1987 years failure of Christianity to build God's kingdom. Jesus' teaching recorded correctly?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Perhaps what was being said was that those who learned from him had "the way"... as opposed to his physical blood

Jesus said He Himself was the way. And the blood is a metaphor for His shed blood, literally His death. My point is nobody can rightly claim redemption through the shed blood of Jesus is a "Pauline doctrine". Matthew and Peter say the exact same thing, they were of the 12 disciples and seated with Jesus at the last supper when He said it.

And the Levitical sacrificial system was just a foreshadow of the ultimate redemption of mankind. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". Everything in the old covenant was a type and foreshadow of the ultimate, the death and resurrection of the Son of God for the redeeming of mankind.

So what now about the Apostle Peter?


"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

(1 Peter 1:18-19)


When Peter says "a lamb, without blemish and without spot" is a direct reference to the OT Levitical sacrificial system. Here he says we were redeemed by the precious blood (death) of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

And all you people that hate Paul, tell me why you have a problem with this passage here and tell me why it's not what Jesus or other apostles taught:


"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."



("The Law of liberty" is the new covenant, the ending of the Mosaic Law of the old covenant.)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't like false prophets and Paul talks mad trash about the Apostles.

Good reason, right?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Jesus said He Himself was the way. And the blood is a metaphor for His shed blood, literally His death.

Or...

his sacrifice... for coming to this F***** up world by HIS own will?

. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins".

That isn't what the Lords prayer says...

When Peter says "a lamb, without blemish and without spot" is a direct reference to the OT Levitical sacrificial system. Here he says we were redeemed by the precious blood (death) of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

The problem with that is that no animal can sin... all are "unblemished"... so to speak

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."

Paul's rhetoric...

Hes pretty famous for it...

;

a reply to: Akragon

Paul's rhetoric...

Hes pretty famous for it...

That passage was from the book of James.

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I don't like false prophets and Paul talks mad trash about the Apostles.

Good reason, right?

False prophet? What was a false prophecy he told or wrote? And where do you get that he talked trash about any apostles, in 1 Corinthians he says he is the least important of the apostles. He literally said they were all better/more important than him.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I had a problem with Paul when he inserted mysticism and money into the Gospel. He was never taught by The Teacher. I quit churches when I realized that most of their teachings and philosophy was based on Paul. I don't believe in the Trinity. That philosophy just made christians another mystical cult. Jesus's teachings of how to live were practical.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Paul's rhetoric...

Hes pretty famous for it...

That passage was from the book of James.

That doesn't tell you something?

a reply to: MOMof3

Paul declares the gospel that the apostles taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, from there please explain where he talks about mysticism or money.

quote]originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Paul's rhetoric...

Hes pretty famous for it...

That passage was from the book of James.

That doesn't tell you something?




It tells me that when I post a verse from James and you assume when you read it that it's from Paul that there isn't a difference between James and Paul in regards to the OT law.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Where did Jesus teach speaking in tongues, women should not be teachers, the burning of books, money collection (1Cor 16), just to start. Don't get me wrong, he plays an important part in the history, but he is not a disciple or prophet.

I will contribute to the discussion of Paul. First I am not knowledgeable of modern conspiracy theories of Paul's ID. What I can say is based on the Epistles and Acts.

Although it might seem from today's point of view that is multicultural, that Paul changed the original teaching of Jesus, it wasn't probably so in his time. Without his preaching the Gospel would remain isolated in Judea pretty much serving the handful of Jews who accepted it at that time. Indeed Paul brought a wide range Greek-Roman attributes to the teaching of Jesus, so to speak he clothed it in Greek-Roman togas. But that might be just the correct thing to do in that time!

What bothers me more, were there rewritings of Paul's works as well as Gospel's books to fix the point of view of pagan Rome, the one that did not want to preserve the historical image of Jesus rather to create a new image fully controlled by the emperors' will and their hidden agenda. So we got Jesus stripped of everything human to the point to deny his own wife, and most likely children. We ought to ask ourselves, why, what served that to Rome's goals?

But I think that was not a problem of the historical personage of Paul who did what he did very honestly to his own conscience. There isn't anything wrong to call him saint because he was a such, according to what we put in that word. Unlike "St Constantine" for example who is not recognized as saint in the Roman church, only in the Eastern churches. There is a need of more saints like Paul and the rest in history, St Padre Pio and Mother Theresa in our days. They all followed Jesus in his steps doing bigger or lesser works that Jesus himself did, as he said "you wil do greater works than mine".

