Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don,

​You have been shown repeatedly that the Apostles spoke under the inspiration of the Spirit and their teaching is authoritative (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
​
You have also been shown that with the New Covenant came additional revelation regarding the "mysteries" of God that were previously hidden (Ephesians 3:4-5; Colossians 1:26).

It's your prideful lack of humility that causes you to be unteachable (Proverbs 11:2; James 4:6). That will be your downfall.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Amanah, excellent post!!! :thumbsup

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Part1/3....

Some will see me as a son of Satan, come to destroy God's doctrines. Some will see as a truth-seeker, who's seen discrepancies in Apostolic doctrine.

Plz note, votivesoul, (vs), does not attempt to discredit my views of the word 'tradition', seen in post20,21. He says nothing against it. Does silence indicate agreement?

Costeon,

One other thing that I think is important to note vis a vis veiling the hair in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, such as I have defined in my previous posts, is:

What is the Biblical definition of naked(ness)? vs will now discuss head symbols and nakedness. Are they opposites, as he will attempt to prove?

Plz note before preceding: vs will now take you the long, long way around to convince you that God required the veil of the OT saint, and doing so without a command asking for it. Has anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor? Had God wanted to be as convincing as vs, then he had a simple solution which doesn't go the long, long way around: "I'll command it." And we know he didn't. There is no command for veils seen in the OT.

We know of course of the famous passage in Genesis, about Adam and Eve both being naked in the Garden, yet being so without the shame or stigma of public nudity. What is often not discussed is how something God-given to A&E, nakedness, suddenly in an instant becomes moral depravity. In an instant. This moral code against nakedness did not exist in eternity within the nature of God, or God would not have created them naked. Just sayin' what is obvious. vs's comment shows he agrees. Our bro Dom would accuse me of being an ecclesiastical blankety-blankety if I ever said something from the Bible was subjective. My guess is that his buddy will get away with that which I would not. But that's what happens sometimes, when proving your point is more important than double-standards.

Genesis 2:25 (ESV),

Quote:
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Naked: עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (ărūmmîm), from עָרוֹם (arom): nude, either partially or fully, i.e. naked.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm

Nothing particularly special or revelatory about the Hebrew text. But note, it's rather circular. Crossing between English to Hebrew simply tells us only this:

Naked = Naked

We still don't have a Biblical definition. Yes, we have our own understanding of what it means, but our own understanding is rather subjective in nature and scope, partly based on cultural values and laws, and the various moral responses to both. By saying this I think I see you agreeing with what I said about nakedness in an instant becoming morally wrong and not an eternal wrong. It is subjectively wrong, but only after the Fall.

So, an infant at her mother's breast, bereft of all clothing, nursing in the comfort of her parent's bed, privately at home, is, definitionally naked, but no one responds negatively to such a phenomena. A husband and wife, fully disrobed, in the act of procreatively making that baby, is fully understood and appreciated as a moral reality, provided it takes place behind closed doors, i.e. in private. Indeed. They fulfill the will of God. Doing so shows them as being spiritual, to fulfill God's will.

Same with showering or bathing, or undergoing certain surgeries, etc. No one bats an eye at these things. The issues arise when cultural mores and taboos are transgressed. But these issues depend greatly upon time and place. Many tribal women around the world go topless, while the men may only wear a loincloth covering their genitalia, while leaving the rest of their body available for seeing. This is deemed acceptable as a cultural practice. Photos, videos, documentaries, etc. abound, are shown regularly in schools, or in magazines like National Geographic, or etc., and we don't look away in shock or disgust. It seems perfectly normal. A&E produced loin cloths from fig leaves. But the cover God provided covered much more.

But if a young woman goes to the beach in a thong bikini, our Christian ethic is to look away and be ashamed for her. Taking the example from earlier, some cannot stand the idea of a woman breastfeeding in public without a screen or cover of some sort. Yet, there are all kinds of entertainment options from the mildly perverse, to the pornographically obscene, yet our culture and laws tolerate all this. Why, you cannot even walk through Walmart without going past the underwear section to see photos of women in their bras and panties, or men in their jockeys. It's all normative. We don't raise an alarm or react poorly. We just go about shopping as if nothing is amiss. Yet, we'd recoil if we saw a woman parading herself in Walmart dressed only in her skivvies.

So, what gives? The issue is, we don't have a Biblical definition of nakedness, and we've allowed, cross-culturally, people to define it for themselves in a somewhat admittedly organic, but no less willy-nilly fashion, no pun intended. One people group's nudity is another people group's standard flair.

