Yes, there are ads

I have included advertisements on this page because I am extremely poor. If you would help me out by clicking an ad I would be grateful. I have limited the ads to the categories that I believe will interest my readers. I have blocked the smutty categories. I also know that there will be ads that neither you or I agree with.

About Comments

I have gotten rid of the Google+ requirement. What a fail it was.
I have reposted the comments that would have been lost.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

An Ascetic Doctrine and Heretics Hailed as Early Church Fathers

This post has moved to Weebly!


  1. I have gotten rid of the Google+ requirement. What a fail it was.
    I am reposting the comments that would have been lost

  2. Thread 1
    Sue Nissley
    Finally someone has the nerve to show the Bible....verses!! Its all there in plain print its not what some one else thinks its Bibleic....king james is the Bible!!!

  3. Thread 2
    Meredith Raber
    Assuming you may have already seen the thread I started AGES ago in MD and went over these very points, courageous stand you're taking here :) Take cover, here comes the storm!

    Manfred Nissley
    +Meredith Raber Could you put a link to it here in the comments?

  4. Thread 3
    Dennis Miller
    Please be careful Manfred.

    Manfred Nissley
    Oh I have been. :)

  5. Thread 4
    Rich Mast
    Manfred, have you checked out There is much evidence there that quite a few non-mennonite men/scholars have reached much the same conclusion as those who have chosen to wear the veiling because they feel it's Biblical. Check it out! :)

    Manfred Nissley
    I have seen it.
    Manfred Nissley
    I also see that a guy named Vaughn Ohlman is hanging out there. Beware of that wolf. There was enough pressure that he had to leave mennodiscuss.

    polly jetix
    Numbers of new converts joining a movement is no proof of truth within the movement.
    Almost every religion in the world will point to cases of individuals "coming to the light" and joining their movement. From Mormons to Muslims, and from Atheists to Amish, you will find such testimonials.
    This is actually a very weak crutch to lean on.

  6. Thread 5
    Thread 5
    George Donner
    Sorry, Manfred, but I think your reasoning against the headcovering is severely flawed., First from a historical perspective and secondly from an exegetical perspective. In your view then, all women who are not "covered" should have bald heads... A man's hat is never in view in this passage, since it is the Lordship of Christ and the headship of God's order that are in view. You are missing the whole context of Paul's exhortation, IMO.
    Be careful of what you read online and do your homework, which again seems to be limited. The time frame that you place on the headcovering is totally backward, since it was universally practiced, across denominational lines up until the 19th century, when you say it began...

    Manfred Nissley
    That doctrine of universalism is based on what Clement and Tertullian taught. Be very careful there! Can you honestly tell me that every single denomination that broke from the Catholic Church taught the doctrine of the prayer veiling? Can you provide me proof? Furthermore, can you honestly tell me that not one of those denominations that taught that belief based it on doctrines that were formed on Catholic teachings passed down through the centuries?
    George Donner +1
    Ah, well all the reformers still believed in headcovering and those still attached to the Catholic church and Orthodox church did. I guess you are familiar with the discussions on MD, so you can find plenty of historical evidence from there. The main thing is that it is contrary to biblical teachings and even more who can't argue from the biblical perspective, relegate it to the time period of the NT and say it is just a societal thing, kinda like you are trying to do with the Mennonites.
    Me thinks you are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Don't think that a wholesale trashing of Mennonite theology is going to set you free...
    The truth is, is that there is much to be appreciated there. Take it from one who came into Anabaptist type of faith from a non-head covering group...

    Manfred Nissley
    What makes you think I am trashing all Mennonite theology?
    All the reformers? Can you prove that?
    As for the Catholic and Orthodox church, I pointed out where they got their tradition and to who that extended to. Furthermore, the idea that all Catholic women were required by rule to wear the head covering is historically inaccurate! They were not required to do so until 1917. Only the nuns were required to do so before that.

    Joel Nisly
    +Manfred Nissley

    Manfred Nissley
    I am nowhere close to saying the covering "was just a societal thing." I am saying the covering was the introduced through heresy based on a worldly teaching and introduced by the Gnostics. A heresy that was never rooted out by the modern day Conservative Mennonites.