Having said that, we should be open for more saints and even miracle doers in our times. Yes I mean the Jewish Messiah and not only, but the whole new generation that is to come, the 144,000, after the current era of the church ends, according to Malachi's list and other prophecies.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have to be honest, this pains me to say.

I thought of a good use for the teaching of only faith matters (paraphrasing).


If you tell that to people they won't be all annoyingly doing phony good deeds trying to by there way in to heaven. That would be Simony essentially "your good deeds perish with you." If you are only doing to get to Heaven that is.

You can see if they do good anyway and learn how they are.

As far as I can tell Paul never even considered using it for good he just wanted converts. Nobody teaches that now either. Good deeds are a must but you are the blessed one and lucky one to have the honor of being chosen to help someone be a better person or whatever they need at the time. You should thank the homeless man for letting you give him money and ask for his blessing and for him to be blessed.

Heaven is a not a reward for good deeds done just to get to Heaven. Good deeds should be as natural as breathing or eating.

a reply to: MOMof3

Well, there was no tongues when before Jesus ascended, that was a gift that came about with the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and afterward. I'm not sure about burning books, it's not any type of doctrine or anything at all. And collecting money to help people or the poor members of the church was started by Peter in the book of Acts, pastoral advice and suggestions aren't commands or doctrine either.

a reply to: 2012newstart

There is a need of more saints like Paul and the rest in history, St Padre Pio and Mother Theresa in our days. They all followed Jesus in his steps doing bigger or lesser works that Jesus himself did, as he said "you wil do greater works than mine".

Mother Theresa...yes. Don't know much about St. Padre Pio. I do know Mother Theresa questioned the goodness of God, in all of her ministry helping those in Calcutta.
Here's Paul's take on widows and men having long hair....

In 1 Timothy 5:9-12 (KJV) we read:

9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

11 But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they have cast off their first faith.

Paul thus said that a widow under sixty should not receive charity. (1 Tim. 5:9, 11-13.) No command in the Torah spoke like this. The "poor tithe" of Israel (every 3d year) simply went to widows and orphans. (Some portion was also given strangers and Levites.) To repeat, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5:19-20

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is OVER SIXTY.

Or Saul's views on men with long hair.....

Every picture of our Lord depicts Him with long hair. One who complied with the Nazarite vow of holiness would agree not to cut his hair for a period of time. See Numbers 6:1-8. The period of time was up to the penitent to establish at the start, although Jewish tradition says it was normally 30 days. Thus, his hair could grow very long. The Jewish Encyclopedia relates:

The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num.l.c.; Jer. vii. 29). www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Samson had long hair as a Nazarite, and in it was his power from God:

Samson was a Nazarite, whose mother abstained from wine during her pregnancy. His superhuman strength lay in his long, unshorn locks (Judges xiii.et seq.). Samuel's mother promised to dedicate him to God during his whole life, saying, "There shall no razor come upon his head" (I Sam. i. 11); www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

The term "nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated." This vow required the man or woman to:
•Abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, and according to some — alcohol and vinegar from alcohol
•Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head; and
•Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members.

[Yahshua's / Jesus' remark 'let the dead bury their dead' takes on a potentially Nazirite significance.]

However, Paul says long hair is a 'shame' to the one with long hair. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:14 says:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

Can Paul be truly reconciled with the word of God?

Paulinists defend Paul by saying that a Nazarite let himself fall into a shameful appearance by having long hair. jesusalive.cc...

However, Paul is wrong. This conflict proves why reading a text is key. In Numbers 6:5, we read about the 'not cutting hair' principle as one to demonstrate greater holiness and consecration:

All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Clearly long hair was a sign of greater holiness, just as avoiding wine and dead bodies was a state of greater holiness than ordinary life. Paul is wrong that long hair meant shame. That was a Roman belief, as all the statues of Caesar or of Roman statesmen always depict such men with short hair.


Women being saved through childbirth....

One of the strangest statements by Paul is:

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.“ (1 Tm 2:15 KJV)

"But she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Tim 2:15 NIV)

As one Nigerian pastor puts it: "This is a most bizarre doctrine of salvation."