This is obvious and easy to understand how this happens, but what if? What if the whole world had a standardized definition of nakedness, and what if that standardized definition of nakedness was entirely based on the Bible? What then?

What would it be? We might again start with Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:7 (ESV),

Quote:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

What is a loincloth? We might think of it as a piece of fabric or some other material designed to cover a person's external genitalia, male or female. But if this is so, what about the buttocks, or the breasts of a woman?

Surely, we as good, God-fearing Christians wouldn't go out into the world showing off our rear assets, or allow our wives or daughters, sisters or mothers, to go about with their breasts exposed to the world?

But loincloth might suggest that Adam and Eve's understanding of their own nakedness meant only that they should cover their lower parts, i.e. their external genitilia. That was their INSTINCT (paying attention, Don?).

And yet, it wasn't good enough for God. How do we know? Because God himself made Adam and Eve some clothes made from animal skins:

Genesis 3:21 (ESV),

Quote:
21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Garments: כָּתְנ֥וֹת (kāṯənōwṯ), from כְּתֹנֶת (kethoneth): a tunic, coat, or robe...denotes a long, shirt–like garment that served as the basic article of clothing for both men and women in ancient Israel. It was normally woven from wool or linen, extending to the knees or ankles, with or without sleeves.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3801.htm

Now, we're getting somewhere. Man's instinct was to cover only his external genitalia. But God's design was to cover Adam and Eve from head to knee or possibly, even to toe.

Furthermore, as it pertains to how a woman should be dressed or covered, Biblically speaking, we still have to deal with Paul's teaching on hair and veils.

Again, I refer to Isaiah 47:1-3 (ESV),

Quote:
1 Come down and sit in the dust,
O virgin daughter of Babylon;
sit on the ground without a throne,
O daughter of the Chaldeans!
For you shall no more be called
tender and delicate.
2 Take the millstones and grind flour,
put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.
I will take vengeance,
and I will spare no one.

This passage of Isaiah, along with most of the words of the prophets, along with the Psalms, many of the Proverbs, and other areas of the OT, are cast as Hebrew poetry, which works along the lines of parallelism.

This link will give a very good overview and introduction to how Biblical Hebrew poetry works:

I also recommend reading Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Poetry as Alter is probably the leading and foremost scholar on the subject. You can read it online for free here.

Part2/3....

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

....Part2/3


With this understanding in tow, we can now begin to interpret Isaiah 47:1-3 properly.

Verse 1 has these parallels: virgin daughter of Babylon with daughter of the Chaldeans, and sit down in the dust with sit on the ground without a throne.

Essentially, Biblical Hebrew poetry often restates and recasts the immediately preceding concepts, using close but still different language. So, Isaiah trades virgin daughter of Babylon for daughter of the Chaldeans, and dust for ground.

Understanding this is key to the proper interpretation of the next two verses.

Look at the following:

1.) Put off your veil
2.) Strip off you robe
3.) Uncover your legs
4.) Your nakedness shall be uncovered
5.) Your disgrace shall be seen

Understanding these concepts as restated parallels of one another, we can finally get to a Biblical definition, according to the inspired prophet:

A woman is considered naked, that is, her pudenda is seen when? There are numerous references to nakedness which we today would not describe as naked. David was accused of dancing before the Lord naked. It was a relative term. He was in his undergarments. If someone comes into a room in underwear we say 'get some clothes on' even when they have some clothes on - underwear. But when anyone wants something to be true they then might go around the block ten times the long way, to prove it. This is especially true when they have little or nothing else to prove that the OT commanded the veil - like seeing a command would settle it.

When her veil is removed, her robe is stripped off, and her legs are uncovered. Or, Isaiah is indicating three levels of disgrace, from least to greatest. Yes, right there, in v3 the word shame appears. A&E hid because of shame which came from being naked.

Prophetically, when a woman has her veil removed, i.e. the cloth or garment designed to cover her hair, she is considered naked. Does this verse alone, only one verse, provide a definition?

