1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So from this we see that Don does not in fact believe that God can command something anywhere in Scripture. Instead, Don believes God can only command something anywhere in Scripture IF it was commanded in the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Therefore, any command in Scripture not found being given to Adam and Eve is no command at all.

And so Don overthrows everything in the Bible after Genesis 3. According to Don's theology, man shall live by every word of God in Genesis 1-3 and not by anything else.

He will of course protest that this is a mischaracterisation of his position and belief, but it is the logical conclusion of his statements. Hear him above, as he says "there can be no command for a veil or uncut hair for a woman in 1 Cor 11 because no such command is seen to be given to Adam and Eve." Ergo, there can be no command in Scripture unless it was first given to Adam and Eve. Since we have no record of commands for Adam and Eve except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that is all that can be commanded mankind, for all time. So, one may do as they will, there are no commands past Genesis 3 that anyone needs to worry about.

That having been established, I do not find any point in continuing this discussion, because I certainly do not accept the idea that any command in Scripture must be seen to have been given to Adam and Eve in order for it to be a valid command. I actually believe the whole Bible is the Word of God, and constitutes "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" by which we are to live. So, it seems Don and I follow two very different religions. As such, there is no point in debating with him what apostolic Christians should or should not be doing, anymore than I would be debating a Hindu about how often the Lord's Supper should be taken.

**************

Instead, Don believes God can only command something anywhere in Scripture IF it was commanded in the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Therefore, any command in Scripture not found being given to Adam and Eve is no command at all.

See my reply to this, in post 250.

He will of course protest that this is a mischaracterisation of his position and belief, but it is the logical conclusion of his statements.

And here I had thought that my Game analogy, post161 would have been sufficient to explain what I had said, when I said "there can be no command for a veil or uncut hair for a woman in 1 Cor 11 because no such command is seen to be given to Adam and Eve." Is there anyone else who would chime in to say they follow and use Esaias' reasoning method on this?

As such, there is no point in debating with him what apostolic Christians should or should not be doing, anymore than I would be debating a Hindu about how often the Lord's Supper should be taken.

Now that I can agree with. Apples must be compared with apples, and not apples with oranges. The Lord has purposely given us 1Co11 unclearly, as a test of who we are. As shown by Ro14;15:1-7, God allows varying views on some topics of the Bible, telling those who have opposing views to receive, not judge but accept those who have opposing views when the facts can logically lead in different directions. This happens with 1Co11. To say someone isn't apostolic because they view 1Co11 other than they do, is not showing the spirit of Ro14,15. It is judging. It is not receiving. It is not accepting. Apostolics are defined, with Ro14,15 in mind, by the Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the I AM, and by the new birth experience as shown by Jn3.5 and Ac2.38. They are not defined by 1Co11 . If 1Co11 were the defining point of what an apostolic is, then which of the two major apostolic camps (the veil view or the uncut long view) are the true apostolics? Will you answer this question for us plz Esaias? Having pointed this out, I hope you now realize how silly your assertion of what is an apostolic, using 1Co11, really is. 1Co11 has little to do with it.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions. Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, the passage does not distinguish between different types of veils or occasions for veiling, such as a distinct veil for church or worship services. Rather, it presents head coverings as a principle for women, rooted in the biblical account of creation.

****************

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions.

True. Amanah will contend that the Biblical headcovering is a commanded veil. Veils are an invention of Man, and as such became a custom of some people. This then results in seeing God changing what had been a custom into a command. Yet not at the time of creation, when it is expected that which is part of created order would first appear, but 4050 yrs later. This does not make sense to most people. The holders of the veil view have some explaining to do. Why does God wait 4050 years to command that which all people of all time are expected to do, by Natural Law, which has been present since creation. This veil view thus, should be adjusted or discarded. And perhaps Amanah will now change her mind on the veil view, which any thinking person would do in light of the holes of the veil view.

Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women.

Amanah would have you believe that this relationship includes the veil which Nature has assisted the woman to don. If Nature leads all women in the same direction, then we might see the majority of women in all places and all times holding to a veil. Is this in fact what is seen by history? If long hair is led by Nature to be the cover, then we would see the majority of women in all places and all times with long hair. Is this in fact what is seen by history? What is your opinion as to what percentage would indicate a majority. Does 51% offer sufficient support or is it 90%? (Caution: we are now venturing to a place where history, and not the Word, will help determine a view which is said to be the Biblical view for all to hold.)

Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'. Or, why is what is seen as coming to be by Nature said to be a command just for the NT when it wasn't for 4050 years of OT history. God was quite capable to command in the OT times, that which he shows by Nature. And he hadn't until 1Co11 is misinterpreted as a command. An explanation must be proffered to explain this about the OT. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo about whether the veil vs long hair is the woman's commanded cover? Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don has no friends.

Don wants no friends.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don has no friends.

Don wants no friends.

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards. He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

True. Amanah will contend that the Biblical headcovering is a commanded veil. Veils are an invention of Man, and as such became a custom of some people. This then results in seeing God changing what had been a custom into a command. Yet not at the time of creation, when it is expected that which is part of created order would first appear, but 4050 yrs later. This does not make sense to most people.

This doesn't make sense to Don. Most people recognise that 1 Cor 11 teaches women ought to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately, most American and Western European people believe the command was "for then, but times have changed and is no longer something we need to do".

God commanded Levites to blow trumpets, silver trumpets, which were an invention of man. So God changes a custom (people blew trumpets for all sorts of reasons in ye olden dayes) into a command, and even establishes a particular annual Feast Day for blowing trumpets. God also commanded Levites to praise God using stringed instruments and cymbals, something once again invented by men. So once again God is seen "changing a custom into a command". And once again Don is seen across the street beyond left field waving his banner that nobody left in the game is paying attention to.

The holders of the veil view have some explaining to do.

Don has some explaining to do, like how is it that Paul explicitly says a woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying, yet Don thinks not so? Or how Don continues to believe that the only thing that can be a command is whatever was commanded to Adam and Eve? Why does Don disregard the words of both the Lord (through Moses) and Jesus Christ Himself, who jointly affirmed that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Including 1 Cor 11? Etc etc.

Amanah would have you believe that this relationship includes the veil which Nature has assisted the woman to don. If Nature leads all women in the same direction, then we might see the majority of women in all places and all times holding to a veil. Is this in fact what is seen by history?

This statement by Don proves that Don is either totally ignorant of the subject, in which case he is absolutely no authority on the subject, or else he is intentionally attempting to mislead people, in which case again he is absolutely no authority on the subject. I haven't found a single person in all of history anywhere at any time who pretends that historically the majority of women did not wear some kind of head covering, across practically all cultures and time periods. As stated previously several times, those customs varied from place to place and time to time, but generally the idea that a woman would have a head covering was not seen as anything "newfangled and innovative". Further, Don once again begs the question, "if nature leads all women in the same direction"? Says who? Why, Don says, that's who. Paul asserted to the Corinthians that nature teaches them something, which lesson from nature is supportive of his instruction regarding headcovering (as applied to both men and women). We already discussed what "nature" means Biblically, and especially in Paul's writings, which discussion Don is conveniently pretending did not take place, as evidenced by his use of "nature" as if it were somehow culturally independent.

If long hair is led by Nature to be the cover, then we would see the majority of women in all places and all times with long hair. Is this in fact what is seen by history?

In Don's world of minecraft, women didn't used to have long hair. I'm sorry, but the only people seriously asking this type of question would be toddlers raised on 1980s sitcoms only.

(Caution: we are now venturing to a place where history, and not the Word, will help determine a view which is said to be the Biblical view for all to hold.)

Then why even raise the question? And why the "caution"? Don would have us determine doctrine based on his absurd vague soundbites about "instincts", which I am sure are not nearly as authoritative as recorded known history, and certainly not as informative.

Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'.

Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God." That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil". The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying. Nature teaches long hair is a shame to a man and a glory to woman. The two lessons follow a similar trajectory regarding the "covering" and "uncovering" of the two genders, and thus are correlative. This has been explained multiple times, yet Don persists in this "well, does nature teach us that women ought to wear a headcovering?" There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.

Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't.

Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible. A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.

And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.

I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.

