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

[shag]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618936]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote:Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded, macroscopically and microscopically.



There is nothing in post 143 which would lead to a conclusion you have made, leading readers to ask why an intelligent man such as yourself should conclude so.


Or this is a distortion of what I actually think, misrepresenting me. Some people prefer a black/white view of the world, for many reasons. The world God made is a gray world. In many things there are no clearly defined borders of right and wrong. Those 'some' who prefer a black/white world do so from being freed from the needed attention required to determine what to do in gray situations. They prefer sharply defined rules defined by others. This is a ploy used by religion to add rules when God hasn't made one. Think Pharisee about now. They thus rely on the the views of others to give them a comfort that they are doing right. What is said by the rules derived from 1Co11 offers them comfort because they are clearly defined and simple to obey, which is Esaias's word. Making rigid rules about 1Co11 is contrary to the gray the Lord would like. Looking at the Beginning, we see no rigid rules for either the symbol or even a command to keep them to show respect to God's order. At creation the Lord's method is gray, not black/white. We ought to follow the Lord's example, using it in this topic. Early Man did - in Innocence, in Conscience and in Law; particularly the long 2500 yrs of Conscience when having no Law showed God's world to be gray. 2500 years with no law! Imagine. Not until Paul is misinterpreted, do we begin to see black/white in this regard. Black/white needs to be shelved to make room for God's gray method in this regard. 1Co11 needs to be seen gray, not the black/white, as seen in the misinterpretations of both the veil view and the uncut long view. The instinct view is gray. Instincts are gray, and not sharply defined like a command.

Esaias would attempt to mislead you to believe that the instinct view does not see Man showing regard by symbols to God's order of authority. It does, but not by way of command. It comes by yielding to God-given instincts. Who installed these instincts? God. Yielding to them shows yielding to God, effectively this obeys, which is Esaias's word.

What Esaias tries here to do is distract from actually addressing this thread, because he has so little to actually say in rebuttal. Notice the repeated requests of mine to rebutt the conclusions in post 47, the vast majority which he has not bothered to counter. Should anyone like to know about what Esaias refers to in his last sentence, all they need do is ask me, and the thread will be referenced for your personal viewing. Esaias's distortions will be exposed for what they are - misrepresentations of what was actually said. Or, saving the messages to me, see the thread in the Fellowship Hall started by donfriesen1, called John3 and Romans2. Lets not get distracted/side-tracked here with what should have been discussed there. Doing this reveals Esaias's favourite trick, standing on his box, saying 'wrong, Don is wrong', but not taking the time to show how it is so. Not content to only do so for this thread, he does so with an old thread in avoidence of actually tackling the subject here. Oh, well. Why does someone of your caliber use tricks like this, Esaias, wasting our time and the resouces of AFF?

Small men slur and call names, while big men get to the business at hand. Actually show how my conclusions are wrong, by getting to the business at hand, Esaias.

Macroscopically, you could use your own original concepts when wanting to slur someone. You're certainly smart enough.

Like… “the giant of aff you are?”

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by DoesNotCompute

Holes found in the uncut long interpretation of 1Co11.2-16. What the majority of apostolics believe of 1Co11 is herein labelled: uncut long.

1. Paul is said by uncut long to be talking about the tradition of co/unco in v2. How could a tradition of co/unco have developed during the OT when it was never commanded there? It is not logical to believe it to be just a NT tradition.

2. Paul says: v4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. And why does a man's covered head dishonor God? Paul gives the answer in v7 ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Is it then not seen that the dishonour is, because the image of God is covered? It is a logical conclusion which is contrary to established theological views of the location of the image of God. It says the image of God is in Man's spiritual parts and not in the flesh. Because the majority of apostolics say that it is the long hair alone (without any other events) that dishonours God, it must then be seen that it comes from covering the image of God seen in the flesh. Concluding as uncut long does shows the image of God in the flesh, which is a silly thought.

3. Man and woman are equally the image of God. If a man's covered head (alone, without any other events) dishonours God then a woman's covered head should also be thought to dishonour God.