This the Biblical definition. Not a willy-nilly, culturally and geographicaly dependent definition, but an inspired and God-breathed definition in the Holy Scriptures. A man and woman in public should be covered by the equivalent of a kethoneth , and in addition, a woman should have her head veiled by a covering. Not because of any instinct or intuition (still paying attention, Don?) I'm still here. because Adam and Eve have shown us human instinct and intuition doesn't suffice. Right. Though whatever they had for moral code-making was good enough for 2500 yrs of use without Law, God thought that written/spoken law he later added was not better, but now needed. I'd not argue with God in the ways he provided for moral codes at the first. 2500 yrs for the first method, and the second lasting 1500, or will we say 3500? God has a better plan, one that suits His will and desire for humanity.

This includes a veil over a woman's hair, because her hair is given to her as a περιβολαίου (peribolaion), i.e. a testicle, as part of a Biblically defined understanding of a man's external genitalia, which must be covered when she prays or prophesies, lest she do what? You can extrapolate from Isa47 all you want to. But this does not yet make for a command of God which could be given to Eve or any of those after her and before the time of Isaiah's writing, approx 3200 yrs after Creation.

If you would say that all those Jews who did veil, including all the pagans who also veiled, do it without a command of God asking for it, then you may well believe as I do, that veiling came by way of Man and not God. Do you believe these were veiling because of instincts? I don't.

If God has not commanded it, then it may well be that carnal thinking, the dominant kind of thinking by majority numbers, was what led many pagan nations to veil. It was not only Israel (veiling to plz God, as you would say), but many pagans doing the same thing, but not to plz God. Carnal thinking opposes the Spirit-thinking, that which you say caused Paul to say, as you say he said, that the Spirit commanded the veil.

The facts you quote fit the vv, but many facts are ignored which shouldn't be ignored. Namely, why doesn't the OT show a command for that which both testaments should command, if one actually does. That the OT doesn't, that which lays the foundation for the NT, should lead any honest seeker to say that the NT wouldn't if the OT hadn't. But here I am, hated by those of AFF who take all efforts to get rid of me because of the facts I present which shows the vv as full of holes. If the Spirit spoke for a veil in the NT, then the same Spirit would have spoken so in the OT. He didn't.

Paul shows that GOoA starts before any covenant. It pre-dates covenant as a principle which shows it superseding any covenant. The start of the NT does not introduce a time when GOoA comes into effect, only then recognized by a head symbol. Both GOoA and head symbols pre-dated covenants. So, now vs, there you go. You now have another thing to ignore while you contend for the vv. Where is your love for truth?

You attempt to make veiling an OT command. But no command can be found to make it so. Perhaps you'd describe this veiling-without-a-command-for-it to be from instincts? Not me. And I am also not with you if you say it came by command. If it had been the will of God we would see a command. Why is none seen? (you listening, vs? Answer that question. Reader, vs will not answer the question. It can't be acknowledged to exist because of the repercussions. vs is not a truth-seeker but of those who value man-made church doctrines over truth) But don't yet give up, vs, in your efforts to authoritatively discredit the iv. You may yet do so. But I doubt it. (You listening,vs?)


Dishonors her head, i.e. her husband. Now, note the preposition "for". It is the Greek word ἀντί (anti), as in antichrist (See, e.g. 1 John 2:18). It denotes the idea of in the stead of, a replacement for, opposed to/opposite of. These three are not equals.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/473.htm

So, a woman, instead of being given a testicle, in the place of part of a man's external genitalia, as opposed to/opposite of, she is given long hair, which must then be veiled when she prays or prophesies, lest she bring shame and reproach upon her husband, just as much as a husband would bring shame or reproach upon his wife if he attempted to pray or prophesy with his testicles out on display. That's a fair trade: long hair for a testicle. What did man have to trade for his hair?

This definition, I believe, we can all agree with. Errr...maybe not everyone, if you mean the preceding paragraph. Praying or prophesying in the nude is wholly inappropriate. Paul considers a woman without a veil as naked before God, the angels, her husband, and the congregation of the saints. This is why veiling is the customary practice, the tradition he insists upon, and why he wrote that if anyone wanted to argue, too bad, this is the way it is in all the churches of God. Maybe. Maybe not. There is tons of reading between the lines going on with this explanation, which many might have a problem with.

Is there a Torah command that mandates this? No, but there doesn't need to be one.

Acts 1:2 (ESV),

Quote:
2 ...[Jesus] had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Paul was a chosen Apostle. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, issued commands to Paul. But saying this does not yet say what method he uses, other than just through the Spirit. This phrase is not very descriptive. John says that Jesus breathed on them. Jn20.21,22. I interpret this to mean that he opened their understanding by means of the Spirit moving on them as he spoke. This is one man's opinion, mine, of 'through the Spirit' you refer to.