First, please notice that WORKS play a role in this method of salvation, thereby contradicting what Paul teaches elsewhere, e.g., Eph. 2:8-9. So what happened to faith alone?

And this contradiction is not Paul simply affirming childbirth saves. Other numerous actions are required (whether from her or her children) -- "charity, and holiness with sobriety."

Is there any escape from this reading? From admitting Paul contradicts himself? No.

The Greek verb sothesetai (“will be saved”) denotes “salvation” and not simply 'preservation.' The mention of charity, holiness and sobriety as other virtuous deeds make this clear. Payne agrees in context that this is speaking of "spiritual salvation," as it comes on the heals of Paul talking about the Fall. And Paul never uses the word "saved" for anything but spiritual salvation in every other use Paul employed in the NT. Paul used a different word when he meant physical preservation. See Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman: One in Christ (Zondervan: 2009) at 418-422.

Second, the Greek says a woman is saved dia tes teknogonias (“through the childbirth”). Pretty unambiguous stuff. But some contend this means women are saved by means of the birth of Jesus. ("How are women saved?"; Payne, id., at 422.) Yet, this does not fit the rest of the sentence, which again extols other acts of virtue that are necessary for salvation, whether by her or her children.

This passage is a true dilemma.

In my view, what it really says is that a woman is saved by childbirth if her children exhibit faith, charity and holiness with sobriety. For the subject is singular feminine with sothesetai -- "she will be saved" and then "childbirth" arises, and the subject changes to "they," implying the children she produces. Thus, Paul teaches a woman's salvation hinges upon the obedience of her children -- their faith, charity, holiness and sobriety.

Very strange stuff indeed for Paul who elsewhere teaches salvation is by faith alone! See Romans 3:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9. P.C. Spicq found this passage so "bizarre" he said Paul could not have uttered it. See Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman (Zondervan: 2009) at 417.

Thus, Paulinists have a very strange hero -- self-contradictory and bizarre unless they edit him down to tolerable limits, or distort his words to avoid their plain meaning.




NOTE: PAUL REPEATS THIS BIZARRE IDEA OF SALVATION BY FAMILY RELATIONSHIP + FAITH OF ONE



Paul's personal view of salvation similar to that in 1 Timothy is in line with 1 Corinthians 10:10-14. Paul will teach a child is saved by its mother or father's faith. (And the non-believing spouse is saved by the believing spouse's faith.) The Disciples Literal New Testatment reads:



But Do Not Divorce Your Christian Spouse

Annnnnd....my favorite of all (his views on women)

In Jesus's day, there were "prohibitions against teaching women Torah." ("Women in Judaism," Wikipedia accessed 6/4/2010).

Orthodox Jews still struggle with their oral law prohibition against teaching women the Torah. (Think of the movie Yentyl.) They try to find ways to limit the rule or have loopholes. See Rabbi Kahn's "Jewish Education for Women."

Because women couldn't be taught the Torah, women obviously also couldn't teach the Torah.

The Pharisee party in Jesus's day was the only party that believed in oral Torah. Thus, the Pharisee party is the only party that held these views in Jesus' day. The Sadducee party believed the only Torah was the written Torah, and rejected the Pharisees' doctrine that could ever be an oral Torah delivered at Sinai that was not written down. Hence, the only source possible of this doctrine in Jesus's day were the Pharisees. By the oral Torah prohibition that women should not be taught Torah, this prevented women under the authority of Pharisees from teaching anyone else since they obviously knew nothing about Torah without being permitted to have a teacher.

Jesus repeatedly challenged this gender restriction about teaching the word of God to women. He encouraged women to learn from Him the Way of the Kingdom despite oral Torah doctrine being to the contrary. Jesus clearly elevated women to equality with men as able to be taught God's principles, e.g., talking to the Samaritan woman by the well; his relations to Mary and Martha (Luke 8:38), etc.

By Jesus teaching Mary and Martha, now they obviously could teach others what Jesus taught. Mary and Martha, if asked by a young boy "What did Jesus teach?" knew that they could now teach what Jesus taught. They didn't have to keep silent because of the old oral law of the Pharisees.