4. Holders of uncut long do not acknowledge that v5,6 refers to the veil, when the lexicographer says it does.

5. With man and woman being equals as the image of God, it would be thought that both should have a symbol for showing respect to God's order of authority. The uncut long view only addresses a symbol regarding the woman.

6. Condensed to its simplist form for the woman, the uncut long view shows what's most important for her is uncut hair, as opposed to being covered. Paul's focus is on the cover.

7. Condensed to its simplist, the uncut long view shows a woman's cover to be a spiritual cover, while the man's is a physical cover. As both equally the image of God it would be expected that there would congruency applied to the equals.

8. Paul says v13 Judge among yourselves, and v14 Does not even nature itself teach. If Paul commands from God then no appeals to nature or the ways of Man would be needed.

9. Uncut long says v15 shows an exchanging of the veil for uncut long hair. It is not logical that God would exchange an established social practise with a spiritual practice. If anything, the non-sinful social practise would remain unchanged and a spiritual practice added on top of it.

10. There are no commands found for co/unco from Creation till Paul. That this is true shouts something. Anyone not listening should remove the ear plugs.

11. Why does the pagan Gk have a word and a practise in their society, (komao -long uncut hair), which shows them using it for hundreds of years, when what they've been practising is said by uncut long to be a command of God? Does not compute.

My commentary deals with the holes in more detail, also giving a view of 1Co11 without these holes.

Don wants me to "rebut" this post number 47 for some reason, which regards "holes found in the uncut/long view of 1 Cor 11". Yet he seems to have forgotten that I do not hold to some "uncut/long interpretation". While I agree that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory, I do not believe that is Paul's intended subject of discourse. Rather, Paul is teaching that men ought to be uncovered and women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying. So why Don demands that I address a post that really doesn't have to do with anything *I* have stated is not clear to me. But let's humour him for a moment.

1. Paul is not talking about "the tradition of uncut/long".

2. Don's second point is a mess, I can't even figure out exactly what he is trying to say. It seems to me he is trying to say Paul is being illogical in asserting the man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, because "logic" somehow demands the image and glory of God is not associated with the physical man's physical head? I have no idea what hole Don fell into here, but I can hear his voice echoing from the bottom, vaguely.

3. Don directly contradicts the apostle. Paul specifically makes a distinction between the effects and consequences and implications of the covering of the man and the covering of the woman. I'll stick to the apostle instead of joining Don down in his hole he is digging.

4. Once again, I am not a "holder of uncut/long", so...

5. Don making up theology again down in that hole of his. Besides, I don't care what "holders of uncut/long" do or don't do, I'm not one of them.

6. See 5.

7. Nonsense. This is just Don making things up about other people's beliefs, without regard to what they actually believe. People who believe the woman's covering is spiritual, in whatever form it takes, also believe the man's "uncovering" to be spiritual as well. Don should take some geometry classes before talking about "congruence".

8. Don assumes things outside the scope of his expertise. He presumes that "if Paul is giving a command then no appeals to nature are needed". Who says so? Don, that's who. Is he an authority on the subject? Of course not. Paul gives instruction, and appeals to nature to support the validity of his instruction. Just like he does in 1 Cor 12. He teaches about the manifold roles of the members of the church, and points them to observe how the human body operates, with various members each doing a different job. An appeal to nature is an illustration of the validity of his teaching here, and there as well.

9. Don talks a lot about "it is not logical that..." but never shows his logic. There is nothing illogical about "God exchanging a social practice with a spiritual practice", whatever that even means. Since I do not believe Paul is exchanging long hair in place of the covering, I will leave it to others to argue with him about that. But it is definitely not "illogical" for God to do that if He so chose to do that.

10. Don should remove his own ear plugs and listen to himself affirm that "God can command something ONCE and it can be ANYWHERE in Scripture".

11. Once again Don does not compute. I would ask him, "Why do pagan Greeks have a term for washing feet, which has been used for however long Greek has been around, when washing feet is in fact something commanded by Christ? They've been doing something commanded by Christ! Does not compute!"

Yep, Don does not compute.