But consider the following plz, vs. You've just said that Paul has received, via a message from the Spirit. Would you then say that the Spirit commands the veil? I conclude you would agree. But why then does Paul reference the Beginning scriptures, stating them to be the basis for what he says. Instead of referring to the scripture he would say, 'the Spirit told me to say this'. That he references the Word testifies opposite to what you say, 'that it was spoken by the Spirit as a command for the Church'. Paul says 'the Word shows such and such in the Beginning'.

Even so, even if this actually was the case as you teach, what then of all those previous to Paul? Are you saying that the Spirit said something to Eve and to those in the Age of Conscience and to those during Law? Is this the explanation for why pagans veiled, because, somehow the Spirit got past the Satan-inspired religions with this one part of obedience to God. Is that what you want us to believe? I'm not buying.

Had Eve heard from the Spirit something so important as relating to GOoA (God's Order of Authority) then it would have been recorded, just like other important things from the Beginning were recorded.

This method you use, vs, has the appearance of stretching the available facts to make them fit by great effort into a doctrine you want to have Biblical evidence for, which isn't there otherwise. I'd suggest another method, like that the iv uses. Read the facts and formulate a doctrine which fits the facts naturally. (you listening vs?)

Does Paul speak of veiling? Yes. It should be understood that the veiling referenced was a long-standing cultural practice of a pagan nation, which was being challenged by a cultural revolution wishing to tear down harmless cultural norms. It should be said that Paul addresses this issue as not wanting Christians to get involved with rebellion affecting their testimony.

Part3/3....

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

....Part3/3

Veiling was culturally derived as a head symbol indicating fidelity to marriage. Fidelity to marriage is a good thing. Paul wants the Christian to continue with a sinless, good cultural practice which reflected good values the majority of Gk pagans practiced, doing so for a good testimony. He even asked Timothy to be circumcised for the same reasons.

Your explanation does not yet address why no statement/command from the Lord showed which head symbol Eve should use, nor which symbol all other OT people should use. How was she supposed to know about veiling before the invention of cloth? You do believe she practiced GOoA before the Fall, don't you? (Hmmm, I wonder if vs will respond to this? Hmmm. You listening?) That vs contrasts nakedness with veiling would lead us to the conclusion that in the times before the Fall when nakedness was Ok, that there would have been no need for GOoA at that time. By vs's reasoning GOoA started to exist only after nakedness appeared sinful, after the Fall. And to which time does Paul, the guy who vs says is inspired by the Spirit to speak of veiling, to which time does Paul in 1Co11 refer to, but to before the Fall, when Eve was created, naked. Vs, your dam has cracks in it. It's leaking.

That's what happens when you have man-made doctrine instead of God-made doctrine. Things don't fit together like they should if it was God-made. That's why the iv is standing against the water pressure from many giants of AFF. The vv and the ulv have holes, as I've pointed out in my commentary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

The iv addresses the lack of an OT veiling command, offering an explanation which shows the symbol coming via natural God-given means - the nature he placed in Man, ie, instinctive impulsives. This shows GOoA as active with head symbols by these natural means, both before and after the Fall. Paul wrote them down for us, whether those commands were based in the Torah or not. 1 Corinthians is especially full of imperative statements Plz quote imperative statements concerning veiling. made by Paul that he describes as commands. A key text is 1 Corinthians 14:37:

Quote:
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

That's a good one, as used by you for your support. I've said that to demonstrate that I'm listening.

Also plz note the verse before that one: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? It shows Paul connected to them by the Word. But plz, vs, if you are listening, is 1Co11 the only time Paul gives a command by the Spirit alone? Does he elsewhere give another command which does not have its roots in the OT Word? I've long believed that most everything seen in NT-truth is a carry-over from OT-truth. Oftentimes this is proved true by reading the OT after reading something in the NT. I cannot now provide a study detailing this. Therefore, you can take it or leave it, as true or not.

