[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618766] Part 1/2.

Quote fron donfriesen1: "Paul bases arguments put forward in 1Co11 from the first chapters of Genesis. If that is his scriptural foundation then it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1Co11 would also be seen there."

I'm going to try this one more time, Don. The bolded part of your statement, which I quoted above, is the point that needs to be examined.

OK. But I'd say that all 11 hole-points I've made should be examined. I encourage you to do so, for yourself if not also for those you influence. Why not address all or at least some of the other points, too?

Or you could just keep posting mocking emojis, per post 50. Doing so shows you as elevating yourself to a place of authority made for comparison for others to line up to. Those failing to meet your comparison-points are then worthy to be mocked. And who is it that elevated you to this position but self?

The response from a dignified person would be to show how these holes are wrong. You refuse to do so. That you don't when you so often do in AFF, using your great knowledge base (I'm not being facetious here) is telling. Other readers of these threads see your lack of response here and wonder why someone such as you has not more to say here. I've made serious allegations, showing evidence in scripture and logic, and the best which someone of your experience comes up with is an emoji. You can do better but perhaps you can't, evidenced by your lack of responses. You don't because if you had something serious to respond with you would already have done so. But don't give up yet. You've got it in you to bring it forth.

1. Why do you think "it is logical to presume that commands similar to what are believed to come from 1 Cor 11 would also be seen there"? What law of logic demands such a thing?

A I'll call it the law of consistency. If God commands Italians to be saved by Ac2.38, then it would be inconsistent that he would command the Japanese to be saved another way.

Some apostolics, I'd guess a majority, believe that God commands something in 1Co11. It is in regards to proper respect for his authority as creator. As creator he expects Man to maintain respect for the order of authority he has put in place.

When was the order of authority first put in place? It is logical to assume it was put in place the moment of A&E were created. Did God command it then? We have no record of God commanding it in the Beginning. There is no record from the Beginning that God commanded respect for him to be shown by the keeping of symbols, but it is said, by some, that such a command appears in 1Co11. But it is logical that the showing of symbols was expected in the Beginning if it was shown required in 1Co11, which 1Co11 shows. Yielding to the forces which the instinct gives (in this case, the woman's instincts to be nice looking) results in doing that which the man likes (by instinct he likes visually pretty things). By following her instincts a woman is shown showing respect by symbols (long hair) that which her man likes. Long hair shows she respects her man's likes. It is the symbol that was possible to be shown used in the Beginning. The opposite is also true. Any woman wanting to diss her man can do it by denying the long hair she knows he likes to see. Long hair thus symbolizes her respect for her man. Long hair from yielding to the force of the instinct is the symbol which shows she regards the order of authority God instituted without command.

Some things need no command yet are still understood, when God gives the ability to rationalise an understanding of it without a command. It is rational that Man reverence God. Man clearly knows this even without being commanded. It is known by rational abilities. The reason the story was recorded as it was in the Beginning is to show Man the source of reverence comes not by command but that which comes from deductive reasoning abilities. Adam and Eve verbally passed down their story, to share what had happened because it was important for them to do so. Alternatively, if you believe like some do, that God revealed it to Moses while on Mt Sinai, then it is God who reveals what happened at the Beginning, doing so because he felt it was important to tell the story the way it happened. Man there deduced reverence for God's order of authority. It was not known to them first by a command.

The topic of respect for God is not a light topic, because it also involves the glory of God, which is Man's primary purpose in life. Yet it had not been commanded in the Beginning, before the Fall, nor was it commanded immediately after the Fall. There is no record of any command for something this important, yet it is still logical to assume respect is expected, even without a command. The same for the glory of God. It was not commanded in the Beginning but rational to think it was expected without command.

There are no Biblical records for commands of respect to be shown by symbols in the Ages following: Conscience and Law - a huge period of time. The Law would have been a logical place for commands to now appear, for the nation God chooses to be a kingdom of priests, set at the crossroads of the world. Moses is seen commanding for God many, many laws having to do with externals/the physical. None are seen from Moses which are similar to commands which are said by many to be commanded in 1Co11. Strangely, not seen.

Man then exists for over 4000 yrs, without a command for respect for God's order of authority. Enter Paul and the NT. Paul is interpreted by some apostolics to be now commanding that which has not been commanded for 4000 years. The existence of a new covenant does nothing to change what had been expected by rational thought - respect for God's order of authority. The new covenant doesn't change one iota that Man is still expected to show respect to God's order of authority. It had been expected, without command, for 4000 yrs and continues to be expected in the NT. If any Man connected to God doesn't show this respect then they have massive issues of intellect or are controlled by expectations other than from God's rational ways.

Paul is a scholar and lover of all things having to do with the Word of God. The only Word he has are the OT scriptures. They form the values he believes and lives by. Had Paul seen commands for showing respect for God's authority in the Beginning, or in Conscience, or in Law, then we would rightly expect that he would now command the same in the new covenant. But the expert of the OT he is does not see commands anywhere there and he does not now command for the NT differently than what is shown in the OT, emulating what he knows to be the principles of God shown in the Beginning. Respect for the order of God's authority in the NT is by expectation and not by command, the same as it was in the Beginning and the Ages after it.

It thus is logical to say that Paul doesn't command.

B It is illogical to think that commands for co/unco would only exist for the NT. All the parts are equal in any Age - in the qualities they possess in relation to the topic. God hasn't changed. Man hasn't changed. Woman hasn't changed. The expected ways of relationships and expected respect are the same in any Age. If God has not commanded in the Beginning, (the logical place for the first appearance of commands on this topic, if anywhere) then what would compel a later needed addition of a command? None of the qualities of any player in their relationships has changed, showing a need to now command that which wasn't commanded then. It is known now as it was known then. It is a rationally deduced expectation without being commanded.

C The absence of commands for 4000 yrs speaks something. All need to listen to what this silence says. To ignore by saying that absence doesn't speak is unresponsible.

2. Do you believe that there are no commands of God to found in Scripture after Deuteronomy? If so, WHY?

I do believe that God has commanded after Deuteronomy. God has commanded after Deut differently than he had done there, and also the same, depending on the time and the circumstance. Plz explain why you ask this question because it doesn't seem to fit into this discussion.

3. Do you believe every command of God must be repeated at least twice, in two separate books, by two separate authors, in order to be valid? If so, WHY? Who says so?

No. God may speak once and it is truth, even though not ever repeated. But God graciously does repeat himself often, allowing for more surety and clarity of belief.

1Co11 is interpreted in a certain way by uncut long. This interpretation is then viewed as the interpretation that all previous God-fearers held from the Beginning onward. Where is the evidence that all previous God-fearers held this interpretation? It isn't there. By this method, the usual order of things is reversed. Usually the past (OT) is seen as laying the foundation for the future (NT). With the misinterpretation of 1Co11 it is seen otherwise. The NT is the foundation for what is said to be believed in the OT. Where is the OT evidence of co/unco seen, laying the foundation for the NT doctrine of co/unco? It isn't there. What needs to be done is to find a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with the OT evidence, putting the horse (OT) before the cart (NT).

The instinct view does this. What is seen is that many peoples over many times practised co/unco without a command from God. If no commands are seen in the OT then why do Jews practise co/unco? Scholars say that many pagans in many times practised co/unco. Pagans certainly don't practise co/unco from commands which aren't there, which they wouldn't have known even if they had been in the OT. The logical explanation is the practises came from God-instilled instincts. Sometimes, if something fits the story then it is true. Instincts explains what is seen in history. It doesn't explain all of history because people do not always follow their instincts.

Part 2/2 to follow.