Or do you think Jesus intended that the women, if asked the same question by the boy, had to say "Well, I'm sorry I know what Jesus taught, and I would love to share it with you, but you are a boy and I'm a woman, so I have to say nothing to you about what Jesus teaches?" Of course not. By Jesus teaching women about the word of God, Jesus implicitly was authorizing them and mandating them to teach men and women what Jesus taught about the word of God.

Paul emphasizes, however, oral law principles nowhere uttered in the Bible that restrain women's full and equal role as disciples in the church. Thus, these restraints solely rest on Paul's authority.

Now, before I mention Paul principles, I wish to declare that if God truly demanded women must not speak out at church, raise no questions there, and not teach or not ever have authority over men, or women must wear a head-covering / veil in church, or men should not do so, I would obey.

But all these notions appear from only one voice in the entire "Bible." And as discussed below, they are often at odds with inspired Scripture. Why so late in God's self-revelation would Paul uniquely be given a set of commands seemingly so at odds with equality and kindness that Jesus offered to women? Paul's words read like unique ordinances that nowhere else have any analog in the true Bible. So what is the impression left by Paul's words?

The Ugly Impression of Paul's Words

A defender of Paul, Henry Chadwick, in his book The Enigma of St. Paul. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture delivered before the University of London on 27 February 1968 (London: The Athlone press, 1969) at 8 puts it succinctly:

[An] accusation against the apostle has been that he is principally responsible for introducing into the stream of Christian history a deep-seated fear and hostility towards sex. And it should be conceded at once that there are passages that make it easy and natural to interpret him as a misogynist celibate, with an obsession about women’s hair so acute that he demands the wearing of hats [sic: veils] in church, and with the strongest views of female subordination. ‘It is good that a man should not touch a woman.’ ‘The women must keep silence in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.’ And so on.

As to marriage itself, contrast Jesus who speaks of celibacy as something for some but not all disciples. It is not a command or even an exhortation. Matt. 19:12.

But in 1 Cor. 10:27-28, Paul advises those not married to stay that way: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." While Paul then says it is not a sin to marry, he clearly says in the literal Greek "do not seek a wife."

And Paul makes clear elsewhere that by deciding to marry, one takes their focus off God and becomes worldly, focused upon their spouse. Paul thereby undermines the message of Scripture in Genesis that it was "not good for Adam to be alone." Paul writes:

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1 Cor. 7:32-34 KJV.)

Note: A few manuscripts begin verse 34 "and his interests are divided." (See variants 1 Cor.)

And it is in this same context Paul teaches "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1 KJV) And consistent with this, Paul says a daughter is better off unmarried than married: "So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better." (1 Cor. 7:38 KJV.)

But God says to the contrary that marriage is good for a man, implying marriage for both men and women is a more honorable estate than perpetual bachelorhood or maidenhood. God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen. 2:18.) I also have to think God knew they would touch each other or He would not have made them physically attractive to each other.

Paul elsewhere makes it appear that by marrying, one betrays their first husband -- Christ: "I have espoused you to one husband," Paul tells the Corinthians metaphorically, "that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). Thus, while previously in 1 Cor. Paul said marriage was not a sin, the implication from this metaphor in 2 Cor. is that by marrying we become adulterous, taking our eyes off Christ and putting them on another -- our spouse.

Paul repeats this in 1 Timothy 5:9-12,14 KJV if you read attentively Paul's implication about younger widows, clearly making remarriage a sin for younger widows under 60. (Younger women may marry to have children, and not purely for companionship, Paul adds.) Paul says a "wantonness against Christ" is reflected by a young widow's "desire to remarry" which brings the widows under 60 "damnation" as this desire to remarry means they have "thrown off their first faith" toward Christ:

Continuted....

9 Let not a widow be taken into the number [for charity] under threescore years old [i.e., 60 years old],... 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry (sic: "desire to marry" ASV); 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

Obviously, Paul is repeating the same notion we read in 1 Cor. 7:32-34 and 2 Cor. 11:2 that somehow, by marriage to another human, we necessarily take our eyes off Christ, our spiritual husband, and hence these "younger widows" become "wanton against Christ" reflected by a "desire to marry" which here Paul equates to "damnation, because they have cast off their "first faith."



But does God ever teach a 100% love and devotion for God necessarily means that human love is such a distraction that we should abandon it, as Paul claims? Since God does command love for our neighbor (who is everyone, Jesus teaches) and otherwise does not like 'long prayers,' as Jesus taught (contrary to Paul's requirement that we "pray incessantly"), then God has not only allowed us time and flexibility to form loving relationships with others, but also has commanded it. Therefore, we must conclude the love and devotion to God does not mean cutting off all other human love and devotion. As Jesus taught, such loving human relationships simply cannot be a love deeper and bigger than our Love and Devotion for God.

So in sum, Paul teaches that one "should not seek to marry," and that those who do marry necessarily for companionship (ordained in Genesis) are no longer concerned "about the Lord's affairs." Thus Paul has changed marriage to a nonbeneficial institution which is contrary to God's word to Moses. As Paul's sympathizers even admit: "He is counseling Christians of both sexes who are unmarried to remain so, and thus to be celibate." (Decker, "Patriarchy.") And while Paul in 1 Corinthians said it was not a sin to marry, by the time of 2 Corinthians, Paul implies by marrying we adulterously have abandoned Jesus.

(How many Paulinist churches preach all Paul taught, like "do not seek marriage" if you are unmarried? Or that by marrying you become worldy? Perhaps you are even an adulterer by marrying after finding Christ! NONE IN MY EXPERIENCE! Instead, they urge marriage, are pleased to marry off their daughters, and hope for children -- Praise God they do not listen to Paul at least on this one important issue!)

SELF-CONTRADICTION WARNING: Paul's letter to Timothy contains a contradiction, as Paulinists admit. Paul writes: "I will therefore that the younger women marry," says 1 Tim. 5:14 (KJV), "bear children, guide the house." How do die-hard Paul fans handle this?

Scholars suspect, based on style as well as content, that Paul's words to Timothy and Titus are not Paul's words at all, but those of someone writing in his name, years after Paul's death...." (Decker, "Patriarchy.")

As to other points of tension between Paul and Jesus, we will expose them as we next discuss specific verses.

Head Coverings: Does God Command This?

One of the proofs that Paulinists are selective in what they obey from Paul is not just they ignore Paul's command "not to seek to marry," but also his command that women wear veils at church. They contort his words to try to claim he is talking about long hair, but this is contextually and historically false. And more important, Paul's words on head coverings from women appear contrary to Biblical commands / observations.

Let's start with Paul's command on veils. Paul stated that the head covering / veil by a woman was to be observed not for cultural reasons but because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10): “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Paul then says in 1 Corinthians 11:5: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” Hence, Paul makes wearing a head covering / a veil a MORAL command.

By contrast, a man was not to wear one. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:4 says: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head.”

Some insist this covering is simply long hair because Paul uses as a proof that "nature" proves similarly that long hair is a glory for women but long hair is shameful for men. (1 Cor. 11:14-15.) However, Paul means that "nature" shows you a similar principle to what he is saying. Paul is not talking about only hair length when he speaks of having a covering while praying. The problem was not short-hair among women while praying. We know the true meaning is demonstrated by the words Paul uses -- a "covering" and the tradition found in the early church (under Paul's influence no doubt) of women wearing a veil while praying or reading Scriptures. Paul writes:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [i.e., head shaved] but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." (1 Cor. 11:6.)

The reference is to a veil, not hair, as we shall demonstrate. Paul means that being shorn of hair is as shameful as having no head covering. Paul in essence says: if you go without the veil, you might as well go without any hair. Both are supposedly shameful. The fact hair length is a natural example of the same principle proves Paul is not saying "long hair" is the covering during prayer or 'prophesying,' but the natural principles about "hair length" is a reflection of the same principle of why women should wear veils while men should not.

How Do We Know Paul Speaks of A Veil?

How do we know it is a veil? Because Paul brought from Arabia and placed in the Christian church the practice of veiling woman in worship. The Christian leader, Tertullian of Carthage, in 200 AD describes the need for this practice of modesty of veiling women -- first generally and then during worship activities in church, identical in verbiage to that which Paul was talking about. Tertullian first makes clear he is talking of a veil over one's hair in this first quote:

But we admonish you, too, women of the second [degree of] modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their mitres and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up ; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions—I suppose for fear of pressing the head—and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound ; in order that the necks too may be encircled.***

Tertullian in this next quote in the same passage then clearly says the head is properly "covered" (same as Paul's language) during reading of Psalms or using God's name when a woman wears a "veil":