What I do know is Paul at times gives advice which he says is not from God. 1Co7.12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. This is seemingly contradictory to 1Co14.37 let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 1Co11 is just a few chapters over. It is not inconceivable then, to think he could do again give earthly advice, with head-coverings. Paul's teaching on the charismata of the Spirit is authoritative, i.e. it comes directly from the Lord Jesus. If Ac1.2 is your evidence for this, then I suggest that a lot of reading between the lines is being done. Is Ac1.2 authoritative? Yes, but quite short on details, right? I'd like to point out that the teaching referred to occurred before the Ascension, and Paul wasn't present. In light of that fact when Jesus teaches in person, what then does 'through the Holy Ghost' exactly mean? Anyone who would claim the gift of prophecy, or to be spiritual needs must recognize this reality. And yet, Paul has not based his teachings on any OT passage, apart from a reference to Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:20. You make a good point, but saying what you said is not saying everything there is to say., Otherwise the entirety of his teachings, which he stipulates are commands from the Lord Jesus, are based in his revelation from Christ as per Acts 1:2. Ok, maybe this is true. But I had another theory about it. My uneducated guess: His education may have contributed to his understanding of Man. Ro12 mentions seven kinds of gifts. They are called Motivational Gifts or Functional Gifts or Service Gifts. He couples his education with in-field observations of people in the church, to categorize them into 7 areas. Ditto, with the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost, as per 1Co12.

I point to education and the Spirit because of one scholar's opinion: Paul had the equivalent of 4 Phds. Whether he had one or four, he was highly intelligent and highly educated. This, plus the help of the Spirit, led to observations of the Spirit's workings in Man, and to his categorizations of them into 9 separate units.

Can this be shown true with evidence? No more than any other attempt. Scripture does not give enough details.

Did the OT demonstrate Spiritual gifts? Yes, except for tongues and interpretation, if I'm not mistaken. The other 7 are not uniquely NT. Did Paul see the Spiritual Gifts at work in the OT and think up categories for them? Maybe. Therefore, Paul can issue binding statements upon the church without having to resort to the Tanakh, i.e. the Torah, the Nevi'im, or the Ketuvim. Perhaps you have other examples to share to strengthen your point? I'm not saying you are wrong to point to Ac1.2, you're not. I'd like to see more evidence that some things NT came only from the Spirit. When we have many, many indications of things seen in the NT also seen in the OT, it leads to believing all things NT have their source in the OT. God did not change when testaments changed.

(Are you paying attention, Don?) Yes, brother, I am hearing you quite well. But I do have hearing issues when any brother stuffs my ears with personal degradations. It is amazing how much my hearing diminishes then, in an instant. And this person is not usually you.

But I did hear accusations from you, which led me to ask for quotes leading you to give these accusations. And I didn't hear back. So, there's that. And a bunch of nasty things you also said about me, in what is supposed to be a Bible discussion forum.

Reader, do I reply to points vs makes? Have I skipped over any? Ask yourself why vs skips over, doesn't reply, to points I've made in other posts. You'll also notice me agreeing with someone elses good points.

Truth-seekers do not wish to be seen as making camps of opposition. Truth-seekers wish to see one camp of scripture readers trying to collectively figure out what God is saying in his complex Word. Those who use nasty accusations of the personality of fellow Apostolics portray they are forming camps of opposition. We against you. They want to be seen as standing for their camp regardless and not necessarily for the camp of truth. Truth-seekers want to discuss the Word with one camp in mind - not a you against me. All in truth. So, Dom and vs, why the nastiness? Where is the love of God in nastiness? Oh, silly me, I forgot. You're Apostolic and this gives you rights to set aside things. Like truth. I keep forgetting.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don,

I closed your thread on 1 Corinthians 11 and your Instinct View for a reason. That reason was as follows: you spammed your own thread with pages and pages and pages and pages of rehashed material.

You then immediately proceeded to create another thread about Romans 14, but used your Instinct View as the basis for the discussion. I let it slide, but before long, it was clear, no matter how much you insisted the thread was about something else, it ended up being about your Instinct View.

Now, you have completely highjacked someone else's thread to continue teaching your Instinct View, when the thread in question, while dealing with the same NT passage, is quite different in scope and purpose. You even admitted to high-jacking the thread to try and teach something about baptism on page #1, so you know you know you are doing it.

And my response to this as an Admin is this:

You are hereby censured from further discussing your Instinct View in this thread. If you bring it up again, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you. If you make a new thread to discuss your Instinct View of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you.

This is your only warning. If you want people to be able to read about your Instinct View, you can put the link for either your Google Docs or the thread you started in your profile as a signature.

Otherwise, no more. If you cannot live within the boundaries of this rebuke, say so now, and I will relieve you of your membership. If you want to make an appeal, send it to me via PM.

To other members, please refrain from engaging with Don about his Instinct View in this thread. Please keep it on topic.

