile by her first birth, which we are not given any hint of.

Scripture tells us about Jesus' brothers. Ocham's razor: Simplest explanation is that these are Mary's children. It's plausible that they could be by other wives of Joseph, but that's speculative as it's adding people we never hear about for some reason (Jesus' stepmothers). We can make up whatever story we like, as the Catholics do on this issue, but the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.

 

[steve]

There are rabbis that claim an oral history that we don’t have access to.
One of the aspects is that Mary was the youngest of Joseph’s wives. And that Yeshua was her only child.
How did Joseph know that she was preggers? Seriously, her family would have been dealing with the question before he was ever told. But her family never comes up.
The story is that, for some unknown reason, she was already in his house and his wives recognized the signs and told him. Assumed that he had jumped the gun.


There is no known reason for Yeshua to hand her off if she had other sons.

 

[steve]

but the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.

Not a good place to go, the simplest explanation for her pregnancy is that somebody wasn’t telling the truth.

 

[steve]

Scripture tells us about Jesus' brothers.

Riiight, and we have twelve brothers from four different mothers that produced the twelve tribes.
Half-brothers wasn’t a thing.

 

[steve]

Now what I'm puzzling through is how much training/authority was in view between Mary and John. Where it hits the road for me is I might just be taking care of my ma some day. I was already planning providing for her, but would I really be her head? It's weird to think about. I suppose I'm the head of my household no matter what, even if my ma lives under my roof.

You assuredly will be limited to the amount of authority that she allows you to have, and 100% of the responsibilities.

 

[cnystrom]

(When people read headship, they see “power over”. In reality it’s about responsibility for what you have headship over.)

Authority and responsibility go hand in hand.

It would not be very fair to have one and not the other.

Authority without responsibility would not be fair to the wife.

Responsibility without authority would not be fair to the husband.