    George Donner
    You are saying a lot of things, but offering little documentation. Can you show where you got these ideas from?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Thread 5 continued part 1
      polly jetix+1
      Why do we need historical proof of practice? Why isn't Scripture enough?
      We know Paul said that shortly after his demise, damnable heresies would enter the church. It is very dangerous to look to early church fathers, as if their opinions carried enough weight to question the obvious meaning of the Word.
      Paul defined his own terms. The verb katakalupto is fulfilled by the peribolaion which God Himself designed. The reason the woman dishonors her husband (and God) by wearing her hair short, is the same reason a man shames himself by wearing his hair long. Because God intended for men to look masculine, and women to look feminine.
      And no, the meaning of "shorn" is not simply "to trim". Instead, it is "to cut off, as the fleece of a sheep." This is the usage of the Greek verb "keiro", as reflected in Acts 18:18. --Which was performed in obedience to Numbers 6:18. Compare Acts 21:24, where "shaved" (xurao) is used to describe the exact same act of removal of ALL the hair--to the scalp. Keiro was not only used as a verb, meaning to remove the hair at scalp level, but it was also used as a noun, to mean either the act of sheering a sheep, or the fleece which was removed. (Acts 8:32)
      Therefore, when Paul says "if a woman is not covered, then let her be shorn or shaven," he is not saying that if a woman doesn't have a cloth on her head, she should either trim her hair, or else take a razor to her scalp.
      Instead, Paul was saying that if a woman refuses to wear her hair long and feminine (i.e. wearing it short, as men ought to) then let her go ahead and embrace male pattern baldness... go ahead and either take a shears or a razor to her scalp.
      Mr. Donner, if the covering is a thing made of cloth, then we are left with two logical conclusions:
      #1. God defined its style and fabric for us (or we would be left to add to the Word, to give it meaning.)
      #2. Any style and fabric will qualify as a headcovering. Which then allows weather protection to qualify.
      Which is it?
      #1. simply does not exist, unless you insert it between the lines.
      #2. puts the man in a precarious position: either face frostbite or stop praying! Because if a man dishonors Christ, it is far more serious than if a woman dishonors a mere human.
      polly jetix +1
      Manfred, I really do not believe the cloth veiling was introduced by heresy. I think it was simply a custom from antiquity. Women of the OT wore cloth veils, even though there is no commandment in the OT for them to wear them.
      However, there WAS a command to the priests to wear bonnets. God said it was for a glory. Now, that begs a question:
      How could it be a glory for a man to pray covered in the OT, but a shame for him to pray covered in the NT?
      Now, the interpretation of I Cor 11 to mean a cloth probably did spring from that heresy you speak of.
      I found from my own study of non-Christian recorded ancient history, that the only women of Greek culture who wore their hair long, were the rich women, who had servants to elaborately fix their hair. But working class and poor women cut their hair short. Prostitutes of the pagan temple shaved their heads. Paul counters not only the elaborate hair styles, but also the short and shaved heads. Instead of all this mess, Christian women honor Christ most by looking feminine and simple. Long hair, fixed simply.

    3. Thread 5 continued part 2
      George Donner
      +polly jetix In reply to your question to me, yes any form or fabric will do, so long as it is a symbol of acknowledgement of God's order of headship. That may include a piece of head gear worn for protection from the weather, if it demonstrates itself as a symbol of headship. The idea of a covering that demonstrates authority is that of a military person, or policeman or other "order", which we as Christians should not be a part of since we then submit ourselves to a different order of headship. In military groups, each level of authority is clearly manifested by the particular rank or rate markings displayed. This is the reason men are not to have a symbol of authority on their head, since only Christ is above them (under the Father) and no other earthly power has that place of authority.
      That is my understanding of headship and it's order, which was Paul's whole reason for writing to the Corinthians about it, to clarify it's purpose and manifestation. The fact that there have been many different cloths and styles down through the ages demonstrates the point of something recognizable, but not limited to one particular form. When we see Mennonite women wearing a veiling, we know why, just as folks know why nuns wear them. Does the world know why some women choose to wear baseball caps?
      Think about it.

      Manfred Nissley
      George, do you know why Nuns were mandated to wear veils? The answer might surprise you.

      polly jetix +1
      George, it seems you are saying that God cares not so much about what is put upon the head, but about the intention behind that act. This then, is reducing the act of putting on an outward thing, to two things:
      1. proving to God by outward form, the inward condition of the heart, and
      2. doing something righteous for the purpose of appearances before man.
      1. God does not look on the outward appearance, to prove anything of the heart. He does not need that. Therefore, he would not need a woman to put anything on her head, to prove her submission.
      2. Jesus said: "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven." Matt 6:1
      Frankly, I cannot find either of those concepts in I Cor 11.
      Instead, Paul appeals to instinct to help us know what he is talking about. There is no natural instinct concerning a cloth on a woman's or a man's head, as to denote headship. But there is a very strong natural instinct that a woman feels intense shame if she begins to go bald. Because that is a male thing. Long, decorative tresses are feminine. And God Himself designed and gifted this covering to the woman.