PS. I also expect you to publicly apologize to Costeon in this thread, for high-jacking it.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don,

I closed your thread on 1 Corinthians 11 and your Instinct View for a reason. That reason was as follows: you spammed your own thread with pages and pages and pages and pages of rehashed material. Thx for providing this as an explanation.

Perhaps your use of the word 'spammed' isn't the right word to use. But regardless, I would not deny that much material presented was re-hashed. By re-hashed I mean I re-presented by re-wording the same points. I did so purposely: sometimes thoughts not caught are not because of the wording, which any re-wording may then overcome. This was my reasoning behind re-hashing.

I was not aware that this rehashing violated any AFF rule which would result in the closing of a thread. Am I mistaken to believe there is no such rule?

Plz do not think my asking represents a challenge to your authority. It doesn't. I only seek clarification. You characterize me as a rule breaker and I don't see the rule.

You then immediately proceeded to create another thread about Romans 14, but used your Instinct View as the basis for the discussion. I let it slide, but before long, it was clear, no matter how much you insisted the thread was about something else, it ended up being about your Instinct View. This is your interpretation of why I had opened the Discrepancy in Church Practice thread. Your interpretation does not represent my explanation. You have the ability to believe what you want to believe about my motivations, even if they are wrong.

Now, you have completely highjacked someone else's thread I fail to see how what I did would be classified as 'complete hijacking'. I was just providing comments on the topic. to continue teaching your Instinct View, when the thread in question, while dealing with the same NT passage, is quite different in scope and purpose. You even admitted to high-jacking the thread to try and teach something about baptism on page #1, so you know you know you are doing it. In my defence: I would agree that comments about water baptism did not fit the thread, though appropriate as a response to Dom in post 3, where he was the first to mention off-topic 'baptism'. I responded, noting that they were off-topic, and kept the comments short for this reason. We both were off-topic, wouldn't you agree?

I remember Esaias and Dom going on about boxing/gyms in a thread not at all about either and no one said boo about it then. Apparently then, every occurrence of going off-topic does not warrant censure.

And I have trouble forgetting that your asking, votivesoul, for personal info about me in post 113 of Discrepancy in Church Practice was also quite far off-topic. Yet, here we are, me getting censured when others aren't. Double standards are poking up here and there.

And my response to this as an Admin is this:

You are hereby censured from further discussing your Instinct View in this thread. If you bring it up again, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you. If you make a new thread to discuss your Instinct View of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, I will delete it. If you persist, I will ban you. I will comply. I must. For, I am a guest in AFF and a benefitter of others' generosity in their purchase of its service. I had assumed I had the same rights as other members. And will note that what you've said is seen by me to be censorship, singling out myself or this topic, as unfit for Bible discussion. Is it too much to ask for an explanation as to why? Readers will want to know why also. From you, giving an explanation would also be a teaching-session, so all can do it better the next time.

This is your only warning. If you want people to be able to read about your Instinct View, you can put the link for either your Google Docs or the thread you started in your profile as a signature. Compassionate advice! Thank you for this gracious gesture.

Otherwise, no more. If you cannot live within the boundaries of this rebuke, say so now, and I will relieve you of your membership. If you want to make an appeal, send it to me via PM. Could it be asked for here? Almost every other detail is out in the open here.

To other members, please refrain from engaging with Don about his Instinct View in this thread. Please keep it on topic.

PS. I also expect you to publicly apologize to Costeon in this thread, for high-jacking it. Costeon has expressed z-e-r-o indication of displeasure of my comments in his thread. Do you have communication from him indicating this need to apologize? Why have you taken this unusual step, seemingly doing so but not as his authorized agent? What gives? What provides motivation for doing so since he has expressed no displeasure with my comments?

votivesoul, you are an admin with admin powers. If you are the only admin then no one will challenge your role or any abuse of powers should you do so. Our hopes, my presumed speaking for all posters, is that you will not abuse your extensive powers, but use them justly.

I can't help being suspicious of your motivation for this censure, while saying it is entirely possible for me to be wrong. I can't read your mind. We talk of Bible doctrine, as one Apostolic to another, but I suspect your distaste for my presentation of evidence, which disqualifies a view long held by you, is the reason behind this censure. I say this in hopes you will contradict my thoughts and show my suspicions wrong, leading me to the true understanding.

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity
 

Don, what evidence? :lol

Re: Head Coverings Predated Christianity