And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

:

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, you're proposing an unorthodox interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 based on "instinct." However, I'm concerned that this approach undermines the authority of Scripture. What is your perspective on the role of Scripture in informing our understanding of this passage?

The topics you argue for include:

*Salvation via right Living
*No ability to interpret scripture due to doubtful disputations
*Interpretation of scripture passages via instincts

All present scripture as indeterminate, subjective, and non authoritative. God says "if you love me, keep my commandments," to which you seem to be saying "sorry, your commandments are unfathomable."

I fear that it maybe dangerous to be continuously in a position of undermining scripture:

Titus 3
9 But avoid foolish and ill-informed and stupid controversies and genealogies and dissensions and quarrels about the Law, for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 After a first and second warning reject a divisive man [who promotes heresy and causes dissension—ban him from your fellowship and have nothing more to do with him], 11 well aware that such a person is twisted and is sinning; he is convicted and self-condemned [and is gratified by causing confusion among believers].

**************

Don, you're proposing an unorthodox interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 based on "instinct."

And who represents the orthodox, may I ask? Is it the veil view? Is it the uncut long? We all know that the Bible, rightly interpreted, is the only orthodox view. But in this situation we are trying to determine what is exactly the orthodox view. Since 50 a.d. people have been trying to come to a view of 1Co11 which all can rely on without dispute. No one has succeeded yet.

Apostolics shout across the fence dividing the uncut long viewers from the veil viewers - "you're wrong". Hopefully the instincts view will be seen as a view which removes the fence, because it answers objections both sides show. If it is proved to be a viable scriptural doctrine, then it may unite apostolics in one acceptable doctrine. (This is a pipe dream, but hoped for nonetheless.)

However, I'm concerned that this approach undermines the authority of Scripture.

Place your 'undermining-concerns' aside. The instincts view is a scriptural view.

Or are you now really saying that my view is trying to undermine the veil view? Anyone half-asleep knows that the instinct view is derived from scripture. Anyone half-asleep knows that the OT does not command the veil of the veil view. If this is what you mean, then to remedy the 'attack' I make on "scripture" by attacking the veil view, all you need to do is plug the holes that the veil view presents. Offer explanations for why the discrepancies are there, which would positively shut the mouth of the attacker. I would then look like a fool and slink off to a dark corner in shame. Why do you not do so? Because it is hard to present truth claims to defend something which isn't truth. It is hard to use truth to attack truth. This has been exemplified when seen with Esaias's arguments. Twice he has presented defences of the veil view which actually strongly supported the instinct view.

What is your perspective on the role of Scripture in informing our understanding of this passage?

Anyone reading this thread know where I stand on scripture's truthfulness.

The topics you argue for include:

*Salvation via right Living
*No ability to interpret scripture due to doubtful disputations
*Interpretation of scripture passages via instincts

Did you see and hear that, readers? That was the click of the trigger of an empty gun. Because Amanah has nothing of substance to defend the veil view, nor to say against the instincts view, she will now throw rotten tomatoes at the presenter of the instincts view. Enough said?

All present scripture as indeterminate, subjective, and non authoritative.

Trying to misrepresent my conclusions will not get you anywhere with readers who are awake.

I fear that it maybe dangerous to be continuously in a position of undermining scripture:

Exposing holes in poorly thought out doctrines is not undermining scripture, it is undermining false doctrine's evidences. I would suggest to you, to hold a view of 1Co11 which doesn't put you in such a poor position that you must throw rotten tomatoes. Neither the veil view nor throwing rotten tomatoes presents a very flattering picture of anyone. You've got it in you, with Jesus' help to do better. Never let go of his unchanging hand.

Titus 3
9 But avoid foolish and ill-informed and stupid controversies and genealogies and dissensions and quarrels about the Law,

The Beginning and the first 2500 yrs were the times before the Law. I do not misrepresent concerns about the Law. What is seen of my view bases from before the Law, seen also in the time of the Law but also after the Law.

for they are unprofitable and useless.

Logical explanations are not unprofitable but needful. What is useless is holding a view which is out of sync with the Word. The veil view does so.