      George Donner
      Yes God gave these tresses to women and gave them the privilege of covering them in response to a heart dedicated to Him and in recognition of His order. If you are interested in my full view of the issue, I have written a booklet on the headcovering. You can PM me on MD if you are interested.

      George Donner
      Oh, btw, do you wear a head covering or no? Just curious. I can't tell from your postings here.

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley So, surprise me.

      George Donner +1
      +polly jetix BTW, polly, are you saying that God doesn't require any kind of outward obedience? If that is true, then why not run around naked?

      Manfred Nissley
      The nuns, and only the nuns, took the veil as a sign that they had "married" Jesus. This would be similar to modern day "Jesus is my boyfriend" movement except for the fact you could never get married to an earthly person.
      I stumbled across some research just today by a Catholic scholar. He pointed out that the other women were not required to be veiled while praying until the 1917 Code of Cannon Law!

    4. Thread 5 continued part 3
      George Donner
      So, all those women before the reformation were doing for the sake of conscience and not by church law? Perhaps it was a matter of teaching and not "canon law"? I wonder at the accuracy of the article you read. So do you think the EO carried it on even though the RC didn't?

      polly jetix
      George, God requires us to obey His commands. But he doesn't make arbitrary commands just for us to show outwardly that we are submissive. I Cor 11 is very practical and reasonable, when you allow Paul to define the headcovering as long hair, instead of turning it into a religious symbolism thing to tack onto one for identification.

      polly jetix
      1. If you look carefully, you will find that a woman is not required to wear something designed to be a symbol. Rather, the fact that she is covered (by hair) is the symbol, or signification of her acceptance of her God-given femininity.
      2. If you look carefully, you will find that never does God tell the woman to take an action of putting a covering on her head. Instead, he simply tells her to BE covered. To remain in a state of being. This cannot happen with a cloth. It has to come off occasionally.

      George Donner +1
      But Paul says if your head is not covered then you should shave it. So how can the hair be the covering he is referring to? It cannot be. Your long hair is your glory and God asks you to cover it in respect for his headship order and if you won't cover it, then you should shave it off. Pretty simple really. It was/is not just a cultural thing, but you are the one who will answer to God, not me, for your own actions.

      Manfred Nissley
      covered = long hair. No long hair means short.
      Short hair ≠ shorn or shaven.
      Shorn ≠ shaven

      polly jetix
      George, yes, Paul says that if her head is not covered, then she should either shear or shave it. And "shear", (keiro) does not mean simply to trim the end, or to cut. In the usage of the day, keiro meant to remove ALL the hair at scalp level. That's why Acts uses the two terms for "shorn" and "shaven" interchangeably, when talking about Paul keeping Nazarite law. Compare Numbers 6:18, Acts 21:24, and Acts 18:18. Also, look at Acts 8:32, and look up the word for "shearers" in the Strongs.
      When a woman has long hair, her head is covered enough to pray. After all, I Cor 11 says that if a man has long hair, he is TOO covered to pray!

      George Donner
      +Manfred Nissley So where does the covering come in? Your reasoning is faulty since Paul says
      1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
      It makes no sense the way you want it. If she already has short hair (uncovered) then why or how could Paul tell her to be shorn? According to you she already is if she doesn't have long hair...

    5. Thread 5 continued part 4
      George Donner
      +polly jetix See my reply to Manfred...

      Manfred Nissley
      +George Donner
      It is my contention that before the reformation that in the Catholic Church only the Nuns were required to wear the covering. the other women did not have to do so, in fact they did not do so except for a fashion statement. The reformers, especially the conservative anabaptists were the ones who began to teach covering doctrine based on their belief that the nuns were actually holier because they covered themselves to such great extremes.

