Exactly. The ekklesia has always been present in both covenants, either trusting God to provide Messiah to come, or trusting in the completed work of Messiah that has come.
Is Christianity really Jewish? Are these terms interchangeable? Yes or No or Maybe? This could be a topic for a poll ...
Christianity should be completed Judaism. There should be no essential difference between the faith of Christians and the faith of Messianic Judaism. One flock one shepherd. John 10:16. .
Well, if you're going to use inaccurate or misleading language you should expect for it to be pointed out here.
No, Christianity isn't Jewish. Perhaps it should be a little more so, but it isn't, and we have to start from where we are.
Okay, then it was appropriate for Tiffy to define the term for you. You said there were "no Christian churches. Obvs". Tiffy explained what a church is, not a building but a collection of people, to appropriately demonstrate there were most certainly churches. You arrogantly dismissed him for defining what a church was. Either you knew what a church meant and were being misleading, so it was right to correct you; or you were not intending to be misleading because you did not know, or temporarily forgot, what a church meant, so it was right to correct you.
Nonsense. This is just equivocation. So, a bit of semantic theory. It is patently clear from context that I was using 'church' to denote church in contradistinction to synagogue, which even for Christians is the primary understood meaning; a defined place of worship. 'Church' as congregation is a secondary meaning, and even among Christians often needs to be contextualised. If I were to say 'I am going to church on Sunday.' most people would ask something along the lines of, 'which one?' or 'where?' The usual necessary semantic conditions for the unmarked word are that it is a building. We can tell this because if I answer, 'Durham Cathedral,' nobody is confused by the answer or says, I don't understand what you mean. Church as a group of people is the marked or non-standard version, even among Christians. Among non-Christians it is practically unknown. Pretending that it is the other way round, and that church as group is the unmarked form, and that therefore I can be 'corrected' is just beyond belief.
Your word “parties” has a very different connotation from 1st century usage of the word ekklesia (“assembly”). Did you already know that, or didn’t you?
The fact that so few in this thread (presumably mostly men) are defending head coverings is an absolute tragedy, and indicates how far into the church’s digestive system feminism has gone. St. Paul uses universalist language, pointing to the purposes of man and woman (“man was not made from woman, but woman from man”, “man was not created for woman, but woman for man”). Is it any coincidence that the absence of head coverings coincides with the absence of biblical patriarchy? The pure Word of God remains true: women who do not cover their heads dishonour their husbands.
I can see both sides of the issue, I guess. The long-standing interpretation by the church of that scripture can be seen in the practice of women wearing head coverings, and this practice existed for (AFAIK) pretty much the entire history of the church --- until about 50 years ago. The argument here would be, who are we to conclude that the church got it wrong for all those centuries? Does secular culture inform religious belief and practice, or should religious belief and practice inform church culture? (Obviously secular culture will do as secular culture wishes, but is it wise for church culture to be molded by secularism?) On the other side, there's the feeling that secular culture did inform the writing of 1 Cor. 11 concerning head covering, and absent the culture (which at that time viewed uncovered female hair as a sexualized statement) we would not have such an admonishment. Thus, the reasoning goes, the church did take the verses too literally and allowed secular customs to inform church culture and practice for a very long time, forming a situation in which the covering of women's heads in church became an inhibiting legalism (similar to a ban on makeup or jewelry) when the secular customs changed. Proponents of this view would probably point out that no O.T. scripture taught such a practice as a necessity for godly women. To compound things, where Paul's letter sets an expectation that men will keep their heads uncovered in church, long-standing Jewish custom calls for men to keep their heads covered (especially if they are reading from the Torah scrolls or invoking a priestly benediction on the congregation); this illustrates the likelihood that head coverings are more a matter of custom and/or tradition than an actual expectation God has for women. I guess my feeling is this: if a woman feels led to wear a head covering, she should do so. If she feels it is not God's will (or her husband's will, either) to wear a head covering, she may do without. I would be quite happy if all the women in church covered their heads. But I'm not going to be unhappy that they don't.
Apparently you haven't noticed the people who dye it pink, green, purple, orange, etc. or who style it in a mohawk or other weird shapes! They seem intent upon honoring themselves, but to my eye it has the opposite effect! But I get your point.
You then fail to read scripture. Are you a Christian? “4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” 1 Corin. 11:4-5
I am well aware of the 1 Cor. 11 passage. I still fail to see how the visibility of one’s hair honors or dishonors anyone. It’s hardly self-evident.
And I fail to understand how many truths of God can be true, but accept them nonetheless, as is my duty to my Lord. How can God raise Christ from the dead? Don’t know, just know that He did. How can God be a trinity? Don’t know, just know that He is. We must take great care to not stand above Scripture, rather we must stand below it.
I would hardly categorize something as obscure as first century attitudes toward head coverings as one of “the truths of God” alongside the resurrection of the dead. It has never held such a place in the whole history of Christian doctrine or practice. If you can’t explain why it should suddenly have practical relevance, then whence comes the surprise that it is not considered a pressing issue on the “pro” side outside the Islamic world?
The principle of accepting a truth of scripture regardless of our inability to understand how it can be true does not imply that all truths of scripture are of equal significance. The passage on head coverings is one of the least obscure passages in all of scripture, and was universally adhered to in all of Christendom until less than a century ago. So, the onus of proof is with you to declare how the plain reading of scripture, plus nearly two thousand years of universal practice, is suddenly wrong. That it is not a pressing issue today is simply because we have bigger fish to fry, like wanton blasphemy.
It certainly was not the universal practice across “Christendom” until less than a century ago (sources?). I don’t recall saying anything was “right” or “wrong”; I merely asked what the rationale was. St. Paul’s remark that it is “because of the angels” is hardly clear. Yet St. Paul must have meant something by it. Any responsible exegete would therefore want to determine as closely as possible what his rationale was, otherwise we could have no idea how the people at Corinth were meant to understand his argument, or why that particular detail would be persuasive to them. It would also help to clarify the range of its applicability, which is precisely the issue at hand here. To say it’s simply obligatory on the basis of this passage irrespective of its context is to put the proverbial cart before the horse.
No, do your own work on finding sources. I already have and don’t have time to do the work for you. Numerous patristic and medieval writings discuss it.