10 After a first and second warning reject a divisive man [who promotes heresy and causes dissension—ban him from your fellowship and have nothing more to do with him],

Those who reject must first determine the viabilty of their own views. He who is without sin may cast the first stone.

This sounds like an exiting-song which Amanah will sing. Having failed to show as error the instinct view, Amanah will exit without this, throwing accusations as she goes. "You're teaching false doctrine you heretic" but won't provide believable proofs how this is true. A truth teacher wouldn't use such methods.

11 well aware that such a person is twisted and is sinning;

The instinct view presents scriptural truth which are not from twisted reasoning. I speak sober somber words worthy of close inspection and acceptance. It is not unreasonable to see Paul asking the Co Christian to hold to the custom of their society when it really was a custom of theirs. It is somewhat unreasonable to see God changing a long held custom into a command for the church, yet this is what the veil view does.

he is convicted and self-condemned [and is gratified by causing confusion among believers].

Truth also causes confusion when set along side error for comparison. But truth's final result is peace when it is accepted. Those who hold error use many fruitless, confusing means and false arguments in attempts to bolster falsehood's claims. Truth prevails because its base is God himself.

Thank you. Amanah, for coming to bat for the veil view. It has given opportunity to expose its weaknesses, giving reasons for its disposal. Truth knocks at the door and seeks admittance. Those who love truth open and welcome him, even if requiring a removal of a long cherished doctrine.

Most of the discussion has been with those who have held the veil view. Will not someone come to the defense of the uncut long view? The holes exposed in post 47 are aimed at the uncut long view (the view I formerly held), though majority also applying to the veil view.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don. please provide a simple definition and explanation of your definition of instincts. Maybe that will help?

As far as the mothering instinct, many women clamour for the right to murder their unborn children, contrary to the God given natural rule of law for a just society.

The number of abortions performed annually in the US has seen some fluctuations. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were approximately 930,000 abortions performed in 2020, with an abortion rate of 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years ¹.

More recent data from the Guttmacher Institute shows that in 2023, an estimated 1,037,000 abortions occurred in the formal healthcare system, representing a rate of 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is an 11% increase since 2020 ².

It's worth noting that abortion rates have been declining over the past few decades, but the recent increase may be attributed to changes in access to abortion services following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022 ¹ ².

www.guttmacher.org

The so called mothering instinct results in lives that are nasty brutish and short for many children, abortion, child abuse, foster care, childhood poverty. Outside of a just society life is brutish and short.

*******************

Don. please provide a simple definition and explanation of your definition of instincts. Maybe that will help?

Dictionary. Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more. in·stinc·tu·al. /inˈstiNG(k)(t)SHə(wə)l/. adjective. relating to or denoting an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior; based on instinct. "an instinctual survival response"

Dictionary. Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more. in·stinct. noun. /ˈinstiNG(k)t/. an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. "birds have an instinct to build nests". adjective. formal. /inˈstiNGkt/. imbued or filled with (a quality, especially a desirable one). "these canvases are instinct with passion"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behaviour, containing innate (inborn) elements.

As far as the mothering instinct, many women clamour for the right to murder their unborn children, contrary to the God given natural rule of law for a just society.

Post 248, where I had asked Amanah to: quote "Plz apply what you say here to the mothering instinct, making comments thereto." Pray tell, how does referring to the murdering of an unborn child show a reply to the question? Plz try again with more accuracy to the question. Referring to someone who acts contrary to a known instinct, does not provide comment on how the mothering instinct applies to your comments. You thus tell us that you have nothing to say or are avoiding the question outrightly. Why does someone with your understanding of scripture, and perhaps of life as a woman and mother, have nothing to say about something so common to 51% of humanity?

The so called mothering instinct

Does Amanah here deny that which the majority of our society recognizes as a truth? Does she deny that mothering instincts exist by calling it a so called mothering instinct?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards. He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

****************

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards.

Rather, Don is heaven bent on exposing holes in misinterpretations of 1Co11 and in providing a scriptural view which aligns with the facts.

He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

Ultra cons is an unscriptural term which aligns with other unscriptral views of 1Co11, such as the veil view.

How about we refrain from mud slinging and attend to the task at hand instead? We've all got better things to attend to. Agreed?