      Manfred Nissley
      Paul is saying she may as well be shorn or shaven if she has short manly hair.
      George Donner +1
      That is not what he says, you may wish it, but that is patently not what he says. He says
      Here are several translations (amongst many more I could cite)
      (ACV) For if a woman is not covered, let her also shear herself. But if it is an ugly thing for a woman to shear herself or be shaven, she should be covered.
      (AMP) For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].
      (ALT) For if a woman is not covered [or, veiled], let her also have her hair cut off, but if [it is] disgraceful [or, shameful] for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be having herself shaved, be letting her be covered [or, veiled].
      (CEV) A woman should wear something on her head. It is a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair. But if she refuses to wear something on her head, let her cut off her hair.
      (GNB) If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head.
      (JMNT) For, if a wife (or: woman) is not habitually covering herself down with a veil, let her also shear herself. Now since (or: if) [it is] a shame (disgrace; dishonor) for (to) a wife (woman) to shear or shave herself, let her habitually veil (cover) herself down.
      (NASB) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
      (NIV) For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
      Even modern "liberal" translations and paraphrases recognize what you are trying to deny. Instead of taking some articles' word for it, you should study the scripture.
      Why would Paul instruct a woman to cut off what you claim he says is her covering? He doesn't at all and even proves the need for it because it is recognized as her glory and scripture tells us that no flesh should glory in the presence of God. Woman is the glory of man, so man's glory is to be hidden, covered, veiled in the presence of God.
      I will kindly, but straight forwardly tell you, you are wrong on this one. Wrong.

      George Donner +1
      I won't argue the point anymore, since there is no point to it. I commend you to God, he is your judge.

    6. Thread 5 continued part 5
      George Donner
      I disagree, obviously, with your interpretation. And so does 2000 years of church practice.

      Manfred Nissley +1
      My research has shown your position of 2000 years to be a false. In fact, in order to believe the 2000 year position to be true you must ignore the fact that Catholic women (not including the heretical nuns) were not required to wear a veil, even at the alter, until 1917.

      George Donner
      There is no proof that temple prostitutes all shaved their heads. That is a fable that has been perpetuated but undocumented. Regarding the 1917 thing, what does the RC have to do with all this? The reformers, including the Anabaptists recognized the need for the headcovering and that can be documented as I did in my tractate on this subject. Me thinks you are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. I have heard all these arguments from Pentecostals, so it doesn't surprise me that you are following this error too. Have you ever read the writings of Derek Prince? He advocated the head covering in his later years; a well known and respected Pentecostal leader.
      You are throwing out the baby with the bath water I am afraid.
      No need to respond. I am finished here. Blessings for your journey.

      polly jetix
      Numerous examples could be given of ancient Greek poetry speaking of slave women being recognized by their shorn heads. And temple prostitutes were slaves of the temple. Please also remember, that shorn means the same thing as shaven, according to the Greek used in Acts and Hebrews.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Thread 6
    Manfred Nissley
    I changed a reference after noticing I goofed on which verse was to be referred to.

  9. Thread 7
    Steve Nissley
    WARNING! Do not be surprised if you come under severe fire for this posting by those who feel threatened by your belief, to hear that you believe it can be ignored, but to see you write it is like fear of death!
    You are now going to be considered poison by many for about 5 years.

    Manfred Nissley
    Good analogy dad! :)

    Steve Nissley
    In 1991 I wrote a book; "A biblical answer to the western church", in response to the book "The western church". The bitter hatred that reeked as as a result of that was absolutely staggering. I did however, change my opinions on many points in my book of course. But the core truth remains.

    Manfred Nissley
    +Steve Nissley
    I never heard of that book! Do you still have a copy?

    Steve Nissley
    I do have one copy of the book left I think, but it is so doctrinal outdated that it is really not fit to be read. Truth is, this issue is such a carnal discussion and not really worthy of too much elaboration.

    Steve Nissley
    Few if any will change their minds unless they are already convinced that something is wrong with tradition itself , and that will not happen from this particular angle ( because it is so carnal). Not worth making enemies over it.

    Manfred Nissley
    I would really like to get a copy of the book. I am interested in it not not so much for theological discussion but more so to help me understand my growing up years.

    Steve Nissley
    LOL I can understand that, I wish I could dig in my dads [undocumented] files of the past.

    Manfred Nissley
    Who knows maybe some documents will be found eventually!

    Manfred Nissley
    +Steve Nissley I just realized and amazing coincidence! You were 27 when you wrote that book... My age... hmmmmm..... lol

  10. Thread 8
    Manfred Nissley
    Someone sent me a message on Facebook concerning verse 6. This is my reply to that question.
    Covered in verse 6 is the verb katakalupto and has already been defined as long hair in verse 5. So, as the Bible then states "If a woman is not covered with her long hair, she may as well be shorn (think sheep sheering in which stubble or short hair is left) or shaven (think about what a guy does to get his hair off his face). To infer that to say that the words shorn or shaven mean the same thing is to infer that Paul was being verbose when used he both words.


There was